GLocal: A Hybrid Approach to the Multi-Agent Mission Re-Planning Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-agent systems can be prone to failures during the execution of a mission, depending on different circumstances, such as the harshness of the environment they are deployed in. As a result, initially devised plans for completing a mission may no longer be feasible, and a re-planning process needs to take place to re-allocate any pending tasks. There are two main approaches to solve the re-planning problem (i) global re-planning techniques using a centralized planner that will redo the task allocation with the updated world state and (ii) decentralized approaches that will focus on the local plan reparation, i.e., the re-allocation of those tasks initially assigned to the failed robots, better suited to a dynamic environment and less computationally expensive. In this paper, we propose a hybrid approach, named GLocal, that combines both strategies to exploit the benefits of both, while limiting their respective drawbacks. GLocal was compared to a planner-only, and an agent-only approach, under different conditions. We show that GLocal produces shorter mission make-spans as the number of tasks and failed agents increases, while also balancing the tradeoff between the number of messages exchanged and the number of requests to the planner.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".