MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self-Repairing Line of Metamorphic Robots

2021· article· en· W3137083072 on OpenAlexafffund
Nooshin Nokhanji, Nicola Santoro

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRobotModular designComputer scienceControl reconfigurationRobustness (evolution)Self-reconfiguring modular robotGridDistributed computingMotion planningMobile robotAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceEmbedded systemRobot controlMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Metamorphic Robots System is a modular self-reconfigurable robotic system composed of autonomous mobile modules in a 2D (or 3D) regular grid. The modules have limited computational capabilities, interact only with neighboring modules, and can move around adjacent modules from a cell to an empty neighboring cell under specific conditions. An important well-studied problem for these robotic systems is Motion Planning, also known as Shape Formationor Self-reconfiguration, requiring the modules to organize themselves into a pre-determined final configuration (i.e., shape); basic shapes such as the line (or chain) are especially important as they are utilized as a foundation for constructing more complicated shapes and are an initial measure for handling complicated tasks. A metamorphic robots system could offer a higher degree of reliability and robustness compared to fixed-architecture robots due to its capacity to self-repair: should some modules fail and no longer move, the shape could be reconstructed by the non-faulty modules. To do this correctly, efficiently, and without restricting the autonomy of the modules is a non-trivial task. In this paper, we study the Line Recoveryproblem, requiring the non-faulty modules to reconstruct the line without violation of connectivity requirements at any time during the recovery procedure. A thorough feasibility characterization of the problem, the necessary conditions for its solvability, and an algorithm that solves the problem, regardless of the number and distribution of faults, are provided.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207