Scalable Operator Allocation for Multirobot Assistance: A Restless Bandit Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we consider the problem of allocating human operators in a system with multiple semiautonomous robots. Each robot is required to perform an independent sequence of tasks, subject to a chance of failing and getting stuck in a fault state at every task. If and when required, a human operator can assist or teleoperate a robot. Conventional dynamic programming-based techniques used to solve such problems face scalability issues due to an exponential growth of state and action spaces with the number of robots and operators. In this article, we derive conditions under which the operator allocation problem satisfies a technical condition called indexability, thereby enabling the use of the Whittle index heuristic. The conditions are easy to check, and we show that they hold for a wide range of problems of interest. Our key insight is to leverage the structure of the value function of individual robots, resulting in conditions that can be verified separately for each state of each robot. We apply these conditions to two types of transitions commonly seen in remote robot supervision systems. Through numerical simulations, we demonstrate the efficacy of Whittle index policy as a near-optimal and scalable approach that outperforms existing scalable methods.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".