A Multirobot Person Search System for Finding Multiple Dynamic Users in Human-Centered Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multirobot coordination for finding multiple users in an environment can be used in numerous robotic applications, including search and rescue, surveillance/monitoring, and activities of daily living assistance. Existing approaches have limited coordination between robots when generating team plans or do not consider user location probability within these plans. This results in long searches and robots potentially revisiting the same locations in succession. In this article, we present a novel multirobot person search system to generate search plans for multirobot teams to find multiple dynamic users before a deadline. Our approach is unique in that it simultaneously considers the search actions of all robots and user location probabilities when generating team plans, where user location probabilities are represented as conditional spatial-temporal probability density functions. We model this multirobot person search problem as a two-stage optimization problem to maximize the expected number of users found before the deadline. Stage 1 solves the action selection problem to determine a set of team actions, and the second stage solves the action allocation problem to distribute these actions amongst the robots. Namely, in stage 1, a novel conditional multiperiod multiknapsack problem is modeled as a min-flow graph solved sequentially by the Bellman-Ford shortest path algorithm. Stage 2 is a variant of the min-max multitraveling salesperson problem which models the environment topology as a search region network and search times selected by the previous stage. This stage is solved by a novel fuzzy clustering method. Numerous experiments comparing our proposed method to other existing approaches with varying environment sizes, search durations, and the number of users showed that our approach was able to find more target users before a defined deadline.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".