Closed-Loop Motion Control of Robotic Swarms – A Tether-Based Strategy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swarm robots can achieve effective task execution via closed-loop motion control. However, such a goal can only be realized through accurate localization of the swarm. Past approaches have focused on addressing this issue using external sensors, static sensor networks, or through active localization—requirements that may restrict the motion of the swarm or may not be achievable in practice. We present a tether-based strategy that achieves closed-loop swarm-motion control by using a secondary team of mobile sensors. These sensors form a wireless tether that allows the swarm to indirectly sense a home base or a landmark, and to compensate for the accumulated motion errors via a closed-loop control strategy. The proposed strategy is the first to use a tether of mobile sensors that can dynamically reshape and reconnect to various points in the environment to achieve closed-loop motion control. The novelty of the strategy is in its ability to adapt to any swarm motion considered, and to be applied to swarms with limited sensing capabilities and knowledge of their environment. The performance of the proposed strategy was validated through extensive experiments.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it