Swarm Control for Distributed Construction: A Computational Complexity Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last 20 years, human interaction with robot swarms has been investigated as a means to mitigate problems associated with the control and coordination of such swarms by either human teleoperation or completely autonomous swarms. Ongoing research seeks to characterize those situations in which such interaction is both viable and preferable. In this article, we contribute to this effort by giving the first computational complexity analyses of problems associated with algorithm, environmental influence, and leader selection methods for the control of swarms performing distributed construction tasks. These analyses are done relative to a simple model in which swarms of deterministic finite-state robots operate in a synchronous error-free manner in 2D grid-based environments. We show that all three of our problems are polynomial-time intractable in general and remain intractable under a number of plausible restrictions (both individually and in many combinations) on robot controllers, environments, target structures, and sequences of swarm control commands. We also give the first restrictions relative to which these problems are tractable, as well as discussions of the implications of our results for both the design and deployment of swarm control assistance software tools and the human control of swarms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".