Distributed Multirobot Coverage Control of Nonconvex Environments With Guarantees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we revisit the problem of distributed coverage with a fleet of robots in convex and nonconvex environments. In the majority of approaches for this problem, the environment is partitioned, each robot is assigned to a partition and each robot moves toward a location that improves the service quality in its partition. These approaches converge to a locally optimal solution; however, there is no guarantee on the quality of the locally optimal solution with respect to the globally optimal solution. We propose distributed algorithms for the coverage problem in convex continuous, nonconvex continuous, and metric graphs. We consider subadditive sensing functions, which capture scenarios where the service quality of a location is proportional to the distance between the robot and the location. For these sensing functions, we provide the first constant factor approximation algorithms for the distributed coverage problem. We also characterize the time and communication complexity of the proposed algorithm and show that the robots converge to a near-optimal solution in polynomial time. The approximation factor guarantees on the solution quality requires twice the conventional communication range; however, the extensive simulation results show that the proposed algorithm provides a close to optimal solution with the conventional communication range as well, and outperforms several existing algorithms in convex, nonconvex continuous environments and metric graphs.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".