A comprehensive review of the latest path planning developments for multi-robot formation systems
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
Abstract There has been a continuous interest in multi-robot formation systems in the last few years due to several significant advantages such as robustness, scalability, and efficiency. However, multi-robot formation systems suffer from well-known problems such as energy consumption, processing speed, and security. Therefore, developers are continuously researching for optimal solutions that can gather the benefits of multi-robot formation systems while overcoming the possible challenges. A backbone process required by any multi-robot system is path planning. Thus, path planning for multi-robot systems is a recent top research topic. However, the literature lacks a recent comprehensive review of path planning works designed for multi-robot systems. The aim of this review paper is to provide a comprehensive assessment and an insightful look into various path planning techniques developed in multi-robot formation systems, in addition to highlighting the basic problems involved in this field. This will allow the reader to discover the research gaps that must be solved for a better path planning experience for multi-robot formation systems. Finally, an illustrative comparative example is presented at the end of the paper to show the advantages and disadvantages of some popular path planning techniques.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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