Adaptivity: a path towards general swarm intelligence?
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
The field of multi-robot systems (MRS) has recently been gaining increasing popularity among various research groups, practitioners, and a wide range of industries. Compared to single-robot systems, multi-robot systems are able to perform tasks more efficiently or accomplish objectives that are simply not feasible with a single unit. This makes such multi-robot systems ideal candidates for carrying out distributed tasks in large environments-e.g., performing object retrieval, mapping, or surveillance. However, the traditional approach to multi-robot systems using global planning and centralized operation is, in general, ill-suited for fulfilling tasks in unstructured and dynamic environments. Swarming multi-robot systems have been proposed to deal with such steep challenges, primarily owing to its adaptivity. These qualities are expressed by the system's ability to learn or change its behavior in response to new and/or evolving operating conditions. Given its importance, in this perspective, we focus on the critical importance of adaptivity for effective multi-robot system swarming and use it as the basis for defining, and potentially quantifying, swarm intelligence. In addition, we highlight the importance of establishing a suite of benchmark tests to measure a swarm's level of adaptivity. We believe that a focus on achieving increased levels of swarm intelligence through the focus on adaptivity will further be able to elevate the field of swarm robotics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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