Adaptivity: a path towards general swarm intelligence?
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.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".