Reinforcement learning for swarm robotics: An overview of applications, algorithms and simulators
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
Robots such as drones, ground rovers, underwater vehicles and industrial robots have increased in popularity in recent years. Many sectors have benefited from this by increasing productivity while also decreasing costs and certain risks to humans. These robots can be controlled individually but are more efficient in a large group, also known as a swarm. However, an increase in the quantity and complexity of robots creates the need for an adequate control system. Reinforcement learning, an artificial intelligence paradigm, is an increasingly popular approach to control a swarm of unmanned vehicles. The quantity of reviews in the field of reinforcement learning-based swarm robotics is limited. We propose reviewing the various applications, algorithms and simulators on the subject to fill this gap. First, we present the current applications on swarm robotics with a focus on reinforcement learning control systems. Subsequently, we define important reinforcement learning terminologies, followed by a review of the current state-of-the-art in the field of swarm robotics utilizing reinforcement learning. Additionally, we review the various simulators used to train, validate and simulate swarms of unmanned vehicles. We finalize our review by discussing our findings and the possible directions for future research. Overall, our review demonstrates the potential and state-of-the-art reinforcement learning-based control systems for 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 | 0.001 |
| 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