MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389551935 · doi:10.3390/su152416741

Harnessing Online Knowledge Transfer for Enhanced Search and Rescue Decisions via Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

2023· article· en· W4389551935 on OpenAlexaff
Luona Song, Zhigang Wen, Junjie Teng, Jian Zhang, Nicolás Merveille

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceBenchmark (surveying)Transformative learningProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceInternet of ThingsMachine learningComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the rapidly evolving domain of the Internet of Things (IoT), devices play an instrumental role in high-stakes scenarios like search and rescue (SAR) operations. Traditional decision-making processes within SAR missions often struggle to cope with the dynamic and unpredictable nature of such environments, leading to inefficiencies and delayed responses. This paper aims to explore the potential of multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) to improve the decision-making process within SAR operations underpinned by IoT. Functional, current methods are limited by their static decision frameworks and inability to adapt in real time to the chaotic variables present in SAR situations. We introduced a novel MARL framework and compared its performance against benchmark strategies, specifically the multi-agent deep deterministic policy gradient (MADDPG) approach. Uniquely enhanced by online knowledge transfer, the framework leverages the capabilities of the deep deterministic policy gradient (DDPG) method. The preliminary findings underscore the proposed framework’s superior efficiency and speed in SAR contexts. Our research highlights MARL’s transformative potential, positing it as a groundbreaking strategy for IoT-based decision making in high-pressure SAR environments with suggestions for further studies in varied real-world scenarios.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207