Centralization vs. decentralization in multi-robot sweep coverage with ground robots and UAVs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In swarm robotics, decentralized control is often proposed as a more scalable and fault-tolerant alternative to centralized control. However, centralized behaviors are often faster and more efficient than their decentralized counterparts. In any given application, the goals and constraints of the task being solved should guide the choice to use centralized control, decentralized control, or a combination of the two. Currently, the exact trade-offs that exist between centralization and decentralization are not well defined. In this paper, we compare the performance of centralization and decentralization in the example task of sweep coverage, across five different types of multi-robot control structures: random walk, decentralized with beacons, hybrid formation control using self-organizing hierarchy, centralized formation control, and predetermined. In all five approaches, the coverage task is completed by a group of ground robots. In each approach, except for the random walk, the ground robots are assisted by UAVs, acting as supervisors or beacons. We compare the approaches in terms of three performance metrics for which centralized approaches are expected to have an advantage -- coverage completeness, coverage uniformity, and sweep completion time -- and two metrics for which decentralized approaches are expected to have an advantage -- scalability (4, 8, or 16 ground robots) and fault tolerance (0%, 25%, 50%, or 75% ground robot failure).
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".