Multirobot Persistent Monitoring: Minimizing Latency and Number of Robots With Recharging Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we study multirobot path planning for persistent monitoring tasks. We consider the case where robots have a limited battery capacity with a discharge time$D$. We represent the areas to be monitored as the vertices of a weighted graph. For each vertex, there is a constraint on the maximum allowable time between robot visits, called the latency. The objective is to find the minimum number of robots that can satisfy these latency constraints while also ensuring that the robots periodically charge at a recharging depot. The decision version of this problem is known to be PSPACE-complete. We present a$O\left(\frac{\log D}{\log \log D} h \log \rho\right)$approximation algorithm for the problem where$\rho$is the ratio of the maximum and the minimum latency constraints, and$h$reflects the ratio of distance of vertices from the depot to their latency constraints. We also present an orienteering-based heuristic to solve the problem and show empirically that it typically provides higher quality solutions than the approximation algorithm. We extend our results to provide an algorithm for the problem of minimizing the maximum weighted latency given a fixed number of robots. We evaluate our algorithms on large problem instances in a patrolling scenario and in a wildfire monitoring application. We also compare the algorithms with an existing solver on benchmark instances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".