Collision-Free Multi-Agent Coverage Control for Non-Cooperating Swarms: Preliminary Results
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
The main contribution of this paper is a methodology for multiple non-cooperating swarms of unmanned aerial vehicles to independently cover a common area. In contrast to previous research on coverage control involving more than one swarm, this paper does not assume cooperation between distinct swarms but considers them as independent units following their own objectives. Using Voronoi tessellation, collision-free motion of agents within the same swarm has been proven before. However, as is shown in Example 1 of this paper, in the case of multiple swarms with inter-swarm but without intra-swarm collaboration, these guarantees do not hold. We address this issue by proposing an algorithm to achieve maximum coverage with multiple swarms while avoiding collisions between agents. More specifically, the Optimal Reciprocal Collision Avoidance method used for safe navigation in multi-agent scenarios is adapted to suit the needs of Voronoi-based coverage control with more than one swarm. The functionality of the proposed technique is validated through Monte Carlo simulations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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