Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Strategic Sacrifice: Self-Organized Robot Swarm Localization for Inspection Productivity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A robot swarm can maximize inspection productivity by self-organizing a few agents as dedicated perfect localizers, with the mode-switching rate tuned inversely to interaction rate.

desk verdict A genuinely new adaptive localizer-fraction mechanism, but the claimed 'optimality' is endpoint matching with a hand-tuned alpha, not a proven maximization. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09493 v1 pith:DWSOJOTM submitted 2024-11-14 cs.RO cs.MA

Sneha Ramshanker , Hungtang Ko , Radhika Nagpal This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.MA
keywords collaborativelocalizationswarmroboticsmean-fieldmodeltaskallocationself-organizationinspectionrobotsmode-switchingdeadreckoning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a swarm of inspection robots can maximize average productivity by letting a self-organized minority act as perfect localizers -- agents that spend all computation on localization and produce no inspection output themselves -- while the rest run cheap dead reckoning. The central result is a mean-field steady-state analysis showing that when the rate at which agents switch modes is inversely proportional to the pairwise interaction rate, the swarm reconfigures to near-optimal staffing in both low- and high-interaction regimes. Agent-based simulations and hardware experiments with ten climbing robots on a 3D cylinder support the model and show that the adaptive strategy roughly doubles productivity over individual mode-switching. The broader significance is a purely local rule for allocating computation that works with unconstrained inspection trajectories.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a mean-field occupancy model over four states -- dead reckoner not lost, dead reckoner lost, perfect localizer startup ($PL^\dagger$), and perfect localizer ($PL$) -- with transition rates $r_L$ (becoming lost), $r_{int}$ (pairwise interactions), $r_p = 1/\tau_p$ (completing localization), and $r_{MS}$ (mode switching). The load-bearing identity is the steady-state productivity formula $\langle \Pi \rangle/N = 1 - (2 + r_{MS}/r_p)\langle n_{PL}\rangle/N$, together with the adaptive choice $r_{MS} = \alpha/r_{int}$. This turns the resource-allocation problem into a single-parameter local rule that each agent can estimate from its own interaction counter.

What would settle it

Run the mean-field model or a multi-agent simulation with a localizer whose correction is noisy (nonzero $\delta p$ after interaction) and whose computation consumes inspection time, and compare the optimal localizer fraction and the productivity achieved by $r_{MS} = \alpha/r_{int}$ against the perfect-localizer case; if the adaptive rule no longer tracks the optimum, the central claim is refuted. A direct experimental version would replace the ground-truth localizer with an onboard SLAM localizer on the climbing robots and measure whether the productivity ratio between collaborative and individual mode-switching persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a swarm whose agents can be dead reckoners (cheap, drifting localization, productive when not lost) or perfect localizers (exact localization, zero inspection output) achieves near-optimal average inspection productivity by adapting the mode-switching rate $r_{MS}$ so that $r_{MS}$ is inversely correlated with the pairwise interaction rate $r_{int}$. The steady-state productivity per agent, $\langle \Pi \rangle/N = 1 - (2 + r_{MS}/r_p)\langle n_{PL}\rangle/N$, interpolates between individual mode-switching at low $r_{int}$ and fixed-role collaboration with the optimal localizer fraction at high $r_{int}$. Hardware experiments confirm the emergent division of labor: isolated robots mode-switch, well-connected robots settle into dedicated localizer roles, and the swarm reconfigures after communication failure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a perfect localizer has exactly zero localization error and a single interaction with it resets a dead reckoner's error to zero -- implemented in hardware by giving localizers ground-truth positions from external motion capture -- so a real onboard localizer with its own error and computation cost would shrink the claimed gains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In high-interaction regimes the swarm converges to fixed roles with a localizer fraction close to the optimum given by $N_{PL}/N$ in eq. (4).
  • In low-interaction regimes the swarm falls back to individual mode-switching, avoiding the wasted productivity of dedicated localizers.
  • Allowing not-lost dead reckoners to also correct via localizer interactions ('smart collaboration') raises productivity beyond the basic model.
  • The mechanism needs no global information, works with arbitrary inspection trajectories, and scales with the number of agents.
  • The hardware study shows the same local rules recover from communication loss by re-organizing into mode-switching behavior.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: if perfect localizers instead run onboard SLAM with nonzero error and their own computation cost, the qualitative reciprocal rule likely survives but the productivity ceiling and optimal localizer fraction would shrink, so the 'perfect' idealization is the main risk to the quantitative claims.
  • Editorial extension: the inverse relationship between role-switching rate and interaction rate may be a general homeostasis principle for task allocation -- each agent matches its switching rate to the availability of help -- which could transfer to vigilance or obstacle avoidance.
  • Editorial extension: the memory window $\tau_{window}$ introduces hysteresis; tuning it trades responsiveness against stability, a design lever the paper identifies but does not fully characterize.
  • Editorial extension: in spatially heterogeneous environments where the loss rate $r_L$ varies, a spatially averaged interaction-rate estimate might be needed; a testable prediction is that the gap between adaptive and optimal fixed configurations widens as spatial heterogeneity grows.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a self-organized swarm localization strategy in which a small number of robots act as 'perfect localizers' and correct the dead-reckoning errors of other agents through local interactions. The authors develop a mean-field ODE model for three settings: fixed roles, individual mode-switching, and collaborative mode-switching. They claim that setting the mode-switching rate inversely proportional to the interaction rate, r_MS = α/r_int, adaptively maximizes inspection productivity. The paper supports this with steady-state analysis, multi-agent simulations, and experiments using Rovable robots climbing a 3D cylinder, where perfect localizers are given ground-truth positions from a Vicon system. The fixed-mode analysis and the derivation of the optimal fraction of perfect localizers (Eq. 4) are, up to a typographical issue in Eq. (3), internally consistent. However, the central adaptive-optimality claim is not established: it is supported only by two asymptotic limits, the proportionality constant α is hand-picked and differs between the analytical and simulation sections, and the hardware experiments are offline replays using externally provided ground truth rather than onboard localization.

Significance. If the adaptive-optimality claim were proven, the paper would make a valuable contribution to swarm task allocation and collaborative localization: it would show that simple local interaction rules can steer a swarm to a near-optimal division of labor between localization and inspection, with a clean mean-field model and a realistic application domain. The paper also has concrete strengths: Eq. (4) is a genuine consequence of the fixed-mode ODEs, the stability analysis via Jacobians and Routh-Hurwitz is appropriate, and the multi-agent simulations cover a wide parameter space. The Rovable trajectory dataset is a useful asset. However, the advertised 'adaptively maximizes' result is currently a conjecture supported by endpoint matching rather than a proven optimization, and the experimental evidence is weakened by the offline replay methodology and the use of Vicon ground truth for perfect localizers.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (8)] The central claim that r_MS = α/r_int 'can maximize productivity' is supported only by two asymptotic limits: r_MS >> r_p, r_L, r_int reproduces individual mode-switching (Eq. 6), and r_MS << those rates reproduces the fixed-mode optimum (Eq. 4 with Eq. 3). The paper never solves the optimization of Eq. (8) over r_MS for finite intermediate rates, so it does not show that an inverse-correlation law is the global maximizer, nor that the optimal r_MS depends on r_int alone rather than also on r_L, r_p, N, and the current state. In addition, α is not derived: the analytical figure uses α = 0.01 while the simulations use α = 1, with no sensitivity analysis or selection criterion. Please either prove the optimality, or explicitly reframe this as a heuristic that matches the correct limits, and provide a parameter study over α and the other rates.
  2. [Sec. 5, Fig. 4(c)] The mode-switching simulation in Fig. 4(c) does not validate the analytical model of Sec. 4.3, because the simulation uses r_MS = 1/ˆr_int (α = 1) and includes 'smart collaboration' in which not-lost dead reckoners are also corrected, whereas the analytical model uses r_MS = α/r_int with α = 0.01 and only lost dead reckoners are corrected. The text says the simulation 'mostly outperforms the analytical adaptive mode-switching scheme with α = 1', which is confusing because the analytical curve in Fig. 3(b) uses α = 0.01. Please run the agent-based simulation and the mean-field model under identical assumptions—same α, same collaboration rule, same parameters—and report the comparison; without this, the 'validation' of the model is not established.
  3. [Sec. 6, hardware experiments] The hardware section does not actually demonstrate the proposed mechanism on robots in real time. The text states that 'we tested various scenarios offline using this trajectory dataset', and the perfect localizers 'utilizing ground truth position data from the Vicon system' rather than performing onboard localization. The zero-error assumption for p_PL and p_rel from Sec. 3 is therefore not exercised in the experiments. As a result, the claims of self-organized behavior and computational sacrifice are not supported by the experiments as described. Please either conduct live experiments with onboard estimation, or clearly label Sec. 6 as a data-driven simulation and temper the abstract and conclusion claims accordingly.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) as printed does not follow from Eq. (2). Solving Eq. (2) at steady state gives n_NotLost/N = (1-f) * [2 r_int f/(N-1)] / [r_L + 2 r_int f/(N-1)], where f = N_PL/N, which is not equivalent to the printed expression. The printed form simplifies to 1 - f - r_L(N-1)/(2 r_int), which is negative for the parameters used in Fig. 3 and cannot be a productivity. If this is a typesetting error, please correct it; if it is not, then Eq. (4) and the fixed-mode comparisons are unsubstantiated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 5, first paragraph] The phrase 'we the let robots perform random walks' should read 'we let the robots perform random walks'.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'P L†, P Lfor' should presumably be 'P L†, P L' or similar; please also define the state notation consistently.
  3. [Sec. 6, effective interaction rate] The relationship between the locally estimated interaction rate ˆr_int used by the robots and the global r_int in the mean-field model is not specified; please clarify how the local estimate maps to the model parameter, since Sec. 5 uses the absolute interaction rate while Sec. 6 uses the effective interaction rate.
  4. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 7] The text uses 'prove' for the mean-field results, but the analysis only establishes a stable steady state and asymptotic limits; 'prove' overstates the mathematical contribution unless a formal optimality proof is added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fixed-mode optimum is a genuine derivation, and the adaptive-mode optimality gap is an under-supported claim rather than a result that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is self-contained. The fixed-mode productivity (Eq. 3) is the steady state of the mean-field ODE (Eq. 2), and the optimal fraction of perfect localizers (Eq. 4) is obtained by differentiating Eq. 3 with respect to N_PL/N. The individual mode-switching result (Eq. 6) is the steady state of Eq. 5. The collaborative mode-switching ODEs (Eq. 7) are a stated superposition of the fixed-mode and individual-switching dynamics, and Eq. 8 follows from the steady-state solution with stability checks. None of these steps defines the target quantity in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The adaptive rule in Section 4.3, r_MS = alpha / r_int, is not derived by maximizing Eq. 8; it is a heuristic ansatz justified by endpoint matching in the low- and high-interaction limits. The claim that this rule 'can maximize productivity' is stronger than what the two-limit argument proves, and alpha is hand-selected (0.01 in the analytic curve versus 1 in simulation). This is a rigor gap and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the plotted near-optimal behavior is not forced by the equations, and the rule was not obtained by fitting the target productivity curve. The simulations are direct implementations of the well-mixed assumptions used in the mean-field model, and the hardware experiments explicitly use Vicon ground truth for the perfect localizers, as stated in Section 6. There is no load-bearing self-citation and no imported uniqueness theorem. Therefore the paper receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central productivity-optimality result is an exact steady-state of an idealized mean-field model with perfect localizers and noiseless corrections. The adaptive rule that allegedly achieves optimality is an ad hoc inverse-interaction-rate ansatz with a hand-chosen constant alpha. Hardware validation replaces PL localization with Vicon ground truth, so the experimental evidence does not test the noiseless-correction regime. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (adaptive mode-switching constant) = 0.01 (Fig 3), 1 (simulations)
    Proportionality constant in adaptive mode-switching r_MS = alpha / r_int; the productivity-maximization claim depends on its value, and the paper changes it between analytical and simulation settings without derivation.
  • tau_p (re-localization time penalty) = 100 s (analytical Fig 3), 10 s (simulations), 20 s (hardware)
    Time spent in the P L† state before becoming a perfect localizer; affects the mode-switching productivity trade-off and is set per experiment.
  • delta_p0 (characteristic localization error) = 1.0, 1.3, 1.5 (formation experiment)
    Parameter in the disorientation function gamma = 1 - exp(-|delta p| / delta p0); varied to break symmetry in the 3-robot formation study.
  • gamma_thresh (disorientation threshold) = 0.4
    Threshold that determines when a dead reckoner is considered lost; a design choice affecting productivity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Well-mixed mean-field assumption: every agent has equal probability of interacting with any other; occupancy evolves by rates.
    Sec 4.1, before eq 2. Central to the analytical optimum; hardware and spatial simulations relax it, so the analytical 'optimality' applies only to this idealized setting.
  • domain assumption Perfect localizer model: PLs know absolute position perfectly and relative position measurements have no uncertainty, so a correcting interaction drives dead reckoner error to zero.
    Sec 3. A load-bearing idealization; without it the productivity gain from collaboration is bounded by measurement noise. Hardware substitutes Vicon ground truth for PL position (Sec 6).
  • domain assumption Agents can accurately estimate their own disorientation.
    Sec 3, explicitly called a strong assumption the authors aim to relax. Used to decide lost status and to trigger mode-switching.
  • domain assumption Dead reckoning error accumulation is memoryless and captured by a single constant loss rate r_L.
    Sec 4.1. Used in all analytical results; hardware text acknowledges variable loss rates, so the math does not directly cover the experiments.
  • ad hoc to paper Adaptive mode-switching rule r_MS = alpha / r_int is a hand-chosen ansatz.
    Sec 4.3. The claim of productivity maximization depends on this inverse relationship and on the value of alpha; alpha=0.01 in Fig 3, alpha=1 in simulations, and no derivation from an optimal control objective is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strategic Sacrifice: Self-Organized Robot Swarm Localization for Inspection Productivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DWSOJOTM

@misc{pith2026241109493,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strategic Sacrifice: Self-Organized Robot Swarm Localization for Inspection Productivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DWSOJOTM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09493}
}
read the original abstract

Robot swarms offer significant potential for inspecting diverse infrastructure, ranging from bridges to space stations. However, effective inspection requires accurate robot localization, which demands substantial computational resources and limits productivity. Inspired by biological systems, we introduce a novel cooperative localization mechanism that minimizes collective computation expenditure through self-organized sacrifice. Here, a few agents bear the computational burden of localization; through local interactions, they improve the inspection productivity of the swarm. Our approach adaptively maximizes inspection productivity for unconstrained trajectories in dynamic interaction and environmental settings. We demonstrate the optimality and robustness using mean-field analytical models, multi-agent simulations, and hardware experiments with metal climbing robots inspecting a 3D cylinder.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09493 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Rovables [14] (a) on a 3D metal cylinder, (b) on a piping system, and (c) in the palm of a human hand. (d) Rovables with markers for Vicon Motion Capture. Army ants form bridges out of their bodies, facilitating cargo transport across gaps and cracks [9,10]. The vigilant animals forego eating, and the bridge ants do not carry cargo; instead, by sacrificing individual productivity, they enhance group success. What is… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Top: Summary of state properties. Bottom: Transitions between DRNotLost, DRLost, P L† , P L for (a) fixed mode, (b) individual mode-switching, (c) collaborative mode-switching. Dashed arrows indicate instantaneous transitions while solid arrows indicate transitions at a finite rate. – Dead Reckoner (DR) Mode: Dead reckoners integrate IMU data to de￾termine position and orientation. While computationally inexpensive,… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mean-field predictions for (a) Fixed Mode (eq 3), and (b) Mode-Switching. Solid black line is the fixed-mode productivity if initialized with optimal fraction of perfect localizers (eq. 4). Dotted line is the mode-switching productivity without collaboration (eq 6). Red curve is the adaptive mode-switching strategy, where rMS = 0.01 rint (eq 8). d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Agent-based Simulation Results. (a) Fixed Mode and Basic Collaboration, (b) Fixed Mode and Smart Collaboration, (c) Collaborative Mode-Switching through interactions with perfect localizers. However, not-lost dead reckoners can also benefit from these interactions, cor…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) 10 Rovables on a 3D cylinder and zoom in of a single Rovable, (b) Ground truth trajectories of the 10 Rovables, (c) Dead reckoning estimate of Robot 6. beginning in sub-optimal configurations must undergo transient mode-switching, temporarily reducing total product…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Collective localization of three Rovables in formation. (a) Ground truth tra￾jectories of robots in formation, (b) 3 Rovables in formation on the physical cylinder. Robot mode time series for (c) individual mode-switching, (d) collaborative mode￾switching, and (e) comm…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 10 Random-Walkers Results. (a) Robot mode time series. Interaction network (b) from 0-200 s (full experiment duration) and (c) 150-195s. Edges represent interac￾tions between robots within the specified time frames, with edge weight proportional to the number of intera…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Applied Sciences 13(4), 2304 (2023)

    Halder, S., Afsari, K.: Robots in inspection and monitoring of buildings and in- frastructure: A systematic review. Applied Sciences 13(4), 2304 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    In: International Conference on Swarm Intelligence, pp

    Haghighat, B., Boghaert, J., Minsky-Primus, Z., Ebert, J., Liu, F., Nisser, M., Ekblaw, A., Nagpal, R.: An approach based on particle swarm optimization for inspection of spacecraft hulls by a swarm of miniaturized robots. In: International Conference on Swarm Intelligence, pp. 14–27. Springer (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    In: Experimental robotics IX: The 9th international sympo- sium on experimental robotics, pp

    Correll, N., Martinoli, A.: Collective inspection of regular structures using a swarm of miniature robots. In: Experimental robotics IX: The 9th international sympo- sium on experimental robotics, pp. 375–386. Springer (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    In: AAAI spring symposium: to boldly go where no human-robot team has gone before, pp

    McLurkin, J., Smith, J., Frankel, J., Sotkowitz, D., Blau, D., Schmidt, B.: Speaking swarmish: Human-robot interface design for large swarms of autonomous mobile robots. In: AAAI spring symposium: to boldly go where no human-robot team has gone before, pp. 72–75. Palo Alto, CA (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Geodezija ir kar- tografija 35(1), 18–22 (2009)

    Mautz, R.: Overview of current indoor positioning systems. Geodezija ir kar- tografija 35(1), 18–22 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    IEEE Transactions on robotics 32(6), 1309– 1332 (2016)

    Cadena, C., Carlone, L., Carrillo, H., Latif, Y., Scaramuzza, D., Neira, J., Reid, I., Leonard, J.J.: Past, present, and future of simultaneous localization and mapping: Toward the robust-perception age. IEEE Transactions on robotics 32(6), 1309– 1332 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Animal Behaviour 196, 183–199 (2023)

    Br¨ ugger, R., Willems, E., Burkart, J.: Looking out for each other: Coordination and turn taking in common marmoset vigilance. Animal Behaviour 196, 183–199 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Aca- demic Press (2015)

    Beauchamp, G.: Animal vigilance: monitoring predators and competitors. Aca- demic Press (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp

    Malley, M., Haghighat, B., Houel, L., Nagpal, R.: Eciton robotica: Design and algorithms for an adaptive self-assembling soft robot collective. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4565–4571. IEEE (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Nature communi- cations 13(1), 1160 (2022)

    McCreery, H.F., Gemayel, G., Pais, A.I., Garnier, S., Nagpal, R.: Hysteresis stabi- lizes dynamic control of self-assembled army ant constructions. Nature communi- cations 13(1), 1160 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp

    Prorok, A., Bahr, A., Martinoli, A.: Low-cost collaborative localization for large- scale multi-robot systems. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 4236–4241. Ieee (2012) 16 Ramshanker et al

    2012

  4. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation, pp

    Kurazume, R., Nagata, S., Hirose, S.: Cooperative positioning with multiple robots. In: Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation, pp. 1250–1257. IEEE (1994)

    1994

  5. [13]

    In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp

    Nemsick, B.E., Buchan, A.D., Nagabandi, A., Fearing, R.S., Zakhor, A.: Cooper- ative inchworm localization with a low cost team. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 6323–6330. IEEE (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    In: Proceed- ings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp

    Dementyev, A., Kao, H.L., Choi, I., Ajilo, D., Xu, M., Paradiso, J.A., Schmandt, C., Follmer, S.: Rovables: Miniature on-body robots as mobile wearables. In: Proceed- ings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 111–120 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Communications of the ACM 45(3), 52–57 (2002)

    Thrun, S.: Probabilistic robotics. Communications of the ACM 45(3), 52–57 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Artificial Intel- ligence Review 56(7), 6187–6239 (2023)

    Eyvazpour, R., Shoaran, M., Karimian, G.: Hardware implementation of slam al- gorithms: a survey on implementation approaches and platforms. Artificial Intel- ligence Review 56(7), 6187–6239 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems 110, 73–84 (2018)

    Sullivan, N., Grainger, S., Cazzolato, B.: Analysis of cooperative localisation per- formance under varying sensor qualities and communication rates. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 110, 73–84 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.08325 (2021)

    Lajoie, P.Y., Ramtoula, B., Wu, F., Beltrame, G.: Towards collaborative simulta- neous localization and mapping: a survey of the current research landscape. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.08325 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 37(10), 1152–1167 (2018)

    Luft, L., Schubert, T., Roumeliotis, S.I., Burgard, W.: Recursive decentralized localization for multi-robot systems with asynchronous pairwise communication. The International Journal of Robotics Research 37(10), 1152–1167 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems 122, 103,306 (2019)

    Klingner, J., Ahmed, N., Correll, N.: Fault-tolerant covariance intersection for localizing robot swarms. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 122, 103,306 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 102(2), 47 (2021)

    Pires, A.G., Rezeck, P.A., Chaves, R.A., Macharet, D.G., Chaimowicz, L.: Coop- erative localization and mapping with robotic swarms. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 102(2), 47 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the 9th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, pp

    Li, Q., De Rosa, M., Rus, D.: Distributed algorithms for guiding navigation across a sensor network. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking, pp. 313–325 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    In: Field and Service Robotics: Results of the 7th International Conference, pp

    Tully, S., Kantor, G., Choset, H.: Leap-frog path design for multi-robot coopera- tive localization. In: Field and Service Robotics: Results of the 7th International Conference, pp. 307–317. Springer (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 12(3), 795–809 (2015)

    Wanasinghe, T.R., Mann, G.K., Gosine, R.G.: Distributed leader-assistive local- ization method for a heterogeneous multirobotic system. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 12(3), 795–809 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems 62(8), 1228–1237 (2014)

    Allotta, B., Costanzi, R., Meli, E., Pugi, L., Ridolfi, A., Vettori, G.: Coopera- tive localization of a team of auvs by a tetrahedral configuration. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 62(8), 1228–1237 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp

    Haldane, D.W., Fankhauser, P., Siegwart, R., Fearing, R.S.: Detection of slippery terrain with a heterogeneous team of legged robots. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4576–4581. IEEE (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    PLoS computational biology 14(12), e1006,200 (2018)

    Pagliara, R., Gordon, D.M., Leonard, N.E.: Regulation of harvester ant foraging as a closed-loop excitable system. PLoS computational biology 14(12), e1006,200 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp

    Albani, D., Manoni, T., Nardi, D., Trianni, V.: Dynamic uav swarm deployment for non-uniform coverage. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 523–531 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Swarm Intelligence 13, 115–143 (2019) Strategic Sacrifice 17

    Mayya, S., Wilson, S., Egerstedt, M.: Closed-loop task allocation in robot swarms using inter-robot encounters. Swarm Intelligence 13, 115–143 (2019) Strategic Sacrifice 17

    2019

  22. [30]

    Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 15(1), 015,001 (2019)

    Elamvazhuthi, K., Berman, S.: Mean-field models in swarm robotics: A survey. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 15(1), 015,001 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Springer Science & Business Media (2010)

    Helbing, D.: Quantitative sociodynamics: stochastic methods and models of social interaction processes. Springer Science & Business Media (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    In: 2017 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Chiu, D., Nagpal, R., Haghighat, B.: Optimization and evaluation of multi robot surface inspection through particle swarm optimization. In: 2017 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 101, 1–26 (2021)

    Kalaitzakis, M., Cain, B., Carroll, S., Ambrosi, A., Whitehead, C., Vitzilaios, N.: Fiducial markers for pose estimation: Overview, applications and experimental comparison of the artag, apriltag, aruco and stag markers. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 101, 1–26 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24(9), 669–672 (2020) 8 Acknowledgments This work is supported by NSF CMMI-2036359 and Amazon Robotics Re- search Award

    Zurn, P., Bassett, D.S., Rust, N.C.: The citation diversity statement: a practice of transparency, a way of life. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 24(9), 669–672 (2020) 8 Acknowledgments This work is supported by NSF CMMI-2036359 and Amazon Robotics Re- search Award. Hungtang Ko i...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.