Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 45 references

Emergence of Fair Leaders via Mediators in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A mediator that only picks the leader can make selfish agents converge to fair policies.

desk verdict A plausible mechanism-design idea undercut by an unverified convergence proof and a naive-follower assumption that the abstract overstates. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02421 v1 pith:MNUJOSNX submitted 2025-08-04 cs.MA cs.AIcs.LG

Akshay Dodwadmath , Setareh Maghsudi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MAcs.AIcs.LG
keywords Stackelberggamesmulti-agentreinforcementlearningmediatorsleaderselectionfairnessMarkovemergentprosocialbehaviormechanismdesign
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

The paper addresses who should lead in a Stackelberg game when the leadership role itself carries an advantage. It claims that delegating leader selection to a mediator—an entity that only decides which agent moves first, with no direct control over actions—is enough to make self-interested agents behave fairly. The mediator's objective is to maximize fairness in the agents' accumulated returns, and the paper argues that this minimal intervention removes the incentive to defect in episodic settings. A sympathetic reader would care because it suggests that fairness can emerge from the structure of leader selection rather than from enforced cooperation or reward redesign.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Markov mediator in a Stackelberg setting with dynamic leaders: a mediator is a reinforcement learning agent whose action at each stage is the choice of leader, constrained to maximize fairness among the other agents. This carries the argument because it is the only lever of control—the mediator neither recommends nor performs actions—yet its selection rule creates an incentive for whichever agent is chosen as leader to follow a fair policy, since followers best-respond naively and the leadership rotates.

What would settle it

Run the resource-collection environment with one follower replaced by a strategic agent that models the mediator's selection rule and deliberately responds to improve its future chance of being chosen as leader; if fairness across agents drops below the reported minimum-welfare levels, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a Markov Stackelberg game with dynamic leaders, a mediator that selects the leader at each stage induces self-interested agents to take fair actions, and under stated assumptions the agents converge to optimal fair policies. The paper formally defines the leader selection problem, shows its connection to fairness in returns, and proposes a multi-agent reinforcement learning framework in which the mediator's leader-selection policy is trained to optimize fairness. The theoretical result is convergence to optimal fair policies, while the empirical evaluation across iterated matrix games and resource-collection environments shows that this mediator-based selection improves the minimum welfare of agents compared with fixed or alternating leader rules.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes followers are naive: they respond optimally to the current leader's action without anticipating or manipulating the mediator's future leader choices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, fairness can be achieved in mixed-motive multi-agent systems without changing agents' reward functions or enforcing contracts.
  • Mediator-based leader selection offers a practical mechanism for settings such as traffic control or resource collection where first-mover advantage creates inequity.
  • The framework implies that even minimal control—selecting who acts first—can substitute for stronger mediator forms such as direct action control or action recommendation.
  • The theoretical convergence result means that once a mediator learns the optimal fair leader-selection policy, self-interested agents settle into fair play.
  • Episodic settings, where defection cascades otherwise occur near terminal states, are directly addressed by the mediator's dynamic selection of leaders.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the fairness guarantee likely depends on the mediator being trusted by all agents; if agents could bribe or influence the mediator, the incentive structure could change.
  • Editorial inference: the naive-follower assumption suggests a natural stress test—replace followers with models that anticipate the mediator's leader-selection rule and check whether fairness survives.
  • Editorial inference: the same mechanism could be adapted to settings where being a follower is advantageous, by selecting which agent follows instead of which leads.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a MARL framework for Stackelberg games with dynamically selected leaders. The authors argue that a central mediator, whose only control is selecting which agent leads at each stage, can maximize fairness among self-interested agents. They claim that this minimal-control mediator induces leaders to adopt fair actions, provide an RL implementation, and state in the conclusion that they 'theoretically prove their convergence to optimal fair policies under certain assumptions.' Empirical results are reported on iterated matrix games (Chicken, Prisoner's Dilemma) and resource-collection environments for two and four agents.

Significance. If the convergence claim were rigorously established, the work would be a useful contribution to mechanism design in multi-agent reinforcement learning, showing that a centralized mediator with minimal influence can alter the learned policies of otherwise self-interested agents. The framing around fairness and leader selection is timely, and the proposed 'Markov Stackelberg mediator' is a natural extension of prior mediator notions. However, the paper's central theoretical assertion—the convergence to optimal fair policies—is not supported by any formal statement or proof in the provided manuscript, and the acknowledged reliance on 'naive follower responses' substantially narrows the scope of the abstract's strong claims. The empirical section, as visible in the excerpt, lacks key experimental details needed to assess the robustness of the reported improvements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 8 (Conclusion)] The conclusion states that the authors 'theoretically prove their convergence to optimal fair policies under certain assumptions,' yet no theorem, assumption list, or proof appears anywhere in the provided manuscript. This is the paper's headline contribution and a load-bearing claim. The authors must either provide a complete formal statement and proof, including a precise specification of the 'certain assumptions,' or explicitly retract/weaken the theoretical claim in the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Sec. 8 (last paragraph) and Abstract] The framework is explicitly restricted to 'Stackelberg games with naive follower responses,' meaning followers best-respond to the current leader's action without anticipating the mediator's future leader-selection rule. This restriction is load-bearing: self-interested followers who anticipate the mediator's selection mechanism could strategically distort their responses to influence future leader choices, potentially unraveling the stated fairness guarantee. The abstract's unqualified claim that mediators lead 'self-interested agents taking fair actions' overstates the actual scope acknowledged in the conclusion. The paper must either prove the convergence guarantee under a solution concept that allows strategic anticipatory followers, or clearly scope the abstract and title-level claims to the naive-follower setting.
  3. [Figures 4 and 5 (Empirical Evaluation)] The empirical evaluation reports 'minimum welfare' curves averaged over five independent runs but does not include standard errors or confidence intervals, hyperparameter values, the precise definition of the fairness metric used by the mediator, or the full training setup. As presented, the plots cannot support the claim that the mediator improves fairness in a statistically reliable or reproducible way. Details on the fairness measure, the mediator's objective, and the variance across runs should be added.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figures 4 and 5 captions] The captions refer to 'the same color coding as in Figure 3,' but Figure 3 is not described or shown in the provided excerpt, so the reader cannot interpret which curve corresponds to which model. Please define the color/line scheme in each caption or in the main text.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'self-interested agents taking fair actions' should be qualified to reflect the naive-follower restriction and the dependence on 'certain assumptions' for the theoretical result, so that the abstract does not overstate the scope.
  3. [Section 1.1 (Contributions)] The contribution list mentions 'formally defin[ing]' the Markov Stackelberg game with dynamic leaders, but the formal definition is not visible in the provided text. Please ensure the full version contains a clear mathematical model with state, action, transition, and payoff specifications.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Fairness is built into the mediator's objective, so part of the fairness improvement is by construction; the agent-level causal claim is not reduced to a fit or self-citation.

  1. self definitional [Section 8 (Conclusion)]
    "By incorporating fairness into the mediator's definition, we demonstrate how it can lead to agents emerging as fair leaders and theoretically prove their convergence to optimal fair policies under certain assumptions."

    The mediator is introduced as an entity that 'dynamically select[s] leaders, with the objective of optimizing overall fairness' (Introduction). The conclusion then presents fairness as a demonstrated outcome of this definition. To the extent that the reported result is 'higher overall fairness in agents' returns' (Abstract), it is the same quantity the mediator is defined to optimize, so the fairness improvement is partly by construction rather than an independent prediction. The non-trivial part, that self-interested agents' own policies become fair under minimal leader-selection control, is not entailed by the definition alone and depends on an unstated convergence theorem; hence the circularity is partial and not load-bearing for the mechanism claim.

full rationale

The derivation chain is mostly self-contained: the paper introduces dynamic leader selection by a mediator, relates fairness to leader order, and claims convergence under naive follower responses. No load-bearing self-citations appear; the cited prior work on alternating leaders is external and used as motivation. The main partial circularity is that the mediator is defined to select leaders so as to maximize fairness, and the paper's empirical and theoretical 'demonstration' reports fairness as the outcome; the fairness metric is the mediator's own objective, so some improvement is by construction. The genuinely non-trivial claim, that minimal leader-selection control changes self-interested agents' learned policies, is not entailed by the definition and would require the stated but not reproduced convergence theorem; as presented it is an unverified causal claim rather than a circular reduction. The naive-follower restriction is a robustness limitation, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The framework rests on a trusted, non-manipulable mediator, naive follower responses, and a leadership advantage. These are domain assumptions about the environment and agent sophistication, not standard mathematical axioms. No free parameters are identified from the available text; learning hyperparameters are not listed. The mediator is a new construct but is a mechanism, not an empirical entity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A central trusted mediator exists and can commit to a leader-selection policy.
    Introduced in Section 1: 'by delegating the leader selection process to a central trusted entity [9] such as a mediator, there is always a consensus.' This is load-bearing because the fairness result depends on the mediator being accepted and non-manipulable.
  • domain assumption Followers respond naively to the leader's action, without strategic forward-looking behavior.
    Stated in Section 8 (Conclusion): 'our proposed framework is based on Stackelberg games with naive follower responses.' This is load-bearing because the proof and mechanism assume followers do not anticipate the mediator's future selections.
  • domain assumption Leadership confers an advantage, so agents have an incentive to be selected as leader.
    Motivated in Section 1 with examples such as quantity competition and traffic control. If leadership were not advantageous, the mediator's selection lever would have no effect on agent incentives.
  • standard math Standard RL convergence assumptions hold, such as sufficient exploration and stationary policies during learning.
    Invoked implicitly for the claimed convergence to optimal fair policies, though the exact assumptions are not visible in the provided excerpt.
invented entities (1)
  • Markov Stackelberg mediator
    purpose: Dynamically selects leaders at each step to maximize fairness among self-interested agents.
    The paper introduces this as a new mechanism. It has no falsifiable handle outside the paper; its efficacy is the central claim being tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergence of Fair Leaders via Mediators in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MNUJOSNX

@misc{pith2026250802421,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergence of Fair Leaders via Mediators in Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MNUJOSNX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02421}
}
read the original abstract

Stackelberg games and their resulting equilibria have received increasing attention in the multi-agent reinforcement learning literature. Each stage of a traditional Stackelberg game involves a leader(s) acting first, followed by the followers. In situations where the roles of leader(s) and followers can be interchanged, the designated role can have considerable advantages, for example, in first-mover advantage settings. Then the question arises: Who should be the leader and when? A bias in the leader selection process can lead to unfair outcomes. This problem is aggravated if the agents are self-interested and care only about their goals and rewards. We formally define this leader selection problem and show its relation to fairness in agents' returns. Furthermore, we propose a multi-agent reinforcement learning framework that maximizes fairness by integrating mediators. Mediators have previously been used in the simultaneous action setting with varying levels of control, such as directly performing agents' actions or just recommending them. Our framework integrates mediators in the Stackelberg setting with minimal control (leader selection). We show that the presence of mediators leads to self-interested agents taking fair actions, resulting in higher overall fairness in agents' returns.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. V. Albrecht, F. Christianos, and L. Sch\"afer. Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning: Foundations and Modern Approaches. MIT Press, 2024. URL https://www.marl-book.com

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    R. J. Aumann. Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 1 0 (1): 0 67--96, 1974. ISSN 0304-4068. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4068(74)90037-8. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304406874900378

    arXiv 1974

  3. [3]

    R. Axelrod. The emergence of cooperation among egoists. American Political Science Review, 75 0 (2): 0 306–318, 1981. doi:10.2307/1961366

    work page doi:10.2307/1961366 1981

  4. [4]

    Multiagent Value Iteration Algorithms in Dynamic Programming and Reinforcement Learning

    D. Bertsekas. Multiagent value iteration algorithms in dynamic programming and reinforcement learning, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01627

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Learning to Mitigate AI Collusion on Economic Platforms

    G. Brero, N. Lepore, E. Mibuari, and D. C. Parkes. Learning to mitigate ai collusion on economic platforms, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.07106

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Be a Leader or Become a Follower: The Strategy to Commit to with Multiple Leaders (Extended Version)

    M. Castiglioni, A. Marchesi, and N. Gatti. Be a leader or become a follower: The strategy to commit to with multiple leaders (extended version). CoRR, abs/1905.13106, 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.13106

    work page Pith review arXiv 1905

  7. [7]

    Conitzer and T

    V. Conitzer and T. Sandholm. Computing the optimal strategy to commit to. In ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 2006. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:2219280

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Complexity of Mechanism Design

    V. Conitzer and T. Sandholm. Complexity of mechanism design, 2014. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1486

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Dafoe, E

    A. Dafoe, E. Hughes, Y. Bachrach, T. Collins, K. R. McKee, J. Z. Leibo, K. Larson, and T. Graepel. Open problems in cooperative ai, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.08630

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Y. Dong, B. Zhang, and y. Tao. The dynamics of human behavior in the public goods game with institutional incentives. Scientific Reports, 6: 0 28809, 06 2016. doi:10.1038/srep28809

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    D \" u tting, Z

    P. D \" u tting, Z. Feng, H. Narasimhan, and D. C. Parkes. Optimal auctions through deep learning. CoRR, abs/1706.03459, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03459

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Z. Feng, H. Narasimhan, and D. C. Parkes. Deep learning for revenue-optimal auctions with budgets. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS '18, page 354–362, Richland, SC, 2018. International Foundation for Autonom...

    2018

  5. [13]

    A. M. Fink. Equilibrium in a stochastic \ n\ -person game. Journal of Science of the Hiroshima University, 28: 0 89--93, 1964. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:120600263

    1964

  6. [14]

    J. N. Foerster, R. Y. Chen, M. Al - Shedivat, S. Whiteson, P. Abbeel, and I. Mordatch. Learning with opponent-learning awareness. CoRR, abs/1709.04326, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.04326

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gerstgrasser and D

    M. Gerstgrasser and D. C. Parkes. Oracles & followers: Stackelberg equilibria in deep multi-agent reinforcement learning, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Gong and Y

    F. Gong and Y. Zhou. Sequential fair stackelberg equilibria of linear strategies in risk-seeking insider trading. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 31: 0 1302--1328, 10 2018. doi:10.1007/s11424-018-6266-1

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Guo and I

    J. Guo and I. Harmati. Evaluating semi-cooperative nash/stackelberg q-learning for traffic routes plan in a single intersection. Control Engineering Practice, 102: 0 104525, 2020. ISSN 0967-0661. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2020.104525. URL https://www.sciencedire...

    2020

  10. [18]

    J. H. Hamilton and S. M. Slutsky. Endogenous timing in duopoly games: Stackelberg or cournot equilibria. Games and Economic Behavior, 2 0 (1): 0 29--46, 1990. ISSN 0899-8256. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0899-8256(90)90012-J. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi...

    1990

  11. [19]

    Hauert and H

    C. Hauert and H. Schuster. Extending the iterated prisoner's dilemma without synchrony. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 192 0 (2): 0 155--166, 1998. ISSN 0022-5193. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1997.0590. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519397905907

    1998

  12. [20]

    A. A. Haupt, P. J. K. Christoffersen, M. Damani, and D. Hadfield-Menell. Formal contracts mitigate social dilemmas in multi-agent rl, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.10469

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    K. He, B. Banerjee, and P. Doshi. Cooperative-competitive reinforcement learning with history-dependent rewards. CoRR, abs/2010.08030, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08030

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ivanov, I

    D. Ivanov, I. Zisman, and K. Chernyshev. Mediated multi-agent reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS '23, page 49–57, Richland, SC, 2023. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and ...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Ivanov, P

    D. Ivanov, P. Dütting, I. Talgam-Cohen, T. Wang, and D. C. Parkes. Principal-agent reinforcement learning: Orchestrating ai agents with contracts, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18074

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Jaques, A

    N. Jaques, A. Lazaridou, E. Hughes, C. Gulcehre, P. A. Ortega, D. Strouse, J. Z. Leibo, and N. de Freitas. Social influence as intrinsic motivation for multi-agent deep reinforcement learning, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08647

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Jiang and Z

    J. Jiang and Z. Lu. Learning fairness in multi-agent systems, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    P. Ju, A. Ghosh, and N. B. Shroff. Achieving fairness in multi-agent markov decision processes using reinforcement learning, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Kiekintveld, M

    C. Kiekintveld, M. Jain, J. Tsai, J. Pita, F. Ord\' o \ n ez, and M. Tambe. Computing optimal randomized resource allocations for massive security games. In Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 1, AAMAS '09, page ...

    2009

  20. [28]

    J. Z. Leibo, V. F. Zambaldi, M. Lanctot, J. Marecki, and T. Graepel. Multi-agent reinforcement learning in sequential social dilemmas. CoRR, abs/1702.03037, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.03037

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lupu and D

    A. Lupu and D. Precup. Gifting in multi-agent reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, page 789–797, Richland, SC, 2020. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ISBN ...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Mandal and J

    D. Mandal and J. Gan. Socially fair reinforcement learning, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Monderer and M

    D. Monderer and M. Tennenholtz. Strong mediated equilibrium. Artificial Intelligence, 173 0 (1): 0 180--195, 2009. ISSN 0004-3702. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2008.10.005. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370208001422

    2009 doi

  24. [32]

    Monderer and M

    D. Monderer and M. Tennenholtz. K-implementation. CoRR, abs/1107.0022, 2011. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.0022

    2011 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. A. Nowak and K. Sigmund. The alternating prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 168 0 (2): 0 219--226, 1994. ISSN 0022-5193. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1994.1101. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519384711015

    1994

  26. [34]

    Ozdaglar, M

    A. Ozdaglar, M. O. Sayin, and K. Zhang. Independent learning in stochastic games, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.11743

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Paruchuri, J

    P. Paruchuri, J. P. Pearce, J. Marecki, M. Tambe, F. Ordonez, and S. Kraus. Playing games for security: an efficient exact algorithm for solving bayesian stackelberg games. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - V...

    2008

  28. [36]

    Rubenstein and J

    D. Rubenstein and J. Kealey. Cooperation, conflict, and the evolution of complex animal societies. Nature Education Knowledge, 1, 01 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Shu and Y

    T. Shu and Y. Tian. M ^3 rl: Mind-aware multi-agent management reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/1810.00147, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.00147

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    K. Su, S. Zhou, J. Jiang, C. Gan, X. Wang, and Z. Lu. Ma2ql: A minimalist approach to fully decentralized multi-agent reinforcement learning, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.08244

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. The MIT Press, second edition, 2018. URL http://incompleteideas.net/book/the-book-2nd.html

    2018

  32. [40]

    Szepesvari

    C. Szepesvari. Algorithms for Reinforcement Learning. Morgan and Claypool Publishers, 2010. ISBN 1608454924

    2010

  33. [41]

    T. Wang, P. Dütting, D. Ivanov, I. Talgam-Cohen, and D. C. Parkes. Deep contract design via discontinuous networks, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02318

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    yan Nie, M

    P. yan Nie, M. yong Lai, and S. jin Zhu. Dynamic feedback stackelberg games with alternating leaders. Nonlinear Analysis: Real World Applications, 9 0 (2): 0 536--546, 2008. ISSN 1468-1218. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nonrwa.2006.11.019. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/sci...

    2008 doi

  35. [43]

    Zimmer, C

    M. Zimmer, C. Glanois, U. Siddique, and P. Weng. Learning fair policies in decentralized cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Zrnic, E

    T. Zrnic, E. Mazumdar, S. S. Sastry, and M. I. Jordan. Who leads and who follows in strategic classification? CoRR, abs/2106.12529, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.12529

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Y. Zuo, W. Yao, Q. Chang, X. Zhu, J. Gui, and J. Qin. Voting-based scheme for leader election in lead-follow uav swarm with constrained communication. Electronics, 11 0 (14), 2022. ISSN 2079-9292. doi:10.3390/electronics11142143. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/11/14/2143

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.