Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 64 references

Optimization of Collective Bayesian Decision-Making in a Swarm of Miniaturized Vibration-Sensing Robots

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Soft feedback lets Bayesian robot swarms reach majority decisions faster while preserving accuracy.

desk verdict A credible empirical extension of the authors' own earlier work; the central timing claim holds in real robots, but the simulation-only robustness claims are weaker than the paper implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14646 v1 pith:6BD4IOPW submitted 2024-12-19 cs.RO

Thiemen Siemensma , Bahar Haghighat This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords collectiveperceptionswarmroboticsBayesiandecision-makingvibrationsensingsoftfeedbackparticleoptimizationcalibratedsimulationinfrastructureinspection
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 addresses whether a swarm of tiny vibration-sensing robots can collectively decide, faster than existing strategies, which type of tile covers most of a surface. The authors extend a Bayesian collective-perception algorithm by adding 'soft feedback,' a rule in which each broadcast mixes the robot's current observation with its evolving belief. They claim this rule consistently shortens decision time compared with the two established sharing strategies, no feedback and positive feedback, without sacrificing accuracy, in both calibrated simulation and real experiments. If true, it makes all-to-all Bayesian consensus a cheaper, more communication-friendly mechanism for mobile-sensor inspection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Beta posterior each robot uses to model the surface fill ratio f, updated with local samples and broadcast messages. The new rule is the soft-feedback message sampler: m ~ Bernoulli(delta(1-p)+(1-delta)O) with delta = $e^{{-eta Gamma}}$|0.5-p|^kappa, where Gamma is the Beta variance and p is the robot's current belief that the surface is mostly non-vibrating. As confidence grows, the variance Gamma falls and delta rises, so messages gradually shift from raw observations toward belief-weighted decisions, pushing the swarm toward consensus without a hard irreversible commitment. A two-stage optimization supplies the parameter values: a noise-resistant PSO optimizes the common exploration and decision parameters to give P*, and a grid search selects soft-feedback coefficients eta=1500 and kappa=2. The calibrated physics-based simulator is what connects these parameter values to real robot behavior.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to run the calibrated simulator for swarm size 10 on a high-Moran floor such as the stripe pattern (E_MI=0.88) with packet loss drawn from the measured 0-7.5% range, and compare soft-feedback decision time and accuracy against real experiments on the same layout; if soft feedback no longer beats u- and u+, or if P* accuracy drops below the experimental values, the claimed robustness fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that soft feedback (u_s) outperforms the established no-feedback (u_-) and positive-feedback (u_+) strategies in decision time while preserving accuracy, across fill ratios from 0.44 to 0.56, swarm sizes 5 to 10, and environments with Moran index from -0.96 to 0.88. The paper also claims that the PSO-optimized parameter set P* = [7860, 10725, 3778, 55, 381] keeps accuracy stable across these environments, whereas the empirical parameter set P0 loses significant accuracy on clustered and structured floors such as diagonal, stripe, and block diagonal patterns. A 17% decision-time reduction is reported at the hardest fill ratio, and real experiments with up to 10 robots and packet loss up to 7.5% still show soft feedback as the fastest strategy. The intended consequence is that a simple randomized message rule can replace irreversible commitment as the consensus-driving mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a simulation calibrated with five robots on one 5x5 layout at fill ratio 0.48 remains faithful enough to predict performance for swarms of 5-10 robots and for 10x10 environments with high spatial correlation, even though the simulation does not model network packet loss.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Soft feedback reduces decision time by roughly 17% at the hardest fill ratio (f=0.48) compared with no-feedback, without lowering accuracy.
  • Optimized parameters P* keep accuracy stable across Moran indices from -0.96 to 0.88 and fill ratios 0.46-0.48, while empirical parameters P0 fail on clustered floors.
  • In real experiments with packet loss 0-7.5%, soft feedback remains the fastest strategy at all swarm sizes from 5 to 10, unlike positive feedback, whose advantage over no-feedback grows with packet loss.
  • Larger swarm sizes shorten decision time but do not improve accuracy, because collision avoidance increases the spatial correlation of samples.
  • The two-stage optimization approach—PSO for common parameters, grid search for soft-feedback gains—carries over to other Bayesian collective-decision settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If soft feedback's edge comes from replacing irreversible commitment with gradual belief-weighted mixing, then the same rule should accelerate other consensus algorithms that currently rely on positive feedback, such as voter models or majority-based quorum sensing, in all-to-all communication regimes.
  • A direct testable extension is to add packet-loss noise to the calibrated simulator; the paper's real data suggest this flips the u+ versus u- ordering and would let simulation match experiment.
  • Because P* was optimized for one fill ratio (0.48), re-optimizing for each swarm size or for f near 0.5 should close remaining accuracy gaps, an option the paper notes was computationally infeasible.
  • Soft feedback also functions as a privacy-preserving consensus mechanism: robots broadcast randomized messages that only statistically encode their beliefs, which could matter for distributed sensor networks with limited bandwidth.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper addresses a binary collective-perception task in a swarm of miniaturized vibration-sensing robots operating on a tiled surface. The robots use Bayesian inference on a Beta distribution over the fill ratio, and the paper proposes a third information-sharing strategy, soft feedback (us), in which each broadcast message is a random mixture of the robot's current observation and its belief-weighted decision. The authors calibrate a Webots simulation to their real robots using stochastic models of motor misalignment, battery drain, and sensing noise, optimize common algorithm parameters with a noise-resistant PSO, tune the soft-feedback parameters with a grid search, and compare us with no-feedback (u-) and positive-feedback (u+) strategies in simulation (100 runs per condition) and in real experiments with swarm sizes 5-10. The central claims are that soft feedback reduces decision time without reducing accuracy and that the optimized parameter set P* remains robust across floor patterns with different Moran indices and fill ratios.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to swarm robotics: a simple, communication-friendly feedback rule that accelerates Bayesian collective perception, supported by a calibrated physics-based simulation and by real-robot experiments across six swarm sizes. The strengths are the explicit calibration procedure with quantified cosine-similarity scores, the use of 100-run simulations with reported error bars, the noise-resistant PSO with staged re-evaluation, and the honest discussion of limitations, including the unmodeled packet loss and the single-pattern real-world validation. The paper does not overclaim theoretical novelty: it is an empirical optimization and validation study. Its significance is mainly as a demonstration that belief-dependent message randomization can speed up collective decisions in a realistic miniaturized-robot platform, and as a benchmark for future calibration-aware optimizations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 7.3, Figure 12; Section 7.4, Figure 15d; Section 8] The robustness claim for P* and the broad claim of consistent outperformance rest on a simulator that assumes reliable all-to-all communication, while the real system exhibits 0-7.5% packet loss that, by the authors' own report, reverses the relative decision-time ordering of u+ versus u- compared with simulation (Section 7.4 and Figure 14 versus Figure 11). Since soft feedback changes the message distribution (Eqs. 16-18), dropped messages alter the belief dynamics in a way the simulator does not capture; the Discussion concedes that the calibrated simulation did not account for network loss. The measured loss rates should be incorporated as a sensitivity analysis (for example, Bernoulli message dropping in simulation), or the robustness claims should be explicitly restricted to loss-free conditions.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (13); Table 1] The decision threshold pc is an input to the algorithm and a central control of the speed-accuracy trade-off, but its value is never reported and it is absent from the PSO bounds and from the parameter set P*. This prevents reproduction of the results and comparison with the baseline algorithm of Ebert et al. (2020). Please report the value used in all experiments and simulations and provide a sensitivity analysis, or justify fixing it to a conventional value.
  3. [Section 7.3] The complex-environment simulations change the tile grid from 5x5 (20 cm tiles) to a 10x10 grid (10 cm tiles, assuming that is the intended meaning of the '10 x 10cm grid') while keeping the optimized parameters P*, whose sampling interval tau = 3778 ms was described as approximately one 20-cm-tile travel distance. Because robot speed and collision-avoidance thresholds are unchanged, the same parameter values imply different tile-relative motion and different spatial correlation of samples; this confounds the comparison between P* and P0 in Figure 12. The authors should either rescale the motion and sampling parameters to preserve tile-relative behavior, or rerun the comparison on environments that do not change the calibration scale.
  4. [Section 7.1 and Section 7.4] Real-robot evidence covers only one 5x5 floor pattern at f=0.48, and the calibration metrics are about motion and sensing statistics (state times, sample distributions, inter-sample distances), not about predicted decision times or accuracies. Therefore the statement that experimental findings are in line with simulated findings is not quantitatively supported for the decision variables themselves. Please include a matched simulation-versus-experiment comparison of decision time and accuracy for at least one common condition, or explicitly relabel the real experiments as a qualitative demonstration rather than a quantitative validation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 7.3] The phrase 'the environment is reduced to a 10 x 10cm grid' is ambiguous; please clarify whether this is a 10x10 grid with 10 cm tiles or a 10 cm by 10 cm surface.
  2. [Section 7.1] The sentence 'The probability of FP and FN are roughly equal in simulation and experiments, measuring 13%' should state whether 13% is the false-positive rate, the false-negative rate, or their average. It would also be clearer to use 'rate' rather than 'probability' here.
  3. [Algorithm 2] The running RMS computation updates n before the summation, so with n=0 initially the first filtered sample is handled inconsistently; please fix the off-by-one in the index or initialize n=1.
  4. [Section 4.1, Eqs. (17) and (20)] The symbol Gamma is used for the variance of the Beta distribution in Eq. (17) and for the Gamma-distribution parameters in Eq. (20); using distinct notation, such as Var(Beta), would avoid confusion.
  5. [Figures 10, 11, 14, and 15] Because the central claim is 'consistently outperforms' and 'without compromising accuracy', the paper would benefit from reporting pairwise confidence intervals or significance tests on the decision-time and accuracy differences rather than only means and error bars.
  6. [Section 1] The text contains a typo, 'an binary inspection problem', which should read 'a binary inspection problem'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fitted parameters are optimized inputs, while the performance claims rest on simulation sweeps and real-robot comparisons that are not constructed to equal their inputs.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the Bayesian belief update (Eqs. 8-18) through the calibration and optimization pipeline (Eqs. 19-25) to the simulation and experimental evaluations. The soft feedback rule is defined directly as m ~ Bernoulli(delta*(1-p) + (1-delta)*O) with delta = exp(-eta*Gamma*|0.5-p|^kappa); it is not derived from the fitness function or from the performance claims, so it is not self-definitional. The PSO stage optimizes common algorithm parameters against a noise-resistant fitness on f=0.48 floors, but the paper does not relabel this fitted parameter set as a prediction; it is explicitly presented as an optimization result. The central claim that soft feedback reduces decision time is supported by randomized simulation comparisons across fill ratios, swarm sizes, and environment patterns, and by real experiments in which the three strategies ran concurrently on the same observations. The calibrated simulator is validated against real data with reported cosine similarities (Si = 0.89-0.98), which is external evidence rather than circular support. The self-citation to Siemensma et al. (2024) is disclosed as prior work that introduced soft feedback and the simulation framework, but the present paper re-establishes the comparative behavior through new simulation and experimental results rather than reducing the claim to that citation. The acknowledged limitations—single-layout calibration, unmodeled packet loss, and the reversal of u+/u- ordering in real experiments—are generalization and correctness concerns, not circularity. No step exhibits an equation that is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 15 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a set of parameters fitted either by the two-stage optimizer (PSO and grid search) or by empirical calibration to one hour of real-robot data; none of these are derived from theory. The algorithm uses a standard Beta-Bernoulli Bayesian update but treats messages as observations, an approximation that can bias estimates. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (15)
  • Cauchy move duration mode gamma0 = 7860 ms
    Optimized by PSO in Stage 1 for the no-feedback strategy; controls how long a robot walks before turning.
  • Cauchy move duration scale gamma = 10725 ms
    Optimized by PSO; controls the spread of walk durations.
  • Sampling interval tau = 3778 ms
    Optimized by PSO; sets time between vibration samples; roughly one tile travel distance.
  • Collision avoidance threshold theta_c = 55 mm
    Optimized by PSO; distance at which a robot starts avoidance.
  • Minimum posterior updates O_c = 381
    Optimized by PSO; minimum number of updates before a robot may decide.
  • Soft feedback weight parameter eta = 1500
    Selected by grid search in Stage 2; controls how quickly belief variance reduces the mixture weight.
  • Soft feedback confidence exponent kappa = 2
    Selected by grid search; controls sensitivity of the mixture weight to belief confidence.
  • Decision threshold p_c = not reported
    Used in Equation 13 and Algorithm 1; the paper never states its value or whether it was optimized.
  • Vibration RMS threshold theta_E = 1.55
    Calibrated from real floor data to separate vibrating from non-vibrating tiles in Algorithm 2.
  • Motor misalignment distribution md = U(-0.1,0.1)
    Fitted to real robot speed data; stochastically adjusts left and right motor speeds in simulation.
  • Speed difference distribution sd = Gamma(3.1,0.095)+0.8
    Fitted to real robot speed data; accounts for robot-to-robot speed variation.
  • Battery drop rate bd = 1 - t/(7*Tend)
    Fitted so voltage decays from 100% to 86%; reduces driving speed over time.
  • Vibrating tile RMS gamma distribution = Gamma(2.52,0.29)+0.14
    Fitted to real observations of vibrating tiles; used to simulate noisy RMS samples.
  • Non-vibrating tile RMS gamma distribution = Gamma(5.33,0.51)-0.20
    Fitted to real observations of non-vibrating tiles; note the shifted location.
  • Wrong-decision penalty in fitness = 5
    Hand-chosen constant in the PSO fitness function (Equation 23b); weights decision errors relative to normalized decision time.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Beta-Bernoulli conjugacy update is valid for combining observations and messages.
    Used in Equations 10 and 11 to update the posterior over the fill ratio f.
  • domain assumption Each observation O is drawn from a Bernoulli distribution with unknown success probability f.
    Equation 8 states this, but spatial correlation and collision avoidance make samples dependent, which the authors acknowledge in Section 7.3.
  • domain assumption Incoming messages can be treated like direct observations in the Beta update.
    Equation 11 updates Beta(alpha+m, beta+(1-m)); messages are constructed samples, not direct measurements, so this is an approximation inherited from Ebert et al.
  • domain assumption The Webots simulation, with added noise models, reproduces real robot behavior closely enough to optimize and evaluate algorithms.
    Sections 5.3 and 7.1; calibration relies on cosine similarity over five features, not on decision-time accuracy as the validation metric.
  • ad hoc to paper The random walk parameters and collision avoidance policy capture the real motion behavior.
    Section 4, Equations 6 and 7; these are modeling choices rather than derived from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimization of Collective Bayesian Decision-Making in a Swarm of Miniaturized Vibration-Sensing Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6BD4IOPW

@misc{pith2026241214646,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimization of Collective Bayesian Decision-Making in a Swarm of Miniaturized Vibration-Sensing Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6BD4IOPW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14646}
}
read the original abstract

Inspection of infrastructure using static sensor nodes has become a well established approach in recent decades. In this work, we present an experimental setup to address a binary inspection task using mobile sensor nodes. The objective is to identify the predominant tile type in a 1mx1m tiled surface composed of vibrating and non-vibrating tiles. A swarm of miniaturized robots, equipped with onboard IMUs for sensing and IR sensors for collision avoidance, performs the inspection. The decision-making approach leverages a Bayesian algorithm, updating robots' belief using inference. The original algorithm uses one of two information sharing strategies. We introduce a novel information sharing strategy, aiming to accelerate the decision-making. To optimize the algorithm parameters, we develop a simulation framework calibrated to our real-world setup in the high-fidelity Webots robotic simulator. We evaluate the three information sharing strategies through simulations and real-world experiments. Moreover, we test the effectiveness of our optimization by placing swarms with optimized and non-optimized parameters in increasingly complex environments with varied spatial correlation and fill ratios. Results show that our proposed information sharing strategy consistently outperforms previously established information-sharing strategies in decision time. Additionally, optimized parameters yield robust performance across different environments. Conversely, non-optimized parameters perform well in simpler scenarios but show reduced accuracy in complex settings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year eprint archive archivePrefix primaryClass adsurl adsnote version label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.sta...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or or or or FUNCTION n.separate 't := "" #0 'numnames := t empty not t #-1 #1 subs...

  3. [3]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year archivePrefix primaryClass adsurl adsnote version label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sent...

  4. [4]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION add.period duplicate empty 'skip "." * add.blank if FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or or or or FUNCTION ...

  5. [5]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION output.doi doi empty skip "doi:" doi * "" * output if FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "] " * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archive empty " https://arxiv.org/abs/" eprint * " " * " ...

  6. [6]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION string.to.integer 't := t text.length 'k := #1 'char.num := t char.num #1 substring 's := s is.num s "." = or char.num k = not and char.num #1 + 'char.num := while char.num #1 - 'char.num := t #1 char.num substring FUNCTION find.integer 't := #0 'int := int not t empty not and t #1 #1 substring 's :=...

  7. [7]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION string.to.integer 't := t text.length 'k := #1 'char.num := t char.num #1 substring 's := s is.num s "." = or char.num k = not and char.num #1 + 'char.num := while char.num #1 - 'char.num := t #1 char.num substring FUNCTION find.integer 't := #0 'int := int not t empty not and t #1 #1 substring 's :=...

  8. [8]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url doi volume year archivePrefix primaryClass eid adsurl adsnote version label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.sta...

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  2. [10]

    Available from:

    ENTRY address assignee author booktitle chapter cartographer day edition editor howpublished institution inventor journal key keywords month note number organization pages part publisher school series title type volume word year eprint doi url lastchecked updated archive archi...

  3. [11]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  4. [12]

    , Venkatesh, S

    Alanyali2004DistributedNetworks APACrefauthors Alanyali, M. , Venkatesh, S. , Savas, O. Aeron, S. APACrefauthors \ 2004 . Distributed bayesian hypothesis testing in sensor networks Distributed bayesian hypothesis testing in sensor networks . Proceedings of the American Control...

    2004

  5. [13]

    , Nardi, D

    Albani2017FieldSwarms APACrefauthors Albani, D. , Nardi, D. Trianni, V. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . Field Coverage and Weed Mapping by UAV Swarms . Field Coverage and Weed Mapping by UAV Swarms . APACrefURL http://laral.istc.cnr.it/saga APACrefURL

    2017

  6. [14]

    \ Cury, A

    Alves2023AnSelection APACrefauthors Alves, V. \ Cury, A. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . An automated vibration-based structural damage localization strategy using filter-type feature selection An automated vibration-based structural damage localization strategy using filter-type feat...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Amazon Monitron

    Amazon2024AmazonMonitron APACrefauthors Amazon APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Amazon Monitron . Amazon Monitron

    2024

  8. [16]

    \ Mostaghim, S

    Bartashevich2019BenchmarkingDecision-making APACrefauthors Bartashevich, P. \ Mostaghim, S. APACrefauthors \ 2019 1 . Benchmarking collective perception: New task difficulty metrics for collective decision-making Benchmarking collective perception: New task difficulty metrics ...

    2019

  9. [17]

    \ Mostaghim, S

    Bartashevich2019PositiveDecision-making APACrefauthors Bartashevich, P. \ Mostaghim, S. APACrefauthors \ 2019 2 . Positive impact of isomorphic changes in the environment on collective decision-making Positive impact of isomorphic changes in the environment on collective decis...

    2019

  10. [18]

    \ Mostaghim, S

    Bartashevich2021Multi-featuredCorrelations APACrefauthors Bartashevich, P. \ Mostaghim, S. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Multi-featured collective perception with Evidence Theory: tackling spatial correlations Multi-featured collective perception with Evidence Theory: tackling spati...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    , Ferrante, E

    Brambilla2013SwarmPerspective APACrefauthors Brambilla, M. , Ferrante, E. , Birattari, M. Dorigo, M. APACrefauthors \ 2013 . Swarm robotics: A review from the swarm engineering perspective Swarm robotics: A review from the swarm engineering perspective . Swarm Intelligence 7 1...

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    , Garibaldi, O

    Carbone2018SwarmAgriculture APACrefauthors Carbone, C. , Garibaldi, O. Kurt, Z. APACrefauthors \ 2018 . Swarm Robotics as a Solution to Crops Inspection for Precision Agriculture Swarm Robotics as a Solution to Crops Inspection for Precision Agriculture . KnE Engineering 3 2 5...

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    , Nagpal, R

    Chiu2024OptimizationOptimization APACrefauthors Chiu, D. , Nagpal, R. Haghighat, B. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Optimization and Evaluation of Multi Robot Surface Inspection Through Particle Swarm Optimization Optimization and Evaluation of Multi Robot Surface Inspection Through P...

    2024

  14. [22]

    \ Martinoli, A

    Correll2009MultirobotMachinery APACrefauthors Correll, N. \ Martinoli, A. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . Multirobot Inspection of Industrial Machinery Multirobot Inspection of Industrial Machinery . IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 16 1 103--112, APACrefDOI doi:10.1109/MRA.2008....

    2009

  15. [23]

    Cui2018AExcitation APACrefauthors Cui, H. , Xu, X. , Peng, W. , Zhou, Z. Hong, M. APACrefauthors \ 2018 . A damage detection method based on strain modes for structures under ambient excitation A damage detection method based on strain modes for structures under ambient excita...

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    , Kao, H.L.C

    Dementyev2016Rovables:Wearables APACrefauthors Dementyev, A. , Kao, H.L.C. , Choi, I. , Ajilo, D. , Xu, M. , Paradiso, J.A. Follmer, S. APACrefauthors \ 2016 . Rovables: Miniature on-body robots as mobile wearables Rovables: Miniature on-body robots as mobile wearables . UIST ...

    2016

  17. [25]

    , Farrar, C

    Doebling1996DamageReview APACrefauthors Doebling, S. , Farrar, C. , Prime, M. Shevitz, D. APACrefauthors \ 1996 . Damage identification and health monitoring of structural and mechanical systems from changes in their vibration characteristics: A literature review Damage identi...

    1996

  18. [26]

    , Theraulaz, G

    Dorigo2021SwarmView APACrefauthors Dorigo, M. , Theraulaz, G. Trianni, V. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Swarm Robotics: Past, Present, and Future [Point of View] Swarm Robotics: Past, Present, and Future [Point of View] . Proceedings of the IEEE 109 7 1152--1165, APACrefDOI doi:10.1...

    2021

  19. [27]

    , Costa, V

    Duarte2016EvolutionRobots APACrefauthors Duarte, M. , Costa, V. , Gomes, J. , Rodrigues, T. , Silva, F. , Oliveira, S.M. Christensen, A.L. APACrefauthors \ 2016 . Evolution of collective behaviors for a real swarm of aquatic surface robots Evolution of collective behaviors for...

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    , Gauci, M

    Ebert2020BayesSwarms APACrefauthors Ebert, J.T. , Gauci, M. , Mallmann-Trenn, F. Nagpal, R. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Bayes Bots: Collective Bayesian Decision-Making in Decentralized Robot Swarms Bayes Bots: Collective Bayesian Decision-Making in Decentralized Robot Swarms . IEE...

    2020

  21. [29]

    \ Worden, K

    Farrar2007AnMonitoring APACrefauthors Farrar, C.R. \ Worden, K. APACrefauthors \ 2007 . An introduction to structural health monitoring An introduction to structural health monitoring . Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering S...

    2007

  22. [30]

    Fluke 3561 FC Vibration Sensor and Fluke 3502 FC Gateway

    Fluke2024FlukeGateway APACrefauthors Fluke APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Fluke 3561 FC Vibration Sensor and Fluke 3502 FC Gateway . Fluke 3561 FC Vibration Sensor and Fluke 3502 FC Gateway

    2024

  23. [31]

    \ Birattari, M

    Francesca2016AutomaticChallenges APACrefauthors Francesca, G. \ Birattari, M. APACrefauthors \ 2016 . Automatic design of robot swarms: Achievements and challenges Automatic design of robot swarms: Achievements and challenges . Frontiers Robotics AI 3 , APACrefDOI doi:10.3389/...

    2016

  24. [32]

    , Pratt, S.C

    Franks2002InformationInsects APACrefauthors Franks, N.R. , Pratt, S.C. , Mallon, E.B. , Britton, N.F. Sumpter, D.J. APACrefauthors \ 2002 . Information flow, opinion polling and collective intelligence in house-hunting social insects Information flow, opinion polling and colle...

    2002

  25. [33]

    APACrefauthors \ 2022

    Gad2022ParticleReview APACrefauthors Gad, A.G. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm and Its Applications: A Systematic Review Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm and Its Applications: A Systematic Review . Archives of Computational Methods in Enginee...

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    , Noroozinejad Farsangi, E

    Gharehbaghi2022APerspectives APACrefauthors Gharehbaghi, V.R. , Noroozinejad Farsangi, E. , Noori, M. , Yang, T.Y. , Li, S. , Nguyen, A. Mirjalili, S. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . A Critical Review on Structural Health Monitoring: Definitions, Methods, and Perspectives A Critical R...

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    APACrefauthors \ 2009

    Guo2009Flexure-basedDetection APACrefauthors Guo, J. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . Flexure-based mechatronic mobile sensors for structure damage detection Flexure-based mechatronic mobile sensors for structure damage detection

    2009

  28. [36]

    , Boghaert, J

    Haghighat2022AnRobots APACrefauthors Haghighat, B. , Boghaert, J. , Minsky-Primus, Z. , Ebert, J. , Liu, F. , Nisser, M. Nagpal, R. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . An Approach Based on Particle Swarm Optimization for Inspection of Spacecraft Hulls by a Swarm of Miniaturized Robots An ...

    2022

  29. [37]

    \ Sienz, J

    Innocente2010CoefficientsGuidelines APACrefauthors Innocente, M.S. \ Sienz, J. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . Coefficients' Settings in Particle Swarm Optimization: Insight and Guidelines Coefficients' Settings in Particle Swarm Optimization: Insight and Guidelines . Mec \' a nica Co...

    2010

  30. [38]

    \ Hu, J.W

    Kaloop2015Stayed-CableMeasurements APACrefauthors Kaloop, M.R. \ Hu, J.W. APACrefauthors \ 2015 . Stayed-Cable Bridge Damage Detection and Localization Based on Accelerometer Health Monitoring Measurements Stayed-Cable Bridge Damage Detection and Localization Based on Accelero...

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    , Song, W

    Lee2023SurveyInspection APACrefauthors Lee, A.J. , Song, W. , Yu, B. , Choi, D. , Tirtawardhana, C. Myung, H. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Survey of robotics technologies for civil infrastructure inspection Survey of robotics technologies for civil infrastructure inspection . Journ...

    2023

  32. [40]

    , Hajj, M

    Liu2022ReviewTurbines APACrefauthors Liu, Y. , Hajj, M. Bao, Y. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Review of robot-based damage assessment for offshore wind turbines Review of robot-based damage assessment for offshore wind turbines . Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 158 , APACre...

    2022

  33. [41]

    , Peeters, B

    Maeck2001DamageMonitoring APACrefauthors Maeck, J. , Peeters, B. De Roeck, G. APACrefauthors \ 2001 . Damage identification on the Z24 bridge using vibration monitoring Damage identification on the Z24 bridge using vibration monitoring . Smart Materials and Structures 10 512--517,

    2001

  34. [42]

    , Nardi, D

    Magistri2019UsingSwarms APACrefauthors Magistri, F. , Nardi, D. Trianni, V. APACrefauthors \ 2019 . Using Prior Information to Improve Crop/Weed Classification by MAV Swarms Using Prior Information to Improve Crop/Weed Classification by MAV Swarms . 11th International Micro Ai...

    2019

  35. [43]

    \ Durrant-Whyte, H

    Makarenko2006DecentralizedNetworks APACrefauthors Makarenko, A. \ Durrant-Whyte, H. APACrefauthors \ 2006 . Decentralized Bayesian algorithms for active sensor networks Decentralized Bayesian algorithms for active sensor networks . Information Fusion 7 418--433, APACrefDOI doi...

    2006 doi

  36. [44]

    , Worden, K

    Manson2003ExperimentalWing APACrefauthors Manson, G. , Worden, K. Allman, D. APACrefauthors \ 2003 1 . Experimental validation of a structural health monitoring methodology: Part III. Damage location on an aircraft wing Experimental validation of a structural health monitoring...

    2003

  37. [45]

    , Worden, K

    Manson2003ExperimentalAircraft APACrefauthors Manson, G. , Worden, K. Allman, D. APACrefauthors \ 2003 2 . Experimental validation of a structural health monitoring methodology. Part II. Novelty detection on a Gnat aircraft Experimental validation of a structural health monito...

    2003

  38. [46]

    , Trianni, V

    Morlino2010CollectiveRobots APACrefauthors Morlino, G. , Trianni, V. Tuci, E. APACrefauthors \ 2010 . Collective Perception in a Swarm of Autonomous Robots Collective Perception in a Swarm of Autonomous Robots . ICEC 2010 - Proceedings of the International Conference on Evolut...

    2010

  39. [47]

    Mustapha2021SensorReview APACrefauthors Mustapha, S. , Lu, Y. , Ng, C.T. Malinowski, P. APACrefauthors \ 2021 9 . Sensor Networks for Structures Health Monitoring: Placement, Implementations, and Challenges—A Review Sensor Networks for Structures Health Monitoring: Placement, ...

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    , Harman, T.L

    Nguyen2019Swarmathon:Exploration APACrefauthors Nguyen, L.A. , Harman, T.L. Fairchild, C. APACrefauthors \ 2019 . Swarmathon: A Swarm Robotics Experiment for Future Space Exploration Swarmathon: A Swarm Robotics Experiment for Future Space Exploration . 2019 22nd IEEE Internat...

    2019

  41. [49]

    , Kennedy, J

    Poli2007ParticleOverview APACrefauthors Poli, R. , Kennedy, J. Blackwell, T. APACrefauthors \ 2007 . Particle swarm optimization: An overview Particle swarm optimization: An overview . Swarm Intelligence 1 1 33--57, APACrefDOI doi:10.1007/s11721-007-0002-0 APACrefDOI

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    APACrefauthors \ 1993

    Rytter1993VibrationalStructures APACrefauthors Rytter, A. APACrefauthors \ 1993 . \ Vibrational Based Inspection of Civil Engineering Structures Vibrational Based Inspection of Civil Engineering Structures \

    1993

  43. [51]

    \ Berns, K

    Schmidt2013ClimbingTechnologies APACrefauthors Schmidt, D. \ Berns, K. APACrefauthors \ 2013 . Climbing robots for maintenance and inspections of vertical structures - A survey of design aspects and technologies Climbing robots for maintenance and inspections of vertical struc...

    2013 doi

  44. [52]

    , Umlauft, M

    Schranz2020SwarmApplications APACrefauthors Schranz, M. , Umlauft, M. , Sende, M. Elmenreich, W. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Swarm Robotic Behaviors and Current Applications Swarm Robotic Behaviors and Current Applications . Frontiers in Robotics and AI 7 , APACrefDOI doi:10.3389/...

    2020

  45. [53]

    \ Mostaghim, S

    Shan2020CollectiveTesting APACrefauthors Shan, Q. \ Mostaghim, S. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Collective Decision Making in Swarm Robotics with Distributed Bayesian Hypothesis Testing Collective Decision Making in Swarm Robotics with Distributed Bayesian Hypothesis Testing . Lectu...

    2020

  46. [54]

    \ Mostaghim, S

    Shan2021DiscreteSharing APACrefauthors Shan, Q. \ Mostaghim, S. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . Discrete collective estimation in swarm robotics with distributed Bayesian belief sharing Discrete collective estimation in swarm robotics with distributed Bayesian belief sharing . Swarm I...

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    \ Eberhart, R.C

    Shi1998ParameterOptimization APACrefauthors Shi, Y. \ Eberhart, R.C. APACrefauthors \ 1998 . Parameter Selection in Particle Swarm Optimization Parameter Selection in Particle Swarm Optimization . Evolutionary Programming VII Evolutionary programming vii \ ( \ 591--600)

    1998

  48. [56]

    , Chiu, D

    Siemensma2024CollectiveInspection APACrefauthors Siemensma, T. , Chiu, D. , Ramshanker, S. , Nagpal, R. Haghighat, B. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Collective Bayesian Decision-Making in a Swarm of Miniaturized Robots for Surface Inspection Collective Bayesian Decision-Making in a S...

    2024

  49. [57]

    RF24Network

    TMRh202023RF24Network APACrefauthors TMRh20 APACrefauthors \ 2023 . RF24Network . RF24Network . https://nrf24.github.io/RF24Network/

    2023

  50. [58]

    , Brambilla, D

    Valentini2016CollectiveSwarm APACrefauthors Valentini, G. , Brambilla, D. , Hamann, H. Dorigo, M. APACrefauthors \ 2016 . Collective Perception of Environmental Features in a Robot Swarm Collective Perception of Environmental Features in a Robot Swarm . International conferenc...

    2016

  51. [59]

    , Ferrante, E

    Valentini2017ThePerspectives APACrefauthors Valentini, G. , Ferrante, E. Dorigo, M. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . The best-of-n problem in robot swarms: Formalization, state of the art, and novel perspectives The best-of-n problem in robot swarms: Formalization, state of the art, an...

    2017

  52. [60]

    , Hamann, H

    Valentini2014Self-organizedModel APACrefauthors Valentini, G. , Hamann, H. Dorigo, M. APACrefauthors \ 2014 . Self-organized Collective Decision Making: The Weighted Voter Model Self-organized Collective Decision Making: The Weighted Voter Model . 13th International Conference...

    2014

  53. [61]

    , Hamann, H

    Valentini2015EfficientTrade-Off APACrefauthors Valentini, G. , Hamann, H. Dorigo, M. APACrefauthors \ 2015 . Efficient Decision-Making in a Self-Organizing Robot Swarm: On the Speed Versus Accuracy Trade-Off Efficient Decision-Making in a Self-Organizing Robot Swarm: On the Sp...

    2015

  54. [62]

    , Manson, G

    Worden2003ExperimentalStructure APACrefauthors Worden, K. , Manson, G. Allman, D. APACrefauthors \ 2003 . Experimental validation of a structural health monitoring methodology: Part I. Novelty detection on a laboratory structure Experimental validation of a structural health m...

    2003

  55. [63]

    Zhu2009AMonitoring APACrefauthors Zhu, D. , Qi, Q. , Wang, Y. , Lee, K M. Foong, S. APACrefauthors \ 2009 . A prototype mobile sensor network for structural health monitoring A prototype mobile sensor network for structural health monitoring . Proceedings of the SPIE 7294 , AP...

    2009 doi

  56. [64]

    write newline

    " write newline " cite write " FUNCTION editor.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION editor.trans.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION trans.postfix translator num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION authors.editors.reflist.apa5 'field := 'dot :...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.