arxiv: 2604.03997 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-05 · 💻 cs.DC · cs.MA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Ledger-State Stigmergy: A Formal Framework for Indirect Coordination Grounded in Distributed Ledger State

Fernando Paredes Garc\'ia

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 17:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC cs.MA

keywords stigmergydistributed ledgersindirect coordinationblockchain agentsshared statestate transitionsdecentralized coordinationautonomous agents

0 comments

The pith

Distributed ledgers enable indirect coordination among autonomous agents by serving as a shared environment for state-based traces.

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

The paper maps Grassé's 1959 stigmergy mechanism, in which agents coordinate by modifying a shared environment without direct messages, onto the replicated state of distributed ledgers. Autonomous on-chain agents already read balances, contract storage, and event logs to trigger actions, treating the ledger as the medium for indirect traces. The contribution supplies a ledger-specific definition, a state-transition formalism, three recurring patterns, and a worked example that compares this approach to off-chain messaging and centralized methods. A reader would care because it gives a reusable vocabulary and design guidance for coordination in decentralized systems where direct communication is impractical or undesirable.

Core claim

Indirect coordination grounded in ledger state is defined as a ledger-specific applied version of stigmergy that maps the original biological mechanism onto distributed ledger technology. The definition is operationalized through a state-transition formalism that identifies three base coordination patterns—State-Flag, Event-Signal, and Threshold-Trigger—together with a Commit-Reveal sequencing overlay. A State-Flag task-board example demonstrates how ledger-state coordination differs analytically from off-chain messaging and centralized orchestration.

What carries the argument

Indirect coordination grounded in ledger state, which treats ledger data as the shared environment in which agents leave and read traces to trigger one another's actions without direct messaging.

Load-bearing premise

The stigmergy mechanism from biology transfers to ledger state with only minor adaptation and keeps its coordination properties intact in a replicated digital environment.

What would settle it

A controlled simulation in which agents using only ledger-state reads and writes fail to achieve the same level of synchronized behavior that the same agents achieve when allowed direct message exchange.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03997 by Fernando Paredes Garc\'ia.

read the original abstract

Autonomous software agents on blockchains solve distributed-coordination problems by reading shared ledger state instead of exchanging direct messages. Liquidation keepers, arbitrage bots, and other autonomous on-chain agents watch balances, contract storage, and event logs; when conditions change, they act. The ledger therefore functions as a replicated shared-state medium through which decentralized agents coordinate indirectly. This form of indirect coordination mirrors what Grass\'e called stigmergy in 1959: organisms coordinating through traces left in a shared environment, with no central plan. Stigmergy has mature formalizations in swarm intelligence and multi-agent systems, and on-chain agents already behave stigmergically in practice, but no prior application-layer framework cleanly bridges the two. We introduce Indirect coordination grounded in ledger state (Coordinaci\'on indirecta basada en el estado del registro contable) as a ledger-specific applied definition that maps Grass\'e's mechanism onto distributed ledger technology. We operationalize this with a state-transition formalism, identify three recurring base on-chain coordination patterns (State-Flag, Event-Signal, Threshold- Trigger) together with a Commit-Reveal sequencing overlay, and work through a State-Flag task-board example to compare ledger-state coordination analytically with off-chain messaging and centralized orchestration. The contribution is a reusable vocabulary, a ledger-specific formal mapping, and design guidance for decentralized coordination over replicated shared state at the application layer.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a usable vocabulary for on-chain indirect coordination by mapping stigmergy to ledger state and naming three patterns, but the state-transition formalism stops short of showing that the key properties survive consensus and discreteness.

read the letter

The main thing here is a clean applied definition of ledger-state stigmergy plus three base patterns (State-Flag, Event-Signal, Threshold-Trigger) and a Commit-Reveal overlay. The authors take Grassé's 1959 idea of coordination through environmental traces and recast it for replicated ledger state that agents read instead of messaging directly. They supply a state-transition formalism and walk through a State-Flag task-board example that contrasts this approach with off-chain messaging and centralized orchestration. That example is the most concrete part and shows how the patterns could guide design in practice for keepers, bots, or DAO agents. The contribution is mostly organizational: it turns existing on-chain behavior into named, reusable constructs at the application layer without changing the underlying protocol. This is useful for people who already build these systems and want a shared language. The soft spot is that the formalism does not include an invariant or theorem establishing that indirectness and emergence are preserved once state changes are restricted to atomic, validated transactions under eventual consistency. In the biological case traces are local and continuous; on-chain they are global, discrete, and gated by rules. Without that preservation argument the mapping stays closer to a useful analogy than a demonstrated equivalence. The paper is aimed at researchers and developers working on multi-agent coordination over blockchains, especially in DeFi and DAO settings. It is worth sending to peer review because the patterns and example are concrete enough to be tested and extended, even if the formal bridge needs more work to hold up under scrutiny.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Ledger-State Stigmergy as a ledger-specific applied definition that maps Grassé's 1959 stigmergy mechanism to distributed ledger technology. It supplies a state-transition formalism for indirect coordination via shared ledger state, identifies three recurring on-chain patterns (State-Flag, Event-Signal, Threshold-Trigger) plus a Commit-Reveal overlay, and analyzes a State-Flag task-board example to compare ledger-state coordination against off-chain messaging and centralized orchestration.

Significance. If the mapping is shown to preserve stigmergic properties under ledger constraints, the framework could supply a reusable vocabulary and design guidance for decentralized autonomous agents, bridging swarm-intelligence formalisms with blockchain application-layer coordination.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (state-transition formalism): the rules map environmental traces to ledger entries but supply no invariant, theorem, or preservation argument showing that indirectness and emergence survive the shift to atomic, validated, globally visible transactions under eventual consistency. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the biological mechanism transfers with only minor adaptation.
[§5] §5 (State-Flag task-board example): the analytical comparison with off-chain messaging and centralized orchestration is qualitative only; no formal equivalence relation, simulation, or metric (e.g., message complexity, latency bounds) is given to substantiate the claimed advantages.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the Spanish phrase appears abruptly; either translate consistently throughout or move it to a footnote.
[§3] Notation: define all symbols in the state-transition formalism at first use and ensure the Commit-Reveal overlay is cross-referenced to the three base patterns.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments that highlight opportunities to strengthen the formal grounding and comparative analysis of the ledger-state stigmergy framework. We address each major point below and indicate the revisions we will incorporate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (state-transition formalism): the rules map environmental traces to ledger entries but supply no invariant, theorem, or preservation argument showing that indirectness and emergence survive the shift to atomic, validated, globally visible transactions under eventual consistency. This is load-bearing for the central claim that the biological mechanism transfers with only minor adaptation.

Authors: We agree that an explicit preservation argument is needed to substantiate the transfer of stigmergic properties. In the revised manuscript we will extend §3 with a new subsection that defines an invariant (coordination is indirect precisely when every agent action is triggered solely by reads of the replicated ledger state, with no direct inter-agent messages) and proves by induction over state transitions that the invariant is maintained under atomic ledger updates and eventual consistency. This establishes that indirectness and emergence are preserved, directly addressing the load-bearing claim. revision: yes
Referee: [§5] §5 (State-Flag task-board example): the analytical comparison with off-chain messaging and centralized orchestration is qualitative only; no formal equivalence relation, simulation, or metric (e.g., message complexity, latency bounds) is given to substantiate the claimed advantages.

Authors: The comparison in §5 is intentionally analytical to illustrate conceptual distinctions in coordination style. We accept that quantitative grounding would improve substantiation. In revision we will add a concise subsection supplying asymptotic message-complexity and latency bounds for the three modes under standard distributed-systems models (ledger reads remain O(1) per agent while direct messaging scales linearly). A full simulation remains outside the paper’s scope, but the added analytic metrics will make the advantages more precise. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: framework is an explicit applied definition grounded in external reference

full rationale

The paper defines 'Indirect coordination grounded in ledger state' explicitly as a ledger-specific mapping of Grassé's 1959 stigmergy mechanism onto distributed ledger technology. It supplies a state-transition formalism, three base patterns (State-Flag, Event-Signal, Threshold-Trigger), and a Commit-Reveal overlay as operationalizations of that definition. No equations, predictions, or first-principles results are shown to reduce to the inputs by construction; the central claim is presented as a definitional bridge rather than a derived theorem. The mapping cites an external source (Grassé 1959) with no self-citation load-bearing the argument. The contribution is therefore a reusable vocabulary and design guidance whose content does not collapse into tautology or fitted renaming.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the transferability of stigmergy and the identification of three patterns as recurring; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Grassé's stigmergy mechanism can be mapped onto distributed ledger state without loss of essential coordination properties
Invoked when defining ledger-state stigmergy as the applied mapping.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5556 in / 1279 out tokens · 43741 ms · 2026-05-13T17:19:12.976112+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Definition 1 (Ledger-State Stigmergy). A ledger-state stigmergic system is a tuple ⟨S,A,I,{Vi}i∈I,δ,{Oi}i∈I,{Pi}i∈I⟩ … δ:S×A→S … Pi:Vi→{0,1}
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Pattern 1: State-Flag … activation predicate Pi(St)≡(flag=OPEN)∧(agenti.capable=true)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

[1]

La reconstruction du nid et les coordinations interindividuelles chez Bellicositermes natalensis et Cubitermes sp. La théorie de la stigmergie,

P.-P. Grassé, “La reconstruction du nid et les coordinations interindividuelles chez Bellicositermes natalensis et Cubitermes sp. La théorie de la stigmergie,”Insectes Sociaux, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 41–80,

work page
[2]

doi:10.1007/BF02223791

work page doi:10.1007/bf02223791
[3]

A brief history of stigmergy,

G. Theraulaz and E. Bonabeau, “A brief history of stigmergy,”Artificial Life, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 97– 116, 1999. doi:10.1162/106454699568700

work page doi:10.1162/106454699568700 1999
[4]

Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents,

M. Dorigo, V. Maniezzo, and A. Colorni, “Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents,”IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern.—Part B, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 29–41, 1996. doi:10.1109/ 3477.484436

work page arXiv 1996
[5]

Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice: evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms , isbn =

E. Bonabeau, M. Dorigo, and G. Theraulaz,Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems. Oxford Univ. Press, 1999. doi:10.1093/oso/9780195131581.001.0001

work page doi:10.1093/oso/9780195131581.001.0001 1999
[6]

Dorigo and T

M. Dorigo and T. Stützle,Ant Colony Optimization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004

work page 2004
[7]

Stigmergy as a universal coordination mechanism I: Definition and components,

F. Heylighen, “Stigmergy as a universal coordination mechanism I: Definition and components,” Cognitive Systems Research, vol. 38, pp. 4–13, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.12.002

work page doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.12.002 2016
[8]

Stigmergy as a universal coordination mechanism II: Varieties and evolution,

F. Heylighen, “Stigmergy as a universal coordination mechanism II: Varieties and evolution,”Cog- nitive Systems Research, vol. 38, pp. 50–59, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.12.007

work page doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.12.007 2016
[9]

Digitalpheromonesforcoordinationofunmanned vehicles,

H.V.D.Parunak, S.A.Brueckner, andJ.Sauter, “Digitalpheromonesforcoordinationofunmanned vehicles,” inEnvironments for Multi-Agent Systems (E4MAS 2004), LNCS 3374. Springer, 2005, pp. 246–263. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-32259-7_13

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-32259-7_13 2004
[10]

Stigmergic coordination in FLOSS development teams: Integrating explicit and implicit mechanisms,

F. Bolici, J. Howison, and K. Crowston, “Stigmergic coordination in FLOSS development teams: Integrating explicit and implicit mechanisms,”Cognitive Systems Research, vol. 38, pp. 14–22, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.12.003

work page doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2015.12.003 2016
[11]

Stigmergic collaboration: The evolution of group work,

M. Elliott, “Stigmergic collaboration: The evolution of group work,”M/C Journal, vol. 9, no. 2, 2006

work page 2006
[12]

Generative communication in Linda,

D. Gelernter, “Generative communication in Linda,”ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 80–112, 1985. doi:10.1145/2363.2433

work page doi:10.1145/2363.2433 1985
[13]

Coordination languages and their significance,

D. Gelernter and N. Carriero, “Coordination languages and their significance,”Commun. ACM, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 97–107, 1992. doi:10.1145/129630.129635

work page doi:10.1145/129630.129635 1992
[14]

The interdisciplinary study of coordination,

T. W. Malone and K. Crowston, “The interdisciplinary study of coordination,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 87–119, 1994. doi:10.1145/174666.174668

work page doi:10.1145/174666.174668 1994
[15]

Environment as a first class abstraction in multia- gent systems,

D. Weyns, A. Omicini, and J. Odell, “Environment as a first class abstraction in multia- gent systems,”Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 5–30, 2007. doi:10.1007/s10458-006-0012-0

work page doi:10.1007/s10458-006-0012-0 2007
[16]

Coordination artifacts: Environment-based coordination for intelligent agents,

A. Omicini, A. Ricci, M. Viroli, C. Castelfranchi, and L. Tummolini, “Coordination artifacts: Environment-based coordination for intelligent agents,” inProc. AAMAS 2004, vol. 1, pp. 286– 293

work page 2004
[17]

Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,

S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” 2008. [Online]. Available:https: //bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

work page 2008
[18]

Ethereum: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform,

V. Buterin, “Ethereum: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform,” Ethereum Whitepaper, 2014. [Online]. Available:https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/

work page 2014
[19]

Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger,

G. Wood, “Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger,” Ethereum Yellow Paper, 2014. [Online]. Available:https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf

work page 2014
[20]

Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks,

N. Szabo, “Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks,”First Monday, vol. 2, no. 9,

work page
[21]

doi:10.5210/fm.v2i9.548 13

work page doi:10.5210/fm.v2i9.548
[22]

Decentralized autonomous organization,

S. Hassan and P. De Filippi, “Decentralized autonomous organization,”Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, no. 2, 2021. doi:10.14763/2021.2.1556

work page doi:10.14763/2021.2.1556 2021
[23]

Blockchain governance—A new way of organizing collab- orations?

F. Lumineau, W. Wang, and O. Schilke, “Blockchain governance—A new way of organizing collab- orations?”Organization Science, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 500–521, 2021. doi:10.1287/orsc.2020.1379

work page doi:10.1287/orsc.2020.1379 2021
[24]

Proof of work is a stigmergic consensus algorithm: Unlocking its potential,

Ö. Gürcan, “Proof of work is a stigmergic consensus algorithm: Unlocking its potential,”IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 21–32, 2022. doi:10.1109/MRA.2022.3165183

work page doi:10.1109/mra.2022.3165183 2022
[25]

Proof-of-work as a stigmergic consensus algorithm,

Ö. Gürcan, “Proof-of-work as a stigmergic consensus algorithm,” inProc. AAMAS 2022, pp. 1613– 1615 (Extended Abstract)

work page 2022
[26]

Blockchain, bitcoin and stigmergy: An explanation and a new perspective for regula- tion,

S. Capaccioli, “Blockchain, bitcoin and stigmergy: An explanation and a new perspective for regula- tion,” SSRN Working Paper, 2020. [Online]. Available:https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=3645044

work page 2020
[27]

Collective digital factories for buildings: Stigmergic col- laboration through cryptoeconomics,

T. Dounas, D. Lombardi, and W. Jabi, “Collective digital factories for buildings: Stigmergic col- laboration through cryptoeconomics,” inBlockchain for Construction. Singapore: Springer, 2022, pp. 207–228. doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3759-0_11

work page doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3759-0_11 2022
[28]

In: 2020 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), IEEE, pp 791–809, https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40000.2020.00076

P. Daian, S. Goldfeder, T. Kell, Y. Li, X. Zhao, I. Bentov, L. Breidenbach, and A. Juels, “Flash boys 2.0: Frontrunning in decentralized exchanges, miner extractable value, and consensus instability,” in2020 IEEE Symp. Security and Privacy (S&P), pp. 910–927. doi:10.1109/SP40000.2020.00040

work page doi:10.1109/sp40000.2020.00040 2020
[29]

Order-fairness for Byzantine consensus,

M. Kelkar, F. Zhang, S. Goldfeder, and A. Juels, “Order-fairness for Byzantine consensus,” in CRYPTO 2020, LNCS 12172. Springer, 2020, pp. 451–480. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56877-1_16

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-56877-1_16 2020
[30]

Making smart contracts smarter,

L. Luu, D.-H. Chu, H. Olickel, P. Saxena, and A. Hobor, “Making smart contracts smarter,” in Proc. ACM CCS ’16, 2016, pp. 254–269. doi:10.1145/2976749.2978309

work page doi:10.1145/2976749.2978309 2016
[31]

Practical Byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery,

M. Castro and B. Liskov, “Practical Byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery,”ACM Trans. Comput. Syst., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 398–461, 2002. doi:10.1145/571637.571640

work page doi:10.1145/571637.571640 2002
[32]

The Bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and ap- plications,

J. A. Garay, A. Kiayias, and N. Leonardos, “The Bitcoin backbone protocol: Analysis and ap- plications,” inEUROCRYPT 2015, LNCS 9057. Springer, 2015, pp. 281–310. doi:10.1007/ 978-3-662-46803-6_10

work page 2015
[33]

A survey of smart contract formal specification and verification,

P. Tolmach, Y. Li, S.-W. Lin, Y. Liu, and Z. Li, “A survey of smart contract formal specification and verification,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 54, no. 7, Art. 148, 2022. doi:10.1145/3464421

work page doi:10.1145/3464421 2022
[34]

Stigmergy in Wikipedia,

X. Zheng, J. Xu, and G. Peng, “Stigmergy in Wikipedia,”Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 40, no. 3, 2023. doi:10.1080/07421222.2023.2229119

work page doi:10.1080/07421222.2023.2229119 2023
[35]

Blockchain disruption and smart contracts,

L. W. Cong and Z. He, “Blockchain disruption and smart contracts,”Review of Financial Studies, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1754–1797, 2019. doi:10.1093/rfs/hhz007

work page doi:10.1093/rfs/hhz007 2019
[36]

A blockchain-controlled physical robot swarm communi- cating via an ad-hoc network,

A. Pacheco, V. Strobel, and M. Dorigo, “A blockchain-controlled physical robot swarm communi- cating via an ad-hoc network,” inSwarm Intelligence: 12th International Conference, ANTS 2020, LNCS 12421. Springer, 2020, pp. 3–15. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-60376-2_1

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-60376-2_1 2020
[37]

Real-time coordination of a foraging robot swarm using blockchain smart contracts,

A. Pacheco, V. Strobel, and M. Dorigo, “Real-time coordination of a foraging robot swarm using blockchain smart contracts,” inSwarm Intelligence: 13th International Conference, ANTS 2022, LNCS 13491. Springer, 2022, pp. 196–208. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-20176-9_16

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-20176-9_16 2022
[38]

Axiomatic shared-medium coordination for stigmergic systems,

F. Paredes García, “Axiomatic shared-medium coordination for stigmergic systems,” Zenodo Preprint, 2026. doi:10.5281/zenodo.19199497

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.19199497 2026
[39]

Commitment against front-running attacks,

A. Canidio and V. Danos, “Commitment against front-running attacks,”Management Science, vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 4429–4440, 2024. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2023.01239

work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2023.01239 2024
[40]

Maximal extractable value and allocative inefficiencies in public blockchains,

A. Capponi, R. Jia, and K. Y. Wang, “Maximal extractable value and allocative inefficiencies in public blockchains,”J. Financ. Econ., vol. 172, Art. 104132, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2025. 104132 14

work page doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2025 2025
[41]

Who wins Ethereum block building auctions and why?

B. Öz, D. Sui, T. Thiery, and F. Matthes, “Who wins Ethereum block building auctions and why?” in6th Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies (AFT 2024), LIPIcs 316. Dagstuhl, 2024, Art. 22. doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.AFT.2024.22

work page doi:10.4230/lipics.aft.2024.22 2024
[42]

A blockchain-based information market to incentivise cooperation in swarms of self-interested robots,

L. Van Calcket al., “A blockchain-based information market to incentivise cooperation in swarms of self-interested robots,”Scientific Reports, vol. 13, Art. 18028, 2023. doi:10.1038/ s41598-023-46238-1

work page 2023
[43]

Blockchain and emerging distributed ledger technologies for decentralized multi-robot systems: A survey,

J. P. Queraltaet al., “Blockchain and emerging distributed ledger technologies for decentralized multi-robot systems: A survey,”Current Robotics Reports, vol. 4, pp. 43–54, 2023. doi:10.1007/ s43154-023-00101-3

work page 2023
[44]

Secure and efficient stigmergy-empowered blockchain framework for heterogeneous collaborative services in the Internet of Vehicles,

Y. Liuet al., “Secure and efficient stigmergy-empowered blockchain framework for heterogeneous collaborative services in the Internet of Vehicles,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 186–192, 2023. doi:10.1109/MCOM.008.2200542 15

work page doi:10.1109/mcom.008.2200542 2023