pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21686 · v1 · pith:S5AHLTMNnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 💻 cs.RO

Distributed Multi-Coverage for Robot Swarms

Mariem Guitouni , Aaron T. Becker This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 09:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords robot swarmsdistributed coveragemulti-coveragelocal sensinglocal communicationdrone surveillance
0
0 comments X

The pith

A distributed algorithm enables robot swarms to achieve multi-coverage of critical assets using only local sensing and communication.

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

The paper develops a method for robot swarms to ensure that important locations are observed by multiple robots at once. This matters because real missions like monitoring or inspection can suffer from robot breakdowns, and having redundancy helps the task continue. The approach avoids any central computer or full knowledge of the swarm, instead letting each robot decide based on what it sees and hears from its immediate neighbors. Sympathetic readers would value this for making swarm deployments more practical in uncertain environments.

Core claim

The authors present a distributed multicoverage algorithm that operates under local sensing, local communication, and no global coordination to provide varying levels of coverage redundancy for assets based on their importance.

What carries the argument

The distributed multicoverage algorithm that coordinates coverage through local interactions among robots.

If this is right

  • Coverage can continue despite individual robot failures without aborting the mission.
  • Computation and communication stay limited to local ranges, fitting onboard hardware constraints.
  • Assets can have different coverage requirements depending on their priority without needing a central optimizer.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar local-rule approaches might apply to other swarm tasks such as area exploration or object transport.
  • Real-world testing on physical drones could reveal how well the algorithm handles noise in sensing and communication.
  • Integration with path planning methods could allow the swarm to both cover and move between areas dynamically.

Load-bearing premise

That robots can achieve the required global coverage levels through decisions based solely on local information without any central oversight.

What would settle it

Running the algorithm in a simulation or real swarm and checking if every asset receives the specified number of observing robots; failure to do so for a significant fraction of assets would disprove the effectiveness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21686 by Aaron T. Becker, Mariem Guitouni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Multi-coverage enables fault tolerance: (a) single coverage (κ = 1) fails when a robot is lost, while (b) heterogeneous multi-coverage maintains monitoring of critical assets. Asset coverage requirements: • κ = 1, • κ = 2, • κ = 3, • indicates uncovered assets. Robot coverage disks: active robots, failed robots. (n = 20 assets, m = 8 robots in a 100 m × 100 m workspace.) centralized IP formulation generate… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Convergence behavior of the distributed algorithm showing the number of un￾dercovered/overcovered assets (left axis) and total coverage cost (right axis) across three phases. Inset visualizations show robot coverage disks (blue circles) centered at robot positions, with black dots representing asset locations that robots must cover. Phase 1 explores the workspace, Phase 2 ensures coverage requirements are … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of runtime, coverage cost (total area), and optimality gap between the optimal centralized solver [3] and the decentralized algorithm. Lines show median over 5 trials; shaded regions show min-max range. On all plots, lower is better. (Left) uni_sm: fixed m = 20, variable n (Right) uni_fix_n: fixed n = 250, variable m. Instance details are provided in the Experimental Setup. solution, solving a n… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of distributed vs. centralized approaches for dynamic asset ap￾pearance. The workspace contains 270 initial ANTS assets and 70 new 2026 assets (340 total), covered by 20 robots. Asset colors indicate coverage requirements: • κ = 1, • κ = 2, • κ = 3. Translucent blue disks show robot coverage regions. across instances. For new deployments: use hardware values for rcomm, rmax, and tune ϵ, τ . 6 Di… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sensitivity analysis showing coverage cost and runtime varying (a) maximum disk radius rmax and (b) communication radius rcomm. Lines show median over 10 trials on 10 problem instances; shaded regions show min-max range. Red shaded regions indicate parameter ranges where the algorithm fails to achieve coverage requirements (n = 200 assets, m = 50 robots in a 100 m × 100 m workspace, coverage requirements κ… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Autonomous drone swarms deployed for surveillance, environmental monitoring, and infrastructure inspection must maintain reliable coverage of critical assets despite robot failures. This requires multicoverage: each asset must be observed by multiple robots for redundancy, with coverage requirements varying by asset importance. While recent work has solved the centralized problem optimally using integer programming, practical deployments face constraints that demand distributed solutions: robots operate with limited communication ranges, onboard computation restricts global planning, and partial system failures must not cause mission abort. We present a distributed multicoverage algorithm for robot swarms operating with local sensing, local communication, and no global coordination.

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.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a distributed multicoverage algorithm for robot swarms that ensures each asset is observed by a required number of robots for redundancy. The approach operates using only local sensing, local communication, and no global coordination, addressing practical constraints such as limited communication ranges, onboard computation limits, and tolerance to partial robot failures.

Significance. If the algorithm and its local update rules are correct as presented, this would be a useful contribution to swarm robotics by providing a decentralized method for fault-tolerant multi-coverage that scales without centralized planning, directly supporting applications in surveillance and monitoring where global coordination is infeasible.

minor comments (3)
  1. [Algorithm] The description of the local update rules in the algorithm section would benefit from pseudocode or a step-by-step breakdown to improve clarity and reproducibility.
  2. [Evaluation] Simulation results should include quantitative metrics such as convergence time and coverage ratio under varying failure rates to strengthen the validation of the failure-handling logic.
  3. [Related Work] A brief comparison table with the centralized integer programming baseline would help contextualize the performance trade-offs of the distributed approach.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of our work and for recommending minor revision. We appreciate the recognition of the practical constraints addressed by our distributed multicoverage approach.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The manuscript presents a distributed multicoverage algorithm for robot swarms using local sensing and communication rules. No equations, predictions, or first-principles derivations appear that reduce to fitted inputs or self-citations by construction. The central claim is the direct description of the algorithm and its failure-handling logic, which is self-contained without invoking uniqueness theorems or renaming known results. Independent support exists in the local update rules described.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be identified because only the abstract is available.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5616 in / 1061 out tokens · 39467 ms · 2026-05-22T09:24:29.232726+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Access10, 121301–121317 (2022)

    Chen, X., Hopkins, B., Wang, H., O’Neill, L., Afghah, F., Razi, A., Fulé, P., Coen, J., Rowell, E., Watts, A.: Wildland fire detection and monitoring using a drone-collected RGB/IR image dataset. IEEE Access10, 121301–121317 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3222805

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2022.3222805 2022

  2. [2]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation20(2), 243–255 (2004)

    Cortés, J., Martínez, S., Karatas, T., Bullo, F.: Coverage control for mobile sensing networks. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation20(2), 243–255 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/TRA.2004.824698

    work page doi:10.1109/tra.2004.824698 2004

  3. [3]

    In: 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp

    Guitouni, M., Loi, C.M., Fekete, S.P., Perk, M., Becker, A.T.: Multi-covering a point set bymdisks with minimum total area. 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Atlanta, GA, USA, pp. 3000-3006 (2025), doi:10.1109/ICRA55743.2025.11127835

    work page doi:10.1109/icra55743.2025.11127835 2025

  4. [4]

    Mobile Networks and Applications10(4), 519–528 (2005)

    Huang, C.F., Tseng, Y.C.: The coverage problem in a wireless sen- sor network. Mobile Networks and Applications10(4), 519–528 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-005-1564-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s11036-005-1564-y 2005

  5. [5]

    Drones3(1) (2019)

    Khan, M.A., Qureshi, I.M., Khanzada, F.: A hybrid communication scheme for efficient and low-cost deployment of future flying ad-hoc network (FANET). Drones3(1) (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/drones3010016,https://www.mdpi. com/2504-446X/3/1/16

    work page doi:10.3390/drones3010016 2019

  6. [6]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics31(2), 489–493 (2015)

    Lee, S.K., Diaz-Mercado, Y., Egerstedt, M.: Multirobot control using time- varying density functions. IEEE Transactions on Robotics31(2), 489–493 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2015.2397771

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2015.2397771 2015

  7. [7]

    Least squares quantization in

    Lloyd, S.: Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory28(2), 129–137 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1982.1056489

    work page doi:10.1109/tit.1982.1056489 1982

  8. [8]

    Scientific Reports15(1), 29052 (2025)

    Priyadarshi, R.: Efficient node deployment for enhancing coverage and connectivity in wireless sensor networks. Scientific Reports15(1), 29052 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-14252-0,https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-025-14252-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-14252-0 2025

  9. [9]

    In: 2025 IEEE 21st International Conference on Automation Science and Engineer- ing (CASE)

    Shahsavar, M., Rajasekaran, S., Kabin, R., Yannuzzi, M., Becker, A.T.: Tracking multiple moving assets with a smaller group of drones. In: 2025 IEEE 21st International Conference on Automation Science and Engineer- ing (CASE). pp. 171–178. IEEE, Los Angeles, CA, USA (August 2025). https://doi.org/10.1109/CASE58245.2025.11164124

    work page doi:10.1109/case58245.2025.11164124 2025

  10. [10]

    In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC)

    Slijepcevic, S., Potkonjak, M.: Power efficient organization of wireless sensor net- works. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). vol. 2, pp. 472–476. IEEE (2001). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICC.2001.936985

    work page doi:10.1109/icc.2001.936985 2001

  11. [11]

    New Results and New Trends in Computer Science (1991)

    Welzl, E.: Smallest enclosing disks (balls and ellipsoids). New Results and New Trends in Computer Science (1991). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0038202

    work page doi:10.1007/bfb0038202 1991

  12. [12]

    Civil Engineering Mag- azine87(6), 42–45 (2017)

    Witcher, T.: An icon at 80: The golden gate bridge. Civil Engineering Mag- azine87(6), 42–45 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1061/ciegag.0001205,https:// ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/ciegag.0001205

    work page doi:10.1061/ciegag.0001205 2017

  13. [13]

    IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters2(2), 1047–1054 (2017)

    Zhou, D., Wang, Z., Bandyopadhyay, S., Schwager, M.: Fast, on-line collision avoid- ance for dynamic vehicles using buffered voronoi cells. IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters2(2), 1047–1054 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2017.2656241

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2017.2656241 2017

  14. [14]

    Applied Sciences14(5), 1722 (2024)

    Zhou, J., Deng, H., Zhao, Z., Zou, Y., Wang, X.: Sensor placement optimization of visual sensor networks for target tracking based on multi-objective constraints. Applied Sciences14(5), 1722 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051722

    work page doi:10.3390/app14051722 2024