Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Derek B. Kingston

dblp:41/6176 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
0000-0003-0169-6970ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 1 first-authorSoftware engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1Theory of computation · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
3 papers
Multi-agent systems · 56% Reinforcement learning · 18% Motion planning and robot control · 13%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Automated reasoning and model checking · 100%

Topics — the 8 heaviest of 9, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking
0.412019
When Human Intuition Fails: Using Formal Methods to Find an Error in the "Proof" of a Multi-agent Protocol · CAV (1) 2019
Machine learning › Reinforcement learning
exploration
0.112008
Decentralized Perimeter Surveillance Using a Team of UAVs · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2008
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems › multi-robot systems
multi-robot surveillance
0.112008
Decentralized Perimeter Surveillance Using a Team of UAVs · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2008
Robotics › Legged, aerial and field robots
aerial robots
0.112006
Decentralized Cooperative Aerial Surveillance Using Fixed-Wing Miniature UAVs · Proc. IEEE 2006
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › multi-robot control
decentralized cooperative control
0.112006
Decentralized Cooperative Aerial Surveillance Using Fixed-Wing Miniature UAVs · Proc. IEEE 2006
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems
multi-robot coordination
0.112006
Decentralized Cooperative Aerial Surveillance Using Fixed-Wing Miniature UAVs · Proc. IEEE 2006
Vehicular, aerial and satellite networks
unmanned aerial vehicles
0.012008
Decentralized Perimeter Surveillance Using a Team of UAVs · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2008
Distributed systems
consensus
0.012006
Decentralized Cooperative Aerial Surveillance Using Fixed-Wing Miniature UAVs · Proc. IEEE 2006

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

decentralized coordination · 0.2cooperative control · 0.1consensus algorithm · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 When Human Intuition Fails: Using Formal Methods to Find an Error in the "Proof" of a Multi-agent Protocol
abstract
Designing protocols for multi-agent interaction that achieve the desired behavior is a challenging and error-prone process. The standard practice is to manually develop proofs of protocol correctness that rely on human intuition and require significant effort to develop. Even then, proofs can have mistakes that may go unnoticed after peer review, modeling and simulation, and testing. The use of formal methods can reduce the potential for such errors. In this paper, we discuss our experience applying model checking to a previously published multi-agent protocol for unmanned air vehicles. The original publication provides a compelling proof of correctness, along with extensive simulation results to support it. However, analysis through model checking found an error in one of the proof’s main lemmas. In this paper, we start by providing an overview of the protocol and its original “proof” of correctness, which represents the standard practice in multi-agent protocol design. We then describe how we modeled the protocol for a three-vehicle system in a model checker, the counterexample it returned, and the insight this counterexample provided. We also discuss benefits, limitations, and lessons learned from this exercise, as well as what future efforts would be needed to fully verify the protocol for an arbitrary number of vehicles.
Jennifer A. Davis, Laura R. Humphrey, Derek B. Kingston
CAV (1)3
2008 Decentralized Perimeter Surveillance Using a Team of UAVs
abstract
This paper poses the cooperative perimeter-surveillance problem and offers a decentralized solution that accounts for perimeter growth (expanding or contracting) and insertion/deletion of team members. By identifying and sharing the critical coordination information and by exploiting the known communication topology, only a small communication range is required for accurate performance. Simulation and hardware results are presented that demonstrate the applicability of the solution.
Derek B. Kingston, Randal W. Beard, Ryan S. Holt
IEEE Trans. Robotics1
2006 Decentralized Cooperative Aerial Surveillance Using Fixed-Wing Miniature UAVs
abstract
Numerous applications require aerial surveillance. Civilian applications include monitoring forest fires, oil fields, and pipelines and tracking wildlife. Applications to homeland security include border patrol and monitoring the perimeter of nuclear power plants. Military applications are numerous. The current approach to these applications is to use a single manned vehicle for surveillance. However, manned vehicles are typically large and expensive. In addition, hazardous environments and operator fatigue can potentially threaten the life of the pilot. Therefore, there is a critical need for automating aerial surveillance using unmanned air vehicles (UAVs). This paper gives an overview of a cooperative control strategy for aerial surveillance that has been successfully flight tested on small (48-in wingspan) UAVs. Our approach to cooperative control problems can be summarized in four steps: 1) the definition of a cooperation constraint and cooperation objective; 2) the definition of a coordination variable as the minimal amount of information needed to effect cooperation; 3) the design of a centralized cooperation strategy; and 4) the use of consensus schemes to transform the centralized strategy into a decentralized algorithm. The effectiveness of the solution will be shown using both high-fidelity simulation and actual flight tests
Randal W. Beard, Timothy W. McLain, Derek B. Nelson, Derek B. Kingston, David Johanson
Proc. IEEE4