Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Derek B. Kingston
dblp:41/6176
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Automated reasoning and model checking
model checking |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | 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 |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | 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 |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | Decentralized Perimeter Surveillance Using a Team of UAVs · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2008 |
Robotics › Legged, aerial and field robots
aerial robots |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Decentralized Cooperative Aerial Surveillance Using Fixed-Wing Miniature UAVs · Proc. IEEE 2006 |
Robotics › Motion planning and robot control › multi-robot control
decentralized cooperative control |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Decentralized Cooperative Aerial Surveillance Using Fixed-Wing Miniature UAVs · Proc. IEEE 2006 |
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Multi-agent systems
multi-robot coordination |
0.1 | 1 | 2006 | Decentralized Cooperative Aerial Surveillance Using Fixed-Wing Miniature UAVs · Proc. IEEE 2006 |
Vehicular, aerial and satellite networks
unmanned aerial vehicles |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | Decentralized Perimeter Surveillance Using a Team of UAVs · IEEE Trans. Robotics 2008 |
Distributed systems
consensus |
0.0 | 1 | 2006 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | When Human Intuition Fails: Using Formal Methods to Find an Error in the "Proof" of a Multi-agent ProtocolabstractDesigning 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 UAVsabstractThis 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. Robotics | 1 |
| 2006 | Decentralized Cooperative Aerial Surveillance Using Fixed-Wing Miniature UAVsabstractNumerous 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. IEEE | 4 |