Two-Robot Case
We compare Adaptive PT-CBF against FT-CBF and PT-CBF under the same temporal triggering schedule. Adaptive PT-CBF reconnects earlier without requiring a manually tuned prescribed time, while FT-CBF slows near the communication boundary and PT-CBF is highly sensitive to the chosen value of Tp.
(a) Adaptive PT-CBF, t = 0s
(b) Adaptive PT-CBF, t = 6.81s
(c) Adaptive PT-CBF, t = 15s
(d) FT-CBF, t = 15s
(e) PT-CBF (Tp = 0.5s), t = 15s
(f) PT-CBF (Tp = 15s), t = 15s
Adaptive PT-CBF reconnects the robots by 6.81 seconds and maintains smooth motion through the remainder of the run. FT-CBF remains conservative near the boundary, while fixed PT-CBF settings can be either too aggressive to be infeasible or too slow to react.
(a) Spatio-Temporal weight
(b) Rc2 - Di,j2
(c) Inter-robot distance
(d) Average speed
All methods share the same trigger-weight schedule for a fair comparison, but Adaptive PT-CBF reaches the communication boundary earlier.
Multi-Robot Case
In CoppeliaSim, five Khepera robots patrol separate regions while Robot 1 must reconnect with Robots 2--5 at least once within each 30-second window. The videos below highlight the behavioral differences among our method, MCCST, and the original task. Here, MCCST is a persistent-connectivity baseline: it enforces persistent global connectivity at every instant, unlike our method, which allows temporary disconnection within each reconnection window.
Video comparisons for the multi-robot patrol task. The top row shows the physical-platform videos and the bottom row shows the corresponding simulation videos.
(a) Original Task
(b) Our Adaptive PT-CBF
(c) MCCST (Persistent Connectivity)