Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Technologies logo

Articles

Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026)

Mission Continuity with Resilient Autonomy Architectures in Disaster Response Robots: Network Simulation

Submitted
May 23, 2026
Published
May 30, 2026

Abstract

Disaster response missions operate in highly dynamic and structurally compromised environments where communication networks are frequently degraded or completely destroyed. For unmanned ground vehicles and aerial drones deployed in such scenarios, the loss of telemetry and control signals often results in mission failure, as traditional teleoperation heavily relies on continuous high-bandwidth connectivity. This paper proposes a comprehensive framework for predicting mission continuity by evaluating resilient autonomy architectures through advanced network simulation. By coupling robotic operating system environments with discrete-event network simulators, we model the complex interplay between autonomous decision-making algorithms and fluctuating network topologies. The core objective is to quantify how autonomous failover mechanisms, decentralized swarm intelligence, and adaptive behavioral models contribute to sustained mission performance when communication links fail. Through extensive simulated urban search and rescue scenarios, we assess various degrees of network degradation, including signal attenuation, multipath fading, and complete node isolation. The analysis reveals that resilient autonomy architectures significantly improve mission continuity probabilities compared to traditional semi-autonomous systems. Furthermore, we introduce a predictive model that utilizes real-time network state data to forecast the likelihood of successful task completion, enabling proactive deployment strategies. The findings provide critical insights for the design of robust robotic systems capable of sustained operations in extreme, communication-denied environments.

References

  1. 1. Guo, W., Zeng, Q., Duan, H., Ni, W., Liu, T., Liu, C., & Xie, N. (2020). Text quality analysis of emergency response plans. IEEE Access, 8, 9441–9456.
  2. 2. Lin, X.; Liu, A.; Han, C.; Liang, X.; Sun, Y.; Ding, G.; Zhou, H. Intelligent Adaptive MIMO Transmission for Nonstationary Communication Environment: A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach. IEEE Trans. Commun. 2025, 73, 5965–5979.
  3. 3. Torrieri, D. Principles of Spread Spectrum Communication Systems, 5th ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 151–203.
  4. 4. Nzewi, O.I. Adaptive Governance for Resilient Local Service Delivery. J. Local Gov. Res. Innov. 2025, 6, a322.
  5. 5. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan.
  6. 6. Browne, M. J., & Hoyt, R. E. (2000). The demand for flood insurance: Empirical evidence. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 67(2), 291–306.
  7. 7. Kim, S.Y.; Swann, W.L.; Weible, C.M.; Bolognesi, T.; Krause, R.M.; Park, A.Y.S.; Tang, T.; Maletsky, K.; Feiock, R.C. Updating the Institutional Collective Action Framework. Policy Stud. J. 2022, 50, 9–34.
  8. 8. Shimizu, H.; Matsubayashi, T.; Naya, F. Simulation of saturated theme park for reduction of waiting time. Trans. Jpn. Soc. Artif. Intell. 2017, 32, AG16-F. (In Japanese)
  9. 9. Comfort, L. K. (2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review, 67(s1), 189–197.
  10. 10. Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management. Georgetown University Press.
  11. 11. Oseland, S.E. Breaking silos: Can cities break down institutional barriers in climate planning? J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2019, 21, 345–357.
  12. 12. Curley, C.; Harrison, N.; Xu, C.K.; Zhou, S. Collaboration mitigates barriers of utility ownership on policy adoption: Evidence from the United States. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 64, 124–144.
  13. 13. Wang, W.; Chen, Q.; Shen, Y.; Xiang, Z. Leakage Identification of Underground Structures Using Classification Deep Neural Networks and Transfer Learning. Sensors 2024, 24, 5569.
  14. 14. Liu, Y.; Wang, W.; Hu, Y.; Hao, J.; Chen, X.; Gao, Y. Multi-Agent Game Abstraction via Graph Attention Neural Network. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2020), New York, NY, USA, 7–12 February 2020; AAAI Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2020; Volume 34, pp. 7211–7218.
  15. 15. Foerster, J.N.; Farquhar, G.; Afouras, T.; Nardelli, N.; Whiteson, S. Counterfactual Multi-Agent Policy Gradients. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2018), New Orleans, LA, USA, 2–7 February 2018; AAAI Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2018; pp. 2974–2982.
  16. 16. Bagdasaryan, E.; Veit, A.; Hua, Y.; Estrin, D.; Shmatikov, V. How To Backdoor Federated Learning. In Proceedings of the Twenty Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics; PMLR: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 2938–2948.
  17. 17. Tusha, A.; Arslan, H. Interference Burden in Wireless Communications: A Comprehensive Survey from PHY Layer Perspective. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials. 2025, 27, 2204–2246.
  18. 18. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Palgrave Macmillan.
  19. 19. Luo, B.; Lu, X.; Lu, W.; Han, H.; Huang, G.; Zhang, Y. Neural Adaptive Video Streaming via Imitation Learning and Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 10th International Symposium on Microwave, Antenna, Propagation and EMC Technologies for Wireless Communications (MAPE), Guangzhou, China, 27–30 November 2024; pp. 1–4.
  20. 20. Liu, X.; Tan, Y. Attentive Relational State Representation in Decentralized Multiagent Reinforcement Learning. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2022, 52, 252–264.
  21. 21. Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297.
  22. 22. Nakra, N.; Pandey, M. Smartphone as an intervention to intention–behavior of patient care. Health Policy Technol. 2019, 8, 383–389.
  23. 23. King, J.L.; Gurbaxani, V.; Kraemer, K.L.; McFarlan, F.W.; Raman, K.S.; Yap, C.S. Institutional factors in information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 1994, 5, 139–169.
  24. 24. Ahn, K.; Rakha, H.; Trani, A.; Van Aerde, M. Estimating vehicle fuel consumption and emissions based on instantaneous speed and acceleration levels. J. Transp. Eng. 2002, 128, 182–190.
  25. 25. Hu, F.; Fu, Q.; Zhang, S.; Huang, J. A Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Task Offloading Method for 6G-Enabled Internet of Vehicles with Cloud-Edge-Device Collaboration. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2026, 87, 1.
  26. 26. Omidshafiei, S.; Pazis, J.; Amato, C.; How, J.P.; Vian, J. Deep Decentralized Multi-Task Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning under Partial Observability. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2017), Sydney, Australia, 6–11 August 2017; PMLR: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 70, pp. 2681–2690.