Geng Report: Optimal Formation Navigation of Multirobot Systems with Layered Obstacles Avoidance (DOI: 10.1109/RICAI68060.2025.11385081)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: Questionable — suspected of academic sloppiness / conference-paper padding rather than systematic data fabrication. Key issues identified include severe typographical and grammatical errors in equations and prose (e.g., garbled variable definition near Eq. 6, 'Than' for 'Then', 'Algrithm' for 'Algorithm'), an undefined constant Gamma in the Lyapunov function used in the Theorem 1 proof, and a hand-waving convergence argument that defers to an external reference. The reported simulation results appear suspiciously clean: safety margins stated as a uniform 0.3 and optimization time as a precise 12 ms/step with no variance, standard deviation, or sampling statistics. Algorithm 1 uses inconsistent symbols (P, P-bar, eP) for the same path quantity. The reference list includes a 2025 IEEE ICMA paper, suggesting tight co-production. No image-based fraud detection could be performed because the input was text-extracted. Confidence is moderate; findings are observational and reproducible from the manuscript text, but no fabricated data has been definitively proven.

Verdict

Questionable / suspected padding. The paper shows hallmarks of a rushed, low-effort conference submission rather than deliberate fraud. No proof of fabricated data, but multiple textual, mathematical, and reporting irregularities undermine confidence in its rigor.

Key findings

Severe typography and proofreading failures throughout, including garbled variable definitions near Eq. 6 (andk=Edge,k−m) suggesting broken LaTeX, and elementary English errors (Than, Algrithm, action used as a verb).
Undefined mathematical symbol: the constant $\Gamma$ appears in the Lyapunov function $V(q_k, y_k, z_k)$ without prior definition, domain, or sign/positivity conditions.
Hand-waved proof: Theorem 1's convergence is concluded by analogy with reference [10] ("analogous to the proof presented in reference [10], it can be rigorously established..."), inconsistent with the claimed novelty.
Implausibly precise simulation results: uniform safety margin of 0.3 across five narrow passages, and a fixed average optimization time of 12 ms/step with no reported standard deviation, confidence interval, or per-trial variance.
Inconsistent algorithm notation: $\bar{P}$, $P$, and eP are used interchangeably for the same path quantity in Algorithm 1.
Citation timeline concern: reference [6] is a 2025 IEEE ICMA paper, indicating near-simultaneous co-production with the present 2025 RICAI submission.

Evidence highlights

Eq. (6) vicinity: text fragment andk=Edge,k−m — likely a corrupted rendering of c_k = d_{Edge,k} − r_m.
Section VI opening paragraph ends with: Than the multirobot system will action through Algrithm 1. (verbatim).
Reported simulation numbers, taken verbatim from the manuscript: safety margin 0.3, average computation 12 ms/step.
Reference [6]: Tian et al., "Clean generalized voronoi diagram...", 2025 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA).

Notes

DOI: 10.1109/RICAI68060.2025.11385081 — preserved exactly.
Image-based fraud checks (image reuse, splicing, figure manipulation) could not be performed: the supplied input was a text-extracted PDF with no pixel data for Figures 1–2.
All findings are derived from observable manuscript text; no external data or peer-review evidence was consulted.
Limitations: Without the original simulation code, raw logs, or typesetting source, it cannot be confirmed whether the uniform 0.3 / 12 ms/step figures are fabricated, cherry-picked, or simply rounded without disclosure. The undefined $\Gamma$ may reflect a typesetting omission rather than a conceptual gap.
Recommended action: request raw simulation data, code, and source LaTeX from the corresponding author; if unresolved, raise concerns via PubPeer focusing on the undefined $\Gamma$ and the absence of variance reporting.