Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 37–48 | Cite as

Analysis of long-term swarm performance based on short-term experiments

  • Yara KhalufEmail author
  • Mauro Birattari
  • Franz Rammig
Focus

Abstract

Swarm robotics is a branch of collective robotics systems that offers a set of remarkable advantages over other systems. The global behavior of swarm systems emerges from the local rules implemented at the individual level. Therefore, characterizing a global performance obtained at the swarm level is one of the main challenges, especially under complex dynamics such as spatial interferences. In this paper, we exploit the central limit theorem to analyze and characterize the swarm performance over long-term deadlines. The developed model is verified on two tasks: a foraging task and an object filtering task.

Keywords

Swarm robotics Time-constrained tasks Central limit theorem 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Campo A, Dorigo M (2007) Efficient multi-foraging in swarm robotics. In: Advances in artificial life, proceedings of ECAL 2007, vol LNAI 4648. Springer, Berlin, pp 696–705Google Scholar
  2. Dunsmuir W (1979) A central limit theorem for parameter estimation in stationary vector time series and its application to models for a signal observed with noise. Ann Stat 490–506 (1979)Google Scholar
  3. Goldberg D (2001) Evaluating the dynamics of agent-environment interaction. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southern CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  4. Goldberg D, Matarić M (2000) Reward maximization in a non-stationary mobile robot environment. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Autonomous agents. AGENTS ’00ACM, New York, pp 92–99Google Scholar
  5. Jacod J, Podolskij M, Vetter M (2010) Limit theorems for moving averages of discretized processes plus noise. Ann Stat 38(3):1478–1545MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Jarque C, Bera A (1980) Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals. Econ Lett 6(3):255–259MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Khaluf Y, Birattari M, Rammig F (2013) Probabilistic analysis of long-term swarm performance under spatial interferences. In: Theory and practice of natural computing. 2nd international conference on the theory and practice of natural computing, TPNC 2013. Springer, Cáceres (2013)Google Scholar
  8. Labella T, Dorigo M, Deneubourg J (2006) Division of labour in a group of robots inspired by ants’ foraging behaviour. ACM Trans Autonom Adapt Syst 1(1):4–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lein A, Vaughan R (2008) Adaptive multirobot bucket brigade foraging. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial life, ALife XI. MIT Press, New York, pp 337–342Google Scholar
  10. Lerman K, Galstyan A (2002) Mathematical model of foraging in a group of robots: effect of interference. Autonom Robots 13(2):127–141CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Lerman K, Martinoli A, Galstyan A (2005) A review of probabilistic macroscopic models for swarm robotic systems. In: Sahin E, Spears W (eds) Swarm robotics. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3342, chap 12. Springer, Berlin, pp 143–152 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. Liu W, Winfield A, Sa J (2007) Modelling swarm robotic systems: a case study in collective foraging. In: Towards autonomous robotic systems (TAROS 07), Aberystwyth, pp 25–32Google Scholar
  13. Martinoli A, Kjerstin E, William A (2004) Modeling swarm robotic systems: a case study in collaborative distributed manipulation. Int J Robot Res 23:415–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Muniganti P, Pujol A (2010) A survey on mathematical models of swarm robotics. In: Workshop of physical agentsGoogle Scholar
  15. Ostergaard E, Sukhatme G, Matari M (2001) Emergent bucket brigading: a simple mechanisms for improving performance in multi-robot constrained-space foraging tasks. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on autonomous agents. AGENTS ’01ACM, New York, pp 29–30Google Scholar
  16. Pinciroli C, Trianni V, O’Grady R, Pini G, Brutschy A, Brambilla M, Mathews N, Ferrante E, Caro G, Ducatelle F, Birattari M, Gambardella L, Dorigo M (2012) Argos: a modular, parallel, multi-engine simulator for multi-robot systems. Swarm Intell 6:271–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pini G, Brutschy A, Birattari M, Dorigo M (2009) Interference reduction through task partitioning in a robotic swarm. In: Filipe J, Andrade-Cetto J, Ferrier JL (eds) Sixth international conference on informatics in control, automation and robotics—ICINCO 2009. INSTICC Press, Setúbal, pp 52–59Google Scholar
  18. Pini G, Brutschy A, Birattari M, Dorigo M (2011) Task partitioning in swarms of robots: reducing performance losses due to interference at shared resources. In: Cetto J, Filipe J, Ferrier J (eds) Informatics in control automation and robotics. Lecture notes in electrical engineering, vol 85. Springer, Berlin, pp 217–228Google Scholar
  19. Rice J (2001) Mathematical statistics and data analysis, 3 edn. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove (2001)Google Scholar
  20. Shah R, Roy S, Jain S, Brunette W (2003) Data mules: modeling and analysis of a three-tier architecture for sparse sensor networks. Ad Hoc Netw 1(2):215–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shell D, Mataric M (2006) On foraging strategies for large-scale multi-robot systems. In: 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, New York, pp 2717–2723Google Scholar
  22. Vardy A (2012) Accelerated patch sorting by a robotic swarm. In: 2012 ninth conference on computer and robot vision (CRV), pp 314–321Google Scholar
  23. Vaughan A (2008) Adaptive multi-robot bucket brigade foraging. Artif Life 11:337MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PaderbornPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.Université Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations