Analysis of emergent symmetry breaking in collective decision making
- 299 Downloads
We investigate a simulated multi-agent system (MAS) that collectively decides to aggregate at an area of high utility. The agents’ control algorithm is based on random agent–agent encounters and is inspired by the aggregation behavior of honeybees. In this article, we define symmetry breaking, several symmetry breaking measures, and report the phenomenon of emergent symmetry breaking within our observed system. The ability of the MAS to successfully break the symmetry depends significantly on a local-neighborhood-based threshold of the agents’ control algorithm that determines at which number of neighbors the agents stop. This dependency is analyzed and two macroscopic features are determined that significantly influence the symmetry breaking behavior. In addition, we investigate the connection between the ability of the MAS to break symmetries and the ability to stay flexible in a dynamic environment.
KeywordsSymmetry breaking Collective decision making Swarm intelligence Multi-agent system
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments as well as Sibylle Hahshold, Martina Szopek, Gerald Radspieler and Ronald Thenius for providing us with data of honeybee experiments and for building the honeybee temperature arena. This work is supported by: EU-IST FET project I-SWARM, no. 507006; EU-IST-FET project ‘SYMBRION’, no. 216342; EU-ICT project ‘REPLICATOR’, no. 216240. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) research grants: P15961-B06 and P19478-B16. German Research Foundation (DFG) within the Research Training Group GRK 1194 Self-organizing Sensor-Actuator Networks.
- 7.Deneubourg JL, Lioni A, Detrain C (2002) Dynamics of aggregation and emergence of cooperation. Biological Bulletin 202 (June 2002), pp 262–267Google Scholar
- 8.Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E, Nicolis SC, Solé RV, Fourcassié V, Blanco S, Fournier R, Joly JL, Fernández P, Grimal A, Dalle P, Deneubourg JL (2002) Spatial patterns in ant colonies. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99(15):9645–9649Google Scholar
- 12.Halloy J, Sempo G, Caprari G, Rivault C, Asadpour M, Tâche F, Saïd I, Durier V, Canonge S, Amé JM, Detrain C, Correll N, Martinoli A, Mondada F, Siegwart R, Deneubourg JL (2007) Social integration of robots into groups of cockroaches to control self-organized choices. Science 318(5853):1155–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Schmickl T, Hamann H (2010) BEECLUST: a swarm algorithm derived from honeybees. In: Xiao Y, Hu F (eds) Bio-inspired computing and communication networks. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
- 15.Tyutyunov Y, Senina I, Arditi R (2004) Clustering due to acceleration in the response to population gradient: a simple self-organization model. Am Nat 164(6)Google Scholar
- 26.Meyer B, Beekman M, Dussutour A (2008) Noise-induced adaptive decision-making in ant-foraging. In: Simulation of adaptive behavior (SAB), Number 5040 in LNCS, Springer, pp 415–425Google Scholar
- 30.Hamann H, Wörn H, Crailsheim K, Schmickl T (2008) Spatial macroscopic models of a bio-inspired robotic swarm algorithm. In: IEEE/RSJ 2008 international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS’08), Los Alamitos, CA, IEEE Press (2008), pp 1415–1420Google Scholar
- 32.Garnier S, Jost C, Jeanson R, Gautrais J, Asadpour M, Caprari G, Theraulaz G (2005) Aggregation behaviour as a source of collective decision in a group of cockroach-like-robots. In: Capcarrere M (ed) Advances in artificial life: 8th European conference, ECAL 2005, vol 3630 of LNAI, Springer, pp 169–178Google Scholar
- 33.Camazine S, Deneuenbourg JL, Franks NR, Sneyd J, Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (2001) Self-organization in biological systems (Princeton Studies in Complexity). University Presses of CAGoogle Scholar
- 35.Bodi M, Thenius R, Schmickl T, Crailsheim K (2009) Robustness of two interacting robot swarms using the BEECLUST algorithm. In: MATHMOD 2009—6th Vienna international conference on mathematical modellingGoogle Scholar