Artificial Life and Robotics

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 317–323 | Cite as

Critical mass in the emergence of collective intelligence: a parallelized simulation of swarms in noisy environments

  • Aleksandr Drozd
  • Olaf Witkowski
  • Satoshi Matsuoka
  • Takashi Ikegami
Special Feature: Original Article

Abstract

We extend an abstract agent-based swarming model based on the evolution of neural network controllers, to explore further the emergence of swarming. Our model is grounded in the ecological situation, in which agents can access some information from the environment about the resource location, but through a noisy channel. Swarming critically improves the efficiency of group foraging, by allowing agents to reach resource areas much more easily by correcting individual mistakes in group dynamics. As high levels of noise may make the emergence of collective behavior depend on a critical mass of agents, it is crucial to reach sufficient computing power to allow for the evolution of the whole set of dynamics in simulation. Since simulating neural controllers and information exchanges between agents are computationally intensive, to scale up simulations to model critical masses of individuals, the implementation requires careful optimization. We apply techniques from astrophysics known as treecodes to compute the signal propagation, and efficiently parallelize for multi-core architectures. Our results open up future research on signal-based emergent collective behavior as a valid collective strategy for uninformed search over a domain space.

Keywords

Artificial life Artificial neural networks Bio-inspired computation Evolutionary robotics Foraging Swarming Treecode 

References

  1. 1.
    Ballerini M, Cabibbo N, Candelier R, Cavagna A, Cisbani E, Giardina I, Lecomte V, Orlandi A, Parisi G, Procaccini A, Viale M, Zdravkovic V (2008) Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: evidence from a field study. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(4):1232–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barnes J, Hut P (1986) A hierarchical o(n log n) force-calculation algorithm. Nature 324:446–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blackston D, Suel T (1997) Highly portable and efficient implementations of parallel adaptive n-body methods. In: In SC’97 :1–20Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Board OAR (2013) OpenMP Application Program Interface, Version 4.0. http://www.openmp.org/mp-documents/OpenMP4.0.0.pdf
  5. 5.
    Budrene EO, Berg HC et al (1991) Complex patterns formed by motile cells of Escherichia coli. Nature 349(6310):630–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coole J, Wernsing J, Stitt G (2009) A traversal cache framework for fpga acceleration of pointer data structures: A case study on barnes-hut n-body simulation. In: Reconfigurable Computing and FPGAs, 2009. ReConFig ’09. International Conference on, pp 143–148Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Couzin ID (2009) Collective cognition in animal groups. Trends Cogn Sci 13(1):36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cucker F, Huepe C (2008) Flocking with informed agents. Math Action 1(1):1–25MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Czirók A, Barabási AL, Vicsek T (1997) Collective motion of self-propelled particles: kinetic phase transition in one dimension. arXiv preprint. arXiv:9712154
  10. 10.
    Eberhart RC, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on micro machine and human science, vol 1. New York, NY, pp 39–43Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamada T, Yokota R, Nitadori K, Narumi T, Yasuoka K, Taiji M (2009) 42 tflops hierarchical n-body simulations on gpus with applications in both astrophysics and turbulence. In: High Performance Computing Networking, Storage and Analysis, Proceedings of the Conference on, pp. 1–12. doi:10.1145/1654059.1654123
  12. 12.
    Hartman C, Benes B (2006) Autonomous boids. Comput Animat Virtual Worlds 17(3–4):199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marwell G, Oliver P (1993) The critical mass in collective action. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mataric MJ (1992) Integration of representation into goal-driven behavior-based robots. IEEE Trans Rob Autom 8(3):304–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mussi, L., Daolio, F., Cagnoni, S.: Evaluation of parallel particle swarm optimization algorithms within the cuda architecture. Inf Sci 181(20):4642–4657 (2011) (Special Issue on Interpretable Fuzzy Systems)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oliver PE, Marwell G (2001) Whatever happened to critical mass theory? A retrospective and assessment. Sociol Theory 19(3):292–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Parrish JK, Edelstein-Keshet L (1999) Complexity, pattern, and evolutionary trade-offs in animal aggregation. Science 284(5411):99–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Partridge BL (1982) The structure and function of fish schools. Sci Am 246(6):114–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pimenta L, Pereira G, Michael N, Mesquita R, Bosque M, Chaimowicz L, Kumar V (2013) Swarm coordination based on smoothed particle hydrodynamics technique. IEEE Trans Robot 29(2):383–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reynolds CW (1987) Flocks, herds and schools: a distributed behavioral model. In: ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, vol 1. ACM, pp 25–34Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shimoyama N, Sugawara K, Mizuguchi T, Hayakawa Y, Sano M (1996) Collective motion in a system of motile elements. Phys Rev Lett 76(20):3870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Silva ARD, Lages WS, Chaimowicz L (2010) Boids that see: using self-occlusion for simulating large groups on gpus. Comput Entertain 7(4):51:1–51:20Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Su H, Wang X, Lin Z (2009) Flocking of multi-agents with a virtual leader. IEEE Trans Autom Control 54(2):293–307MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Witkowski O, Ikegami T (2014) Asynchronous evolution: emergence of signal-based swarming. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems (Artificial Life 14) vol 14, pp 302–309Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yokoi H, Yu W, Hakura J (1999) Morpho-functional machine: design of an amoebae model based on the vibrating potential method. Rob Auton Syst 28(2–3):217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yokoi H, Yu W, Pfeifer R (2003) Morpho-rate: a macroscopic evaluation and analysis of the morpho-functional machine. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation: Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation for the New Millennium, CIRA 2003, Kobe, Japan, July 16–20, 2003, pp 788–793Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu W, Chen G, Cao M (2010) Distributed leader-follower flocking control for multi-agent dynamical systems with time-varying velocities. Syst Control Lett 59(9):543–552MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAROB 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aleksandr Drozd
    • 1
  • Olaf Witkowski
    • 2
  • Satoshi Matsuoka
    • 1
  • Takashi Ikegami
    • 3
  1. 1.Global Scientific Information and Computing CenterTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Tokyo Institute of TechnologyEarth-Life Science InstituteTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Multi-Disciplinary SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations