The impact of agent density on scalability in collective systems: noise-induced versus majority-based bistability
- 364 Downloads
In this paper, we show that non-uniform distributions in swarms of agents have an impact on the scalability of collective decision-making. In particular, we highlight the relevance of noise-induced bistability in very sparse swarm systems and the failure of these systems to scale. Our work is based on three decision models. In the first model, each agent can change its decision after being recruited by a nearby agent. The second model captures the dynamics of dense swarms controlled by the majority rule (i.e., agents switch their opinion to comply with that of the majority of their neighbors). The third model combines the first two, with the aim of studying the role of non-uniform swarm density in the performance of collective decision-making. Based on the three models, we formulate a set of requirements for convergence and scalability in collective decision-making.
KeywordsBistable system Swarm density Noise Collective decision-making Non-uniform spatial distribution
This work was partially supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the FET Grant “flora robotica,” No. 640959.
- Arnold, L. (2003). Random dynamical systems. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Hamann, H., Valentini, G., Khaluf, Y., & Dorigo, M. (2014). Derivation of a micro-macro link for collective decision-making systems: Uncover network features based on drift measurements. In T. Bartz-Beielstein, J. Branke, B. Filipič, & J. Smith (Eds.), 13th International conference on parallel problem solving from nature (PPSN 2014), volume 8672 of LNCS (pp. 181–190). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Khaluf, Y., & Dorigo, M. (2016). Modeling robot swarms using integrals of birth-death processes. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS), 11(2), 8.Google Scholar
- Khaluf, Y., & Hamann, H. (2016). On the definition of self-organizing systems: Relevance of positive/negative feedback and fluctuations. In ANTS 2016, volume 9882 of LNCS (p. 298). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Lerman, K., Martinoli, A., & Galstyan, A. (2005). A review of probabilistic macroscopic models for swarm robotic systems. In E. Şahin, & W. M. Spears (Eds.), Swarm robotics—SAB 2004 International workshop, volume 3342 of LNCS (pp. 143–152). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- 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 (pp. 415–425). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Schmickl, T., & Hamann, H. (2011). BEECLUST: A swarm algorithm derived from honeybees. In Y. Xiao (Ed.), Bio-inspired computing and communication networks. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- Valentini, G., Hamann, H., & Dorigo, M. (2014). Self-organized collective decision making: The weighted voter model. In Lomuscio, A., Scerri, P., Bazzan, A., & Huhns, M., (eds), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS ’14, (pp. 45–52). IFAAMAS.Google Scholar