Abstract
Biologically inspired collective decision-making algorithms show promise for implementing spatially distributed searching tasks with robotic systems. One example is the best-of-N problem in which a collective must search an environment for an unknown number of sites and select the best option. Real-world robotic deployments must achieve acceptable success rates and execution times across a wide variety of environmental conditions, a property known as resilience. Existing experiments for the best-of-N problem have not explicitly examined how the site layout affects a collective’s performance and resilience. Two novel resilience metrics are used to compare algorithmic performance and resilience between evenly distributed, obstructed, or unobstructed uneven site configurations. Obstructing the highest valued site negatively affected selection accuracy for both algorithms, while uneven site distribution had no effect on either algorithm’s resilience. The results also illuminate the distinction between absolute resilience as measured against an objective standard, and relative resilience used to compare an algorithm’s performance across different operating conditions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
All data and materials are included in the Supplementary Material.
Code availability
Not applicable - the code is not being released at this time as it is being used for additional publications.
References
Allen, C. R., Gunderson, L., & Johnson, A. R. (2005). The use of discontinuities and functional groups to assess relative resilience in complex systems. Ecosystems, 8(8), 958–966. https://doi.org/10.2307/25053891
Angeler, D. G., Allen, C. R., Rojo, C., Alvarez-Cobelas, M., Rodrigo, M. A., & Sánchez-Carrillo, S. (2013). Inferring the relative resilience of alternative states. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e77338. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077338
Bayındır, L. (2016). A review of swarm robotics tasks. Neurocomputing, 172, 292–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEUCOM.2015.05.116
Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M., Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W. A., & Von Winterfeldt, D. (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 733–752. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1623497
Canciani, F., Talamali, M. S., Marshall, J. A. R., Bose, T., & Reina, A. (2019). Keep calm and vote on: Swarm resiliency in collective decision making. In Proceedings of workshop resilient robot teams of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation.
Codling, E. A., Plank, M. J., & Benhamou, S. (2008). Random walk models in biology. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 5(25), 813–834. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2008.0014
Cody, J. R. (2018). Discrete Consensus Decisions in Human-Collective Teams. PhD thesis, Vanderbilt University.
Cody, J. R., & Adams, J. A. (2017). An evaluation of quorum sensing mechanisms in collective value-sensitive site selection. In International symposium on multi-robot and multi-agent systems (pp. 40–47). https://doi.org/10.1109/MRS.2017.8250929
Cody, J. R., Roundtree, K. A., & Adams, J. A. (2021). Human-collective collaborative target selection. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 10(2), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442679
Franks, N. R., Hardcastle, K. A., Collins, S., Smith, F. D., Sullivan, K. M., Robinson, E. J., & Sendova-Franks, A. B. (2008). Can ant colonies choose a far-and-away better nest over an in-the-way poor one? Animal Behaviour, 76(2), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.02.009
Gordon, D. M. (2014). The ecology of collective behavior. PLoS Biology, 12(3), e1001805. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001805
Gordon, D. M. (2016). The evolution of the algorithms for collective behavior. Cell Systems, 3(6), 514–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2016.10.013
Hamann, H., & Wörn, H. (2008). A framework of space-time continuous models for algorithm design in swarm robotics. Swarm Intelligence, 2, 209–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-008-0015-3
Henry, D., & Emmanuel Ramirez-Marquez, J. (2012). Generic metrics and quantitative approaches for system resilience as a function of time. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 99, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESS.2011.09.002
Hodgson, D., McDonald, J. L., & Hosken, D. J. (2015). What do you mean, ‘resilient’? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30(9), 503–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TREE.2015.06.010
Hosseini, S., Barker, K., & Ramirez-Marquez, J. E. (2016). A review of definitions and measures of system resilience. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 145, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2015.08.006
Ingrisch, J., & Bahn, M. (2018). Towards a comparable quantification of resilience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 33(4), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TREE.2018.01.013
Jain, P., & Goodrich, M. A. (2022). Processes for a colony solving the best-of-N problem using a bipartite graph representation. In M. Yamamoto, F. Matsuno, & S. Azuma (Eds.), Distributed autonomous robotic (pp. 376–388). Systems, Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92790-5_29
Janson, S., Middendorf, M., & Beekman, M. (2007). Searching for a new home—Scouting behavior of honeybee swarms. Behavioral Ecology, 18(2), 384–392. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arl095
Krotkov, E., Hackett, D., Jackel, L., Perschbacher, M., Pippine, J., Strauss, J., Pratt, G., & Orlowski, C. (2017). The DARPA robotics challenge finals: Results and perspectives. Journal of Field Robotics, 34(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.21683
Laomettachit, T., Termsaithong, T., Sae-Tang, A., & Duangphakdee, O. (2015). Decision-making in honeybee swarms based on quality and distance information of candidate nest sites. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 364, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.09.005
Leaf, J., & Adams, J. A. (2022). Measuring resilience in collective robotic algorithms. In: Proceedings of the international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 1666–1668).
Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2002). Mathematical model of foraging in a group of robots: Effect of interference. Autonomous Robots, 13, 127–141.
Lu, Q., Hecker, J. P., & Moses, M. E. (2016). The MPFA: A multiple-place foraging algorithm for biologically-inspired robot swarms. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (pp. 3815–3821). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2016.7759561
Pais, D., Hogan, P. M., Schlegel, T., Franks, N. R., Leonard, N. E., & Marshall, J. A. (2013). A mechanism for value-sensitive decision-making. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e73216. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073216
Parker, C., & Zhang, Hong. (2009). Cooperative decision-making in decentralized multiple-robot systems: The best-of-N problem. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 14(2), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2009.2014370
Prasetyo, J., De Masi, G., Ranjan, P., & Ferrante, E., et al. (2018). The best-of-n problem with dynamic site qualities: Achieving adaptability with stubborn individuals. In M. Dorigo, M. Birattari, & C. Blum (Eds.), Swarm intelligence (pp. 239–251). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00533-7_19
Prasetyo, J., De Masi, G., & Ferrante, E. (2019). Collective decision making in dynamic environments. Swarm Intelligence, 13(3–4), 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-019-00169-8
Prasetyo, J., De Masi. G., Tuci. E., & Ferrante, E. (2020). The effect of differential quality and differential zealotry in the best-of-n problem. In Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference companion (pp. 65–66). https://doi.org/10.1145/3377929.3390053
Pratt, S. C., Sumpter, D. J., Mallon, E. B., & Franks, N. R. (2005). An agent-based model of collective nest choice by the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Animal Behaviour, 70(5), 1023–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.022
Reina, A., Miletitch, R., Dorigo, M., & Trianni, V. (2015). A quantitative micro-macro link for collective decisions: The shortest path discovery/selection example. Swarm Intelligence, 9(2–3), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-015-0105-y
Reina, A., Valentini, G., Fernández-Oto, C., Dorigo, M., & Trianni, V. (2015). A design pattern for decentralised decision making. PLOS ONE, 10(10), e0140950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140950
Reina, A., Bose, T., Trianni, V., & Marshall, J. A. (2018). Effects of spatiality on value-sensitive decisions made by robot swarms. In R. Groß, A. Kolling, & S. Berman (Eds.), Distributed autonomous robotic systems (pp. 461–473). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73008-0_32
Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern epidemiology (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer Health.
Şahin, E. (2004). Swarm robotics: From sources of inspiration to domains of application. In: International workshop on swarm robotics (pp 10–20). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30552-1_2
Schaerf, T. M., Makinson, J. C., Myerscough, M. R., & Beekman, M. (2013). Do small swarms have an advantage when house hunting? The effect of swarm size on nest-site selection by Apis mellifera. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 10(20130), 533. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0533
Seeley, T. D. (1995). The wisdom of the hive: The social physiology of honey bee colonies. Harvard University Press.
Seeley, T. D. (2010). Honeybee democracy. Princeton University Press.
Seeley, T. D., & Buhrman, S. C. (2001). Nest-site selection in honey bees: How well do swarms implement the “best-of-N’’ decision rule? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 49(5), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650000299
Seeley, T. D., Visscher, P. K., Schlegel, Thomas, et al. (2012). Stop signals provide cross inhibition in collective decision-making by honeybee swarms. Science, 335, 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204260603600304
Sumpter, D. J. T. (2010). Collective animal behavior. Princeton University Press.
Talamali, M. S., Marshall, J. A., Bose, T., & Reina, A., (2019). Improving collective decision accuracy via time-varying cross-inhibition. In: International conference on robotics and automation (pp. 9652–9659). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2019.8794284
Talamali, M. S., Bose, T., Haire, M., Xu, X., Marshall, J. A., & Reina, A. (2020). Sophisticated collective foraging with minimalist agents: A swarm robotics test. Swarm Intelligence, 14(1), 25–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-019-00176-9
Valentini, G., Ferrante, E., Hamann, H., & Dorigo, M. (2016). Collective decision with 100 Kilobots: Speed versus accuracy in binary discrimination problems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 30(3), 553–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-015-9323-3
Valentini, G., Ferrante, E., & Dorigo, M. (2017). The best-of-n problem in robot swarms: Formalization, state of the art, and novel perspectives. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2017.00009
Valentini, G., Moore D. G., Hanson, J. R., Pavlic, T. P., Pratt, S. C., & Walker, S. I. (2020). Transfer of information in collective decisions by artificial agents. In Conference on Artificial Life (pp. 641–648). https://doi.org/10.1162/isal_a_00117
Van Riemsdijk, M. B., Dastani, M., & Winikoff, M. (2008). Goals in agent systems: a unifying framework. In Proceedings of the international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp 702–709)
Woods, D. D., & Branlat. M. (2011). Basic patterns in how adaptive systems fail. In Resilience engineering in practice (pp. 127–144). Farnham, UK, Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781317065265-10
Yang, G. Z., Bellingham, J., Dupont, P. E., Fischer, P., Floridi, L., Full, R., Jacobstein, N., Kumar, V., McNutt, M., Merrifield, R., & Nelson, B. J. (2018). The grand challenges of Science Robotics. Science Robotics. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aar7650
Zobel, C. W. (2010). Representing perceived tradeoffs in defining disaster resilience. Decision Support Systems, 50, 394–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.10.001
Funding
This work was supported in part by Office of Naval Research Awards N00014-16-1-3025 and N00014-18-1-2831. Author J. L. was supported in part by an Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Foundation Scholar award.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. J.L. designed and ran the experiments. Both authors contributed to the analysis. J.L. wrote the manuscript and prepared all figures and tables. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Leaf, J., Adams, J.A. The effect of uneven and obstructed site layouts in best-of-N. Swarm Intell (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-024-00236-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-024-00236-9