Autonomous Task Allocation in a Swarm of Foraging Robots: An Approach Based on Response Threshold Sigmoid Model
- 22 Downloads
This paper proposes a task allocation model to adjust the number of working robots autonomously in a swarm of foraging robots. In swarm foraging, the traffic congestion in foraging area and the physical interference between robots can decrease the swarm performance significantly. We introduce the concept of traffic flow density for the first time which can be used to reflect the traffic condition in the foraging area. The amount of obstacle avoidance denotes the number of times physical interference generated in swarm foraging. The traffic flow density and the amount of obstacle avoidance together adjust the value of the threshold. In the proposed response threshold sigmoid model (RTSM), the individual robot can determine autonomously whether to forage or not on the basis of the threshold and the external stimulus and the swarm system can complete the expected foraging task. Simulation experiments are carried out with the aim of evaluating the performance of the proposed method. Several performance measures are introduced to analyze the experimental results and compare to adaptive response threshold model (ARTM). Experimental results verify that the RTSM improves foraging efficiency and decreases the physical interference.
KeywordsForaging physical interference self-organized swarm robotics task allocation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- D. M. Gordon, “Interaction patterns and task allocation in ant colonies,” Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 51–67, 1999.Google Scholar
- H. Hamann and H. Rn, “An analytical and spatial model of foraging in a swarm of robots,” Swarm Robotics, Second International Workshop, pp. 43–55, 2006.Google Scholar
- S. Garnier, F. Tache, M. Combe, and A. Grimal, “Alice in pheromone land: an experimental setup for the study of ant-like robots,” IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, pp. 37–44, April 2007.Google Scholar
- Y. Yang, X. Chen, Q. Li, and Y. Tian, “Swarm robots task allocation based on local communication,” International Conference on Computer, Mechatronics, Control and Electronic Engineering, pp. 415–418, 2010.Google Scholar
- E. Castello, T. Yamamoto, Y. Nakamura, and H. Ishiguro, “Task allocation for a robotic swarm based on an adaptive response threshold model,” Proc. of 13th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS), IEEE, Gwangju, pp. 259–266, 2013.Google Scholar
- W. Lee and D. Kim, “Adaptive division of labor in multirobot system with minimum task switching,” Artificial Life 14: International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, pp. 750–756, 2014.Google Scholar
- A. Lein and R. T. Vaughan, “Adaptive multi-robot bucket brigade foraging,” Artificial Life, vol. 6, PP. 337–342, January 2008.Google Scholar
- C. Pinciroli, V. Trianni, R. O’Grady, G. Pini, A. Brutschy, M. Brambilla, N. Mathews, E. Ferrante, G. D. Caro, F. Ducatelle, M. Birattari, L. M. Gambardella, and M. Dorigo, “ARGoS: a modular, parallel, multi-engine simulator for multi-robot systems,” Swarm Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 271–295, November 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- M. Bonani, V. Longchamp, S. Magnenat, P. Retornaz, D. Burnier, G. Roulet, F. Vaussard, H. Bleuler and F. Mondada, “The marXbot, a miniature mobile robot opening new perspectives for the collective-robotic research,” Proc. of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4187–4193, 2010.Google Scholar