Autonomous Robots

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 209–238 | Cite as

Hierarchic Social Entropy: An Information Theoretic Measure of Robot Group Diversity

  • Tucker Balch


As research expands in multiagent intelligent systems, investigators need new tools for evaluating the artificial societies they study. It is impossible, for example, to correlate heterogeneity with performance in multiagent robotics without a quantitative metric of diversity. Currently diversity is evaluated on a bipolar scale with systems classified as either heterogeneous or homogeneous, depending on whether any of the agents differ. Unfortunately, this labeling doesn't tell us much about the extent of diversity in heterogeneous teams. How can it be determined if one system is more or less diverse than another? Heterogeneity must be evaluated on a continuous scale to enable substantive comparisons between systems. To enable these types of comparisons, we introduce: (1) a continuous measure of robot behavioral difference, and (2) hierarchic social entropy, an application of Shannon's information entropy metric to robotic groups that provides a continuous, quantitative measure of robot team diversity. The metric captures important components of the meaning of diversity, including the number and size of behavioral groups in a society and the extent to which agents differ. The utility of the metrics is demonstrated in the experimental evaluation of multirobot soccer and multirobot foraging teams.

multi-robot systems heterogeneity behavioral diversity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arkin, R.C., Balch, T., and Nitz, E. 1993. Communication of behavioral state in multi-agent retrieval tasks. In Proceedings 1993 IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, K. 1990. Social Entropy Theory, State University of New York Press: Albany.Google Scholar
  3. Balch, T. 1997. Learning roles: Behavioral diversity in robot teams. In AAAI-97 Workshop on Multiagent Learning, Providence, RI. AAAI.Google Scholar
  4. Balch, T. 1998. Behavioral diversity in learning robot teams. Ph.D. Thesis, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  5. Balch, T. 1999. The impact of diversity on performance in multirobot foraging. In Proc.Autonomous Agents 99, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  6. Balch, T., Boone, G., Collins, T., Forbes, H., MacKenzie, D., and Santamar´?a, J. 1995. Io, Ganymede and Callisto—A multiagent robot trash-collecting team. AI Magazine, 16(2):39–51.Google Scholar
  7. Demetrius, L. 1992. The thermodynamics of evolution. Physica A, 189(3–4):417–436.Google Scholar
  8. Fontan, M. and Mataric, M. 1997. A study of territoriality: The role of critical mass in adaptive task division. In From Animals to Animats 4: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, MIT Press, pp. 553–561.Google Scholar
  9. Goldberg, D. and Mataric, M. 1997. Interference as a tool for designing and evaluating multi-robot controllers. In Proceedings, AAAI-97, pp. 637–642.Google Scholar
  10. Jardine, N. and Sibson, R. 1971. Mathematical Taxonomy, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  11. Kitano, M., Asada, M., Kuniyoushi, Y., Noda, I., and Osawa, E. 1997. Robocup: The robot world cup initiative. In Proc.Autonomous Agents 97, Marina Del Rey, California.Google Scholar
  12. Lurie, D., Valls, J., and Wagensberg, J. 1983. Thermodynamic approach to biomass distribution in ecological systems. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 45(5):869–872.Google Scholar
  13. Lurie, D. and Wagensberg, J. 1980. Information theory and ecological diversity. In Systems Far from Equilibrium, L. Garrido (Ed.), Springer-Verlag: Berlin, West Germany, pp. 290–303. Sitges Conf. on Statistical Mechanics.Google Scholar
  14. MacKenzie, D., Arkin, R., and Cameron, J. 1997. Multiagent mission specification and execution. Autonomous Robots, 4(1):29–52.Google Scholar
  15. Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mataric, M. 1992. Designing emergent behaviors: From local interactions to collective intelligence. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior: From Animals to Animats 2, pp. 432–441.Google Scholar
  17. Mataric, M. 1994. Learning to behave socially. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior: From Animals to Animats 3.Google Scholar
  18. Matari´c, M. 1997. Reinforcement learning in the multi-robot domain. Autonomous Robots, 4(1):73–83.Google Scholar
  19. Meyer, P. and McIntosh, S. 1992. The USA Today index of ethnic diversity. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4(1):56–58.Google Scholar
  20. Merriam-Webster 1989. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster.Google Scholar
  21. Parker, L.E. 1994. Heterogeneous multi-robot cooperation. Ph.D. Thesis, M.I.T. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.Google Scholar
  22. Press, W., Teukolsky, S., Vetterling, W., and Flannery, B. 1988. Numerical Recipes in C, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Shannon, C.E. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  24. Sneath, P. and Sokal, R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy, W.H. Freeman and Company: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  25. Christopher, W.J.C.H. and Dayan, P. 1992. Technical note: Q learning. Machine Learning, 8:279–292.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, E.O. 1992. The Diversity of Life, Norton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tucker Balch
    • 1
  1. 1.The Robotics InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations