Autonomous Robots

, Volume 17, Issue 2–3, pp 137–162 | Cite as

Distributed, Physics-Based Control of Swarms of Vehicles

  • William M. Spears
  • Diana F. Spears
  • Jerry C. Hamann
  • Rodney Heil


We introduce a framework, called “physicomimetics,” that provides distributed control of large collections of mobile physical agents in sensor networks. The agents sense and react to virtual forces, which are motivated by natural physics laws. Thus, physicomimetics is founded upon solid scientific principles. Furthermore, this framework provides an effective basis for self-organization, fault-tolerance, and self-repair. Three primary factors distinguish our framework from others that are related: an emphasis on minimality (e.g., cost effectiveness of large numbers of agents implies a need for expendable platforms with few sensors), ease of implementation, and run-time efficiency. Examples are shown of how this framework has been applied to construct various regular geometric lattice configurations (distributed sensing grids), as well as dynamic behavior for perimeter defense and surveillance. Analyses are provided that facilitate system understanding and predictability, including both qualitative and quantitative analyses of potential energy and a system phase transition. Physicomimetics has been implemented both in simulation and on a team of seven mobile robots. Specifics of the robotic embodiment are presented in the paper.

swarm robotics physicomimetics self-organization fault-tolerance predictability formations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alur, R., Esposito, J., Kim, M., Kumar, J., and Lee, I. 1999. Formal modeling and analysis of hybrid systems: A case study in multi-robot coordination. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1708:212–232.Google Scholar
  2. Balch, T. and Arkin, R. 1998. Behavior-based formation control for multi-robot teams. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automata, 14(6):1–15.Google Scholar
  3. Beni, G. and Hackwood, S. 1992. Stationary waves in cyclic swarms. Intelligent Control, 234-242.Google Scholar
  4. Beni, G. and Wang, J. 1989. Swarm intelligence. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Robotics Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 425-428.Google Scholar
  5. Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., and Theraulaz, G. 1999. Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems. Oxford University Press: Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Oxford, NY.Google Scholar
  6. Brogan, D. and Hodgins, J. 1997. Group behaviors for systems with significant dynamics. Autonomous Robots, 4:137–153.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, B., Gupta, V., and Hogg, T. 1997. Controlling agents in smart matter with global constraints. In AAAI-97 Workshop on Constraints and Agents-Technical Report WS-97-05, E.C. Freuder (Ed.).Google Scholar
  8. Czirok, A., Vicsek, M., and Vicsek, T. 1999. Collective motion of organisms in three dimensions. Physica A, 264(299):299–304.Google Scholar
  9. Desai, J., Ostrowski, J., and Kumar, V. 2001. Modeling and control of formations of nonholonomic mobile robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 17(6):905–908.Google Scholar
  10. Desai, J., Ostrowski, J., and Kumar, V. 1998. Controlling formations of multiple mobile robots. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Belgium, pp. 2864-2869.Google Scholar
  11. Fax, J. and Murray,R. 2002. Information flowand cooperative control of vehicle formations. In IFACWorld Congress, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  12. Fernandez, F. and Parker, L. 2002. Learning in large cooperative multi-robot domains. International Journal of Robotics and Automation, 16(4):217–226.Google Scholar
  13. Fierro, R., Belta, C., Desai, J., and Kumar, V. 2001. On controlling aircraft formations. In IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, vol. 2, Orlando, Florida, pp. 1065–1070.Google Scholar
  14. Fierro, R., Song, P., Das, A., and Kumar, V. 2002. Cooperative control of robot formations. In Cooperative Control and Optimization, R. Murphey and P. Pardalos (Eds.), vol. 66, Kluwer Academic Press: Hingham, MA, pp. 73–93.Google Scholar
  15. Fredslund, J. and Matari?, M. 2002. A general algorithm for robot formations using local sensing and minimal communication. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 18(5):837–846.Google Scholar
  16. Goldberg, D. and Matari´c, M. 2000. Learning multiple models for reward maximization. In Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning, Stanford, CA, pp. 319-326.Google Scholar
  17. Goldberg, D.E. 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  18. Gordon, D., Spears, W., Sokolsky, O., and Lee, I. 1999. Distributed spatial control, global monitoring and steering of mobile physical agents. In IEEE International Conference on Information, Intelligence, and Systems, Washington, DC, pp. 681-688.Google Scholar
  19. Gordon-Spears, D. and Spears, W. 2003. Analysis of a phase transition in a physics-based multiagent system. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, M. Hinchey, J. Rash, W. Truszkowski, C. Rouff, and D. Gordon-Spears (Eds.), vol. 2699, Springer-Verlag: Greenbelt, MD, pp. 193–207.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes, A., Martinoli, A., and Goodman, R. 2002. Distributed odor source localization. IEEE Sensors, 2(3):260–271.Google Scholar
  21. Helbing, D., Farkas, I., and Vicsek, T. 2000. Simulating dynamical features of escape panic. Nature, 407:487–490.Google Scholar
  22. Holland, J. 1975. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press: Michigan, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Howard, A., Matari?, M., and Sukhatme, G. 2002. Mobile sensor network deployment using potential fields: A distributed, scalable solution to the area coverage problem. In Sixth International Symposium on Distributed Autonomous Robotics Systems, ACM: Fukuoka, Japan, pp. 299–308.Google Scholar
  24. Jantz, S., Doty, K., Bagnell, J., and Zapata, I. 1997. Kinetics of robotics: The development of universal metrics in robotic swarms. In Florida Conference on Recent Advances in Robotics, Miami, Florida.Google Scholar
  25. Kellogg, J., Bovais, C., Foch, R., McFarlane, H., Sullivan, C., Dahlburg, J., Gardner, J., Ramamurti, R., Gordon-Spears, D., Hartley, R., Kamgar-Parsi, B., Pipitone, F., Spears, W., Sciambi, A., and Srull, D. 2002. The NRL micro tactical expendable (MITE) air vehicle. The Aeronautical Journal, 106(1062):431–441.Google Scholar
  26. Khatib, O. 1986. Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots. International Journal of Robotics Research, 5(1):90–98.Google Scholar
  27. Kraus, S., Shehory, O., and Yadgar, O. 1999. Emergent cooperative goal-satisfaction in large-scale automated-agent systems. Artificial Intelligence, 110:1–55.Google Scholar
  28. Navarro-Serment, L.L., Paredis, C., and Khosla, P. 1999. A beacon system for the localization of distributed robotic teams. In International Conference on Field and Service Robots, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 232-237.Google Scholar
  29. Lerman, K. and Galstyan, A. 2001.Ageneral methodology for mathematical analysis of multi-agent systems. Technical Report ISITR-529, USC Information Sciences.Google Scholar
  30. Liu, Y., Passino, K., and Polycarpou, M. 2003. Stability analysis of m-dimensional asynchronous swarms with a fixed communication topology. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 48:76–95.Google Scholar
  31. Matari?, M. 1995. Designing and understanding adaptive group behavior. Technical report, CS Dept., Brandeis Univ.Google Scholar
  32. Numaoka, C. 1995. Phase transitions in instigated collective decision making. Adaptive Behavior, 3(2):185–222.Google Scholar
  33. Olfati-Saber,R. and Murray,R. 2002. Distributed cooperative control of multiple vehicle formations using structural potential functions. In IFAC World Congress, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  34. Parker, L. 1998. Alliance: An architecture for fault tolerant multirobot cooperation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 14(2):220–240.Google Scholar
  35. Parker, L. 1998. Toward the automated synthesis of cooperative mobile robot teams. In SPIE Mobile Robots XIII, vol. 3525, Boston, MA, pp. 82–93.Google Scholar
  36. Potter, M., Meeden, L., and Schultz, A. 2001. Heterogeneity in the coevolved behaviors of mobile robots: The emergence of specialists. In Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann: Seattle, Washington, pp. 1337–1343.Google Scholar
  37. Reif, J. and Wang, H. 1999. Social potential fields: A distributed behavioral control for autonomous robots. In Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 27(3):171–194.Google Scholar
  38. Reynolds, C. 1987. Flocks, herds, and schools: A distributed behavioral model. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH'87, vol. 21, no. 4, ACM Computer Graphics: New York, NY, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
  39. Schoenwald, D., Feddema, J., and Oppel, F. 2001. Decentralized control of a collective of autonomous robotic vehicles. In American Control Conference, Arlington, VA, pp. 2087-2092.Google Scholar
  40. Schultz, A., Grefenstette, J., and Adams, W. 1996. Roboshepherd: Learning a complex behavior. In Robotics and Manufacturing: Recent Trends in Research and Applications, vol. 6, ASME Press: New York, pp. 763–768.Google Scholar
  41. Schultz, A. and Parker, L. (Eds.). 2002. Multi-Robot Systems: From Swarms to Intelligent Automata, Kluwer: Hingham, MA.Google Scholar
  42. Simmons, R., Smith, T., Dias, M., Goldberg, D., Hershberger, D., Stentz, A., and Zlot, R. 2002. A layered architecture for coordination of mobile robots. In Multi-Agent Robot Systems: From Swarms to Intelligent Automata, A. Schultz and L. Parker (Eds.), Kluwer: Hingham, MA.Google Scholar
  43. Slack, M. 1990. Situationally driven local navigation for mobile robots, PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic.Google Scholar
  44. Spears, W., De Jong, K., Bäck, T., Fogel, D., and Garis de, H. 1993. An overview of evolutionary computation. In European Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 667, Springer Verlag: Austria, pp. 442–459.Google Scholar
  45. Spears, W. and Gordon, D. 1999. Using artificial physics to control agents. In IEEE International Conference on Information, Intelligence, and Systems, Washington, DC, pp. 281-288.Google Scholar
  46. Suzuki, I. and Yamashita, M. 1999. Distributed anonymous mobile robots: Formation of geometric patterns. SIAM Journal of Computation, 28(4):1347–1363.Google Scholar
  47. Toner, J. and Tu, Y. 1998. Flocks, herds, and schools: A quantitative theory of flocking. Physical Review E, 58(4):4828–4858.Google Scholar
  48. Tu, X. and Terzopoulos, D. 1994. Artifical fishes: Physics, locomotion, perception, behavior. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH'94, ACM Computer Graphics: Orlando, Florida, pp. 43–50.Google Scholar
  49. Vail, D. and Veloso, M. 2003. Multi-robot dynamic role assignment and coordination through shared potential fields. In Multi-Robot Systems, A. Schultz, L. Parker, and F. Schneider (Eds.), Kluwer: Hingham, MA, pp. 87–98.Google Scholar
  50. Vicsek, T., Czirok, A., Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I., and Shocher, O. 1995. Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles. Physics Review Letters, 75(6):1226–1229.Google Scholar
  51. Wu, A., Schultz, A., and Agah, A. 1999. Evolving control for distributed micro air vehicles. In IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation, Belgium, pp. 174-179.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • William M. Spears
  • Diana F. Spears
  • Jerry C. Hamann
  • Rodney Heil

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations