Evolutionary Swarm Robotics: Genetic Diversity, Task-Allocation and Task-Switching

  • Elio Tuci
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8667)


The goal of this study is to investigate the role of genetic diversity for engineering more resilient evolutionary swarm robotic systems. The resilience of the swarm is evaluated with respect to the capability of the system to re-distribute agents to tasks in response to changes in operating conditions. We compare the performances of two evolutionary approaches: the clonal approach in which the teams are genetically homogeneous, and the aclonal approach in which the teams are genetically heterogeneous. We show that the aclonal approach outperforms the clonal approach for the design of robot teams engaged in two task-allocation scenarios, and that heterogeneous teams tend to rely on less plastic strategies. The significance of this study for evolutionary swarm robotics is discussed and directions for future work are indicated.


Social Insect Clonal Approach Dynamic Neural Network Insect Society Robot Team 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ampatzis, C., Tuci, E., Trianni, V., Christensen, A., Dorigo, M.: Evolving self-assembly in autonomous homogeneous robots. Artificial Life 15(4), 465–484 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beer, R.D., Gallagher, J.C.: Evolving dynamic neural networks for adaptive behavior. Adaptive Behavior 1(1), 91–122 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G., Deneubourg, J.L.: Quantitative study of the fixed threshold model for the regulation of division of labour in insects societies. Pro. R. Soc. B 263(1376), 1565–1569 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorigo, M., Şahin, E.: Guest editorial. Special issue: Swarm robotics. Aut. Rob. 17(2-3), 111–113 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duarte, A., Weissing, F., Penn, I., Keller, L.: An evolutionary perspective on self-organised division of labour in social insects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42, 91–110 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordon, D.: Dynamics of task-switching in harvester ants. Animal Behaviour 38, 194–204 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gordon, D.: The organisation of work in social insects. Nature 380, 121–124 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jakobi, N.: Evolutionary robotics and the radical envelope of noise hypothesis. Adaptive Behavior 6, 325–368 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Labella, T., Dorigo, M., Deneubourg, J.L.: Division of labour in a group of robots inspired by ants’ foraging behavior. ACM Trans. Aut. Adap. Sys. 1(1), 4–25 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nolfi, S., Gigliotta, O.: Evorobot ⋆ . In: Nolfi, S., Mirolli, M. (eds.) Evolution of Communication and Language in Embodied Agents, pp. 327–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oldroyd, B., Fewell, J.: Genetic diversity promotes homeostasis in insect colonies. Trends Ecol. E 22(8), 408–413 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Page, R.: The evolution of insects societies. Endeavour 21(7), 114–120 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pini, G., Brutschy, A., Frison, M., Roli, A., Dorigo, M., Birattari, M.: Task partitioning in swarms of robots: An adaptive method for strategy selection. Swarm Intelligence 5(3-4), 283–304 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quinn, M.: A comparison of approaches to the evolution of homogeneous multi-robot teams. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Evolutionary Computation (CEC), vol. 1, pp. 128–135 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quinn, M., Smith, L., Mayley, G., Husbands, P.: Evolving controllers for a homogeneous system of physical robots: Structured cooperation with minimal sensors. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 361, 2321–2344 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trianni, V., Nolfi, S.: Engineering the evolution of self-organizing behaviors in swarm robotics: A case study. Artificial Life 17(3), 183–202 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tuci, E., Ampatzis, C., Vicentini, F., Dorigo, M.: Evolving homogeneous neuro-controllers for a group of heterogeneous robots. Artificial Life 14(2) (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elio Tuci
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentAberystwyth UniversityAberystwythUK

Personalised recommendations