Advertisement

Potential of Heterogeneity in Collective Behaviors: A Case Study on Heterogeneous Swarms

  • Daniela Kengyel
  • Heiko Hamann
  • Payam Zahadat
  • Gerald Radspieler
  • Franz Wotawa
  • Thomas Schmickl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9387)

Abstract

Research in swarm robotics and collective behaviors is often focused on homogeneous swarms. However, heterogeneity in behaviors can be advantageous as we know, for example, from studies on social insects. Our objective is to study the hypothesis that there are potential advantages of heterogeneous swarms over homogeneous swarms in an aggregation scenario inspired by behaviors of juvenile honeybees. Even without task switching – that is, with predefined, static roles for certain swarm fractions – we find in our case study that heterogeneous swarms can outperform homogeneous swarms for a predetermined set of basic behaviors. We use methods of evolutionary computation to define behaviors imitating those found in honeybees (random walkers, wall followers, goal finders, immobile agents) and also to find well-adapted swarm fractions of different predetermined behaviors. Our results show that non-trivial distributions of behaviors give better aggregation performance.

Keywords

Random Walker Multiagent System Behavior Type Collective Behavior Swarm Intelligence 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arvin, F., Turgut, A.E., Bazyari, F., Arikan, K.B., Bellotto, N., Yue, S.: Cue-based aggregation with a mobile robot swarm: a novel fuzzy-based method. Adaptive Behavior 22(3), 189–206 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arvin, F., Turgut, A.E., Yue, S.: Fuzzy-based aggregation with a mobile robot swarm. In: Dorigo, M., Birattari, M., Blum, C., Christensen, A.L., Engelbrecht, A.P., Groß, R., Stützle, T. (eds.) ANTS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7461, pp. 346–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beni, G.: From swarm intelligence to swarm robotics. In: Şahin, E., Spears, W.M. (eds.) Swarm Robotics 2004. LNCS, vol. 3342, pp. 1–9. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berman, S., et al.: Optimized stochastic policies for task allocation in swarms of robots. Robotics, IEEE Transactions on 25(4), 927–937 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bodi, M., Thenius, R., Szopek, M., Schmickl, T., Crailsheim, K.: Interaction of robot swarms using the honeybee-inspired control algorithm beeclust. Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems 18(1), 87–100 (2012)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., Theraulaz, G.: Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems. Oxford Univ Press (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campbell, A., Wu, A.S.: Multi-agent role allocation: issues, approaches, and multiple perspectives. Autonomous Agents & Multi-Agent Systems 22, 317–355 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Couzin, I.D., Krause, J., Franks, N.R., Levin, S.A.: Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature 433, 513–516 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dorigo, M., et al.: Swarmanoid: a novel concept for the study of heterogeneous robotic swarms. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 20(4), 60–71 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dorigo, M., Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G.: Ant algorithms and stigmergy. Future Generation Computer Systems 16(9), 851–871 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferrante, E., Dúeñez Guzḿan, E., Turgut, A.E., Wenseleers, T.: Evolution of task partitioning in swarm robotics. In: et al., V.T. (ed.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Collective Behaviors and Social Dynamics of the European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garnier, S., Gautrais, J., Asadpour, M., Jost, C., Theraulaz, G.: Self-organized aggregation triggers collective decision making in a group of cockroach-like robots. Adaptive Behavior 17(2), 109–133 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamann, H.: Towards swarm calculus: Urn models of collective decisions and universal properties of swarm performance. Swarm Intelligence 7(2–3), 145–172 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamann, H., Karsai, I., Schmickl, T.: Time delay implies cost on task switching: A model to investigate the efficiency of task partitioning. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 75(7), 1181–1206 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamann, H., Meyer, B., Schmickl, T., Crailsheim, K.: A model of symmetry breaking in collective decision-making. In: Doncieux, S., Girard, B., Guillot, A., Hallam, J., Meyer, J.-A., Mouret, J.-B. (eds.) SAB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6226, pp. 639–648. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hereford, J.M.: Analysis of BEECLUST swarm algorithm. In: Proc. of the IEEE Symposium on Swarm Intelligence (SIS 2011), pp. 192–198. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hölldobler, B., Wilson, E.: The ants. Belknap Press of Harvard University (1990)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kengyel, D., Schmickl, T., Hamann, H., Thenius, R., Crailsheim, K.: Embodiment of honeybee’s thermotaxis in a mobile robot swarm. In: Kampis, G., Karsai, I., Szathmáry, E. (eds.) ECAL 2009, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5778, pp. 69–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kengyel, D., Thenius, R., Crailsheim, K., Schmickl, T.: Influence of a social gradient on a swarm of agents controlled by the beeclust algorithm. Advances in Artificial Life. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, ECAL 2013 12, pp. 1041–1048 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kengyel, D., Wotawa, F., Schmickl, T.: Towards swarm level programming: The role of different movement patterns in swarm systems. Swarm Intelligence (2014), submittedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kernbach, S., Thenius, R., Kornienko, O., Schmickl, T.: Re-embodiment of honeybee aggregation behavior in an artificial micro-robotic swarm. Adaptive Behavior 17, 237–259 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khaluf, Y., Birattari, M., Hamann, H.: A swarm robotics approach to task allocation under soft deadlines and negligible switching costs. In: del Pobil, A.P., Chinellato, E., Martinez-Martin, E., Hallam, J., Cervera, E., Morales, A. (eds.) SAB 2014. LNCS, vol. 8575, pp. 270–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Labella, T.H., Dorigo, M., Deneubourg, J.L.: Division of labor in a group of robots inspired by ants’ foraging behavior. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS) 1(1), 4–25 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lenaghan, S., Wang, Y., Xi, N., Fukuda, T., Tarn, T., Hamel, W., Zhang, M.: Grand challenges in bioengineered nanorobotics for cancer therapy. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 60(3), 667–673 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu, X., Li, X., Shi, X., Huang, K., Liu, Y.: A multi-type ant colony optimization (maco) method for optimal land use allocation in large areas. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 26(7), 1325–1343 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lorenz, K.: Vergleichende Verhaltensforschung: Grundlagen der Ethologie. Springer (1978)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rubenstein, M., Ahler, C., Hoff, N., Cabrera, A., Nagpal, R.: Kilobot: A low cost robot with scalable operations designed for collective behaviors. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 62(7), 966–975 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rubenstein, M., Cornejo, A., Nagpal, R.: Programmable self-assembly in a thousand-robot swarm. Science 345(6198), 795–799 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmickl, T., Crailsheim, K.: TaskSelSim: a model of the self-organization of the division of labour in honeybees. Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems 14, 101–125 (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schmickl, T., Hamann, H.: BEECLUST: a swarm algorithm derived from honeybees. In: Xiao, Y. (ed.) Bio-inspired Computing and Communication Networks. CRC Press, March 2011Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schmickl, T., Thenius, R., Möslinger, C., Radspieler, G., Kernbach, S., Crailsheim, K.: Get in touch: Cooperative decision making based on robot-to-robot collisions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 18(1), 133–155 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seeley, T.D.: Adaptive significance of the age polyethism schedule in honeybee colonies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 11, 287–293 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seeley, T.D.: Honey bee foragers as sensory units of their colonies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 34, 51–62 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Szopek, M., Schmickl, T., Thenius, R., Radspieler, G., Crailsheim, K.: Dynamics of collective decision making of honeybees in complex temperature fields. PLoS ONE 8(10), e76250 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wilson, E.: The relation between caste ratios and division of labour in the ant genus Pheidole (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 16, 89–98 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yong, C.H., et al.: Coevolution of role-based cooperation in multiagent systems. IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development 1(3), 170–186 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zahadat, P., Crailsheim, K., Schmickl, T.: Social inhibition manages division of labour in artificial swarm systems. In: Lio, P., Miglino, O., Nicosia, G., Nolfi, S., Pavone, M. (eds.) 12th European Conference on Artificial Life (ECAL 2013), pp. 609–616. MIT Press (2013)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zahadat, P., Schmickl, T.: Wolfpack-inspired evolutionary algorithm and a reaction-diffusion-based controller are used for pattern formation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 241–248. GECCO 2014, ACM, New York, USA (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Kengyel
    • 1
  • Heiko Hamann
    • 2
  • Payam Zahadat
    • 1
  • Gerald Radspieler
    • 1
  • Franz Wotawa
    • 3
  • Thomas Schmickl
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Life Laboratory at the Department of ZoologyKarl-Franzens University GrazGrazAustria
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of PaderbornPaderbornGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Software TechnologyGraz University of TechnologyGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations