Advertisement

Dynamic Task Partitioning for Foraging Robot Swarms

  • Edgar BuchananEmail author
  • Andrew Pomfret
  • Jon Timmis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9882)

Abstract

Dead reckoning error is a common problem in robotics that can be caused by multiple factors related to sensors or actuators. These errors potentially cause landmarks recorded by a robot to appear in a different location with respect to the actual position of the object. In a foraging scenario with a swarm of robots, this error will ultimately lead to the robots being unable to return successfully to the food source. In order to address this issue, we propose a computationally low-cost finite state machine strategy with which robots divide the total travelling distance into a variable number of segments, thus decreasing accumulated dead-reckoning error. The distance travelled by each robot changes according to the success and failure of exploration. Our approach is more flexible than using a previously used fixed size approach for the travel distance, thus allowing swarms greater flexibility and scaling to larger areas of operation.

Keywords

Swarm robotics Task partitioning Fault tolerance Foraging 

Notes

Acknowledgments

EB acknowledges financial support from CONACyT. JT is part sponsored by The Royal Society.

References

  1. 1.
    Alden, K., Read, M., Andrews, P.S., Timmis, J., Coles, M.: Applying spartan to understand parameter uncertainty in simulations. R J. 6(2), 1–18 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barca, J.C., Sekercioglu, Y.A.: Swarm robotics reviewed. Robot. 31, 1–15 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brutschy, A., Pini, G., Pinciroli, C., Birattari, M., Dorigo, M.: Self-organized task allocation to sequentially interdependent tasks in swarm robotics. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 28, 101–125 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carlson, J., Murphy, R.R.: How UGVs physically fail in the field. IEEE Trans. Robot. 21(3), 423–437 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen, A.L., Grady, R.O., Dorigo, M.: From fireflies to fault-tolerant swarms of robots. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 13(4), 754–766 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dorigo, M., Floreano, D., Gambardella, L.M., et al.: Swarmanoid: a novel concept for the study of heterogeneous robotic swarms. IRIDIA, Brussels, Belgium, Technical report 11–14 July (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferrante, E., Turgut, A.E., Dué, E., Dorigo, M.: Evolution of self-organized task specialization in robot swarms. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, 1–21 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldberg, D., Matarie, M.J.: Design and evaluation of robust behavior-based controllers for distributed multi-robot collection tasks. In: Robot Teams: From Diversity to Polymorphism, pp. 1–24 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hart, A.G., Ratnieks, F.L.W.: Task partitioning, division of labour and nest compartmentalisation collectively isolate hazardous waste in the leafcutting ant atta cephalotes. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 49(5), 387–392 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Humza, R., Scholz, O., Mokhtar, M., Timmis, J., Tyrrell, A.: Towards energy homeostasis in an autonomous self-reconfigurable modular robotic organism. In: Computation World: Future Computing, Service Computation, Adaptive, Content, Cognitive, Patterns, Computation World 2009, pp. 21–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, B.R.: Task partitioning in honey bees: the roles of signals and cues in group-level coordination of action. Behav. Ecol. 21(6), 1373–1379 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, X., Parker, L.E.: Sensor analysis for fault detection in tightly-coupled multi-robot team tasks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 3269–3276, April 2007Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Long, M., Murphy, R., Parker, L.: Distributed multi-agent diagnosis and recovery from sensor failures. In: Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003), vol. 3, pp. 2506–2513, October 2003Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parker, L.E.: ALLIANCE: an architecture for fault tolerant multirobot cooperation. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 14(2), 220–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parker, L.E., Kannan, B.: Adaptive causal models for fault diagnosis and recovery in multi-robot teams. In: IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2703–2710 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pinciroli, C., Trianni, V., O’Grady et al.: ARGoS: a modular, multi-engine simulator for heterogeneous swarm robotics. In: IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 5027–5034 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pini, G., Brutschy, A., Birattari, M., Dorigo, M.: Task partitioning in swarms of robots: reducing performance losses due to interference at shared resources. In: Cetto, J.A., Filipe, J., Ferrier, J.-L. (eds.) Informatics in Control Automation and Robotics. LNEE, vol. 85, pp. 217–228. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pini, G., Brutschy, A., Scheidler, A., et al.: Task partitioning in a robot swarm: object retrieval as sequence of subtasks with direct object transfer. Artif. Life 20(3), 291–317 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sahin, E.: Swarm robotics: from sources of inspiration. In: Swarm Robotics Workshop: State-of-the-Art Survey, pp. 10–20 (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmickl, T., Karsai, I.: Sting, carry and stock: how corpse availability can regulate de-centralized task allocation in a ponerine ant colony. PloS one 9(12), e114611 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tarapore, D., Lima, P.U., Carneiro, J., Christensen, A.L.: To err is robotic, to tolerate immunological: fault detection in multirobot systems. Bioinspir. Biomim. 10(1), 016014 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Timmis, J., Tyrrell, A., Mokhtar, M., Ismail, A., Owens, N., Bi, R.: An artificial immune system for robot organisms. In: Symbiotic Multi-Robot Organisms: Reliability, Adaptability, pp. 279–302 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Winfield, A.F.T., Harper, C.J., Nembrini, J.: Towards dependable swarms and a new discipline of swarm engineering. In: Şahin, E., Spears, W.M. (eds.) Swarm Robotics 2004. LNCS, vol. 3342, pp. 126–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.York Robotics Laboratory, Department of ElectronicsUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations