Effects of Spatiality on Value-Sensitive Decisions Made by Robot Swarms

  • Andreagiovanni ReinaEmail author
  • Thomas Bose
  • Vito Trianni
  • James A. R. Marshall
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics book series (SPAR, volume 6)


Value-sensitive decision-making is an essential task for organisms at all levels of biological complexity and consists of choosing options among a set of alternatives and being rewarded according to the quality value of the chosen option. Provided that the chosen option has an above-threshold quality value, value-sensitive decisions are particularly relevant in case not all of the possible options are available at decision time. This means that the decision-maker may refrain from deciding until a sufficient-quality option becomes available. Value-sensitive collective decisions are interesting for swarm robotics when the options are dispersed in space (e.g., resources in a foraging problem), and may be discovered at different times. However, current design methodologies for collective decision-making often assume a well-mixed system, and clever design workarounds are suggested to deal with a heterogeneous distribution of opinions within the swarm (e.g., due to spatial constraints on the interaction network). Here, we quantify the effects of spatiality in a value-sensitive decision problem involving a swarm of 150 kilobots. We present a macroscopic model of value-sensitive decision-making inspired by house-hunting honeybees, and implement a solution for both a multiagent system and a kilobot swarm. Notably, no workaround is implemented to deal with the spatial distribution of opinions within the swarm. We show how the dynamics presented by the robotic system match or depart from the model predictions in both a qualitative and quantitative way as a result of spatial constraints.



This work was partially supported by the European Research Council through the ERC Consolidator Grant “DiODe: Distributed Algorithms for Optimal Decision-Making” (contract 647704). Vito Trianni acknowledges support from the project DICE (FP7 Marie Curie Career Integration Grant, ID: 631297). Finally, the authors thank Michael Port for the valuable help in building the infrastructure necessary to conduct the robot experiments.


  1. 1.
    Amé, J.M., Halloy, J., Rivault, C., Detrain, C., Deneubourg, J.L.: Collegial decision making based on social amplification leads to optimal group formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103(15), 5835–5840 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baronchelli, A., Dall’Asta, L., Barrat, A., Loreto, V.: Topology-induced coarsening in language games. Phys. Rev. E, Stat. Nonlinear, Soft Matter Phys. 73(1), 015,102 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berman, S., Kumar, V., Nagpal, R.: Design of control policies for spatially inhomogeneous robot swarms with application to commercial pollination. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 378–385. IEEE Press (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Correll, N., Martinoli, A.: Collective inspection of regular structures using a swarm of miniature robots. In: The 9th International Symposium on Experimental Robotics (ISER) (Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics), vol. 21, pp. 375–385. Springer, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dimidov, C., Oriolo, G., Trianni, V.: Random walks in swarm robotics: an experiment with kilobots. In: Dorigo, M. et al. (ed.) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Swarm Intelligence (ANTS 2016). LNCS, vol. 9882, pp. 185–196. Springer, Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franks, N.R., Hardcastle, K.A., Collins, S., Smith, F.D., Sullivan, K.M., Robinson, E.J., Sendova-Franks, A.B.: Can ant colonies choose a far-and-away better nest over an in-the-way poor one? Anim. Behav. 76(2), 323–334 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garnier, S., Jost, C., Gautrais, J., Asadpour, M., Caprari, G., Jeanson, R., Grimal, A., Theraulaz, G.: The embodiment of cockroach aggregation behavior in a group of micro-robots. Artif. Life 14(4), 387–408 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gillespie, D.T., Hellander, A., Petzold, L.R.: Perspective: stochastic algorithms for chemical kinetics. J. Chem. Phys. 138(17), 170,901–170,915 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamann, H., Wörn, H.: A framework of spacetime continuous models for algorithm design in swarm robotics. Swarm Intell. 2(2–4), 209–239 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kloeden, P.E., Platen, E.: Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differential Equations. Stochastic Modelling and Applied Probability, vol. 23. Springer, Berlin (1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lerman, K., Galstyan, A.: Mathematical model of foraging in a group of robots: effect of interference. Auton. Robot. 13(2), 127–141 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luke, S., Cioffi-Revilla, C., Panait, L., Sullivan, K., Balan, G.: Mason: a multiagent simulation environment. Simulation 81(7), 517–527 (2005). Transactions of the society for Modeling and Simulation InternationalCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martinoli, A., Easton, K., Agassounon, W.: Modeling swarm robotic systems: a case study in collaborative distributed manipulation. Int. J. Robot. Res. 23(4), 415–436 (2004). Special Issue on Experimental Robotics, Siciliano, B. (ed.)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Michael, N., Kumar, V.: Control of ensembles of aerial robots. Proc. IEEE 99(9), 1587–1602 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montes, M., Ferrante, E., Scheidler, A., Pinciroli, C., Birattari, M., Dorigo, M.: Majority-rule opinion dynamics with differential latency: a mechanism for self-organized collective decision-making. Swarm Intell. 5(3–4), 305–327 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moretti, P., Liu, S., Baronchelli, A., Pastor-Satorras, R.: Heterogenous mean-field analysis of a generalized voter-like model on networks. Eur. Phys. J. B 85(3), 1–6 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pais, D., Hogan, P.M., Schlegel, T., Franks, N.R., Leonard, N.E., Marshall, J.A.R.: A mechanism for value-sensitive decision-making. PLoS ONE 8(9), e73,216 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pirrone, A., Stafford, T., Marshall, J.A.R.: When natural selection should optimise speed-accuracy trade-offs. Front. Neurosci. 8(73) (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prorok, A., Corell, N., Martinoli, A.: Multi-level spatial modeling for stochastic distributed robotic systems. Int. J. Robot. Res. 30(5), 574–589 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reina, A., Miletitch, R., Dorigo, M., Trianni, V.: A quantitative micro-macro link for collective decisions: the shortest path discovery/selection example. Swarm Intell. 9(2–3), 75–102 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reina, A., Valentini, G., Fernández-Oto, C., Dorigo, M., Trianni, V.: A design pattern for decentralised decision making. PLoS ONE 10(10), e0140,950 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reina, A., Marshall, J.A.R., Trianni, V., Bose, T.: Model of the best-of-N nest-site selection process in honeybees. Phys. Rev. E. 95(5), 052411 (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rubenstein, M., Ahler, C., Hoff, N., Cabrera, A., Nagpal, R.: Kilobot: a low cost robot with scalable operations designed for collective behaviors. Robot. Auton. Syst. 62(7), 966–975 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seeley, T.D., Visscher, P.K., Schlegel, T., Hogan, P.M., Franks, N.R., Marshall, J.A.R.: Stop signals provide cross inhibition in collective decision-making by honeybee swarms. Science 335(6064), 108–11 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Trianni, V., De Simone, D., Reina, A., Baronchelli, A.: Emergence of consensus in a multi-robot network: from abstract models to empirical validation. IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. PP(99), 1–1 (2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Valentini, G., Ferrante, E., Hamann, H., Dorigo, M.: Collective decision with 100 kilobots: speed versus accuracy in binary discrimination problems. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 30(3), 553–580 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Valentini, G., Hamann, H.: Time-variant feedback processes in collective decision-making systems: influence and effect of dynamic neighborhood sizes. Swarm Intell. 9(2–3), 153–176 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreagiovanni Reina
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas Bose
    • 1
  • Vito Trianni
    • 2
  • James A. R. Marshall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.ISTC, Italian National Research CouncilRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations