A Bio-Inspired Architecture for Division of Labour in SANETs

  • Thomas Halva Labella
  • Falko Dressler
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 69)

Division of labour is one of the possible strategies to efficiently exploit the resources of autonomous systems. It is also a phenomenon often observed in animal systems. We show an architecture that implements division of labour in Sensor/Actuator Networks. The way the nodes take their decisions is inspired by ants’ foraging behaviour. The preliminary results show that the architecture and the bio-inspired mechanism successfully induce self-organised division of labour in the network. The experiments were run in simulation. We developed a new type of simulator for this purpose. Key features of our work are cross-layer design and exploitation of inter-node interactions. No explicit negotiation between the agents takes place.


Wireless Sensor Network Mobile Node Network Layer Application Layer Task Allocation 
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.
    Akyildiz, I., Kasimoglu, I.: Wireless sensor and actor networks: research challenges. Ad Hoc Networks 2 (2004) 351-367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cardei, M., Wu, J.: Coverage in Wireless Sensor Networks. In Ilyas, M., ed.: Handbook of Sensor Networks. CRC Press, West Palm Beach, FL (2004) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Labella, T., 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 1 (2006)4-25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Labella, T., Dorigo, M., Deneubourg, J.L.: Efficiency and task allocation in prey retrieval. In Ijspeert, A., Murata, M., Wakamiya, N., eds.: Biologically Inspired Approaches to Advanced Information Technology: First International Workshop, BioADIT 2004. Volume 3141 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science., Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany (2004) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dressler, F.: Self-Organization in Ad Hoc Networks: Overview and Classification. Technical Report 02/06, University of Erlangen, Dept. of Computer Science 7 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerkey, B., Matarić , M.: A market-based formulation of sensor-actuator network coordination. In Sukhatme, G., Balch, T., eds.: Proceedings fo the AAAI Sping Symposium on Intelligent Embedded and Distributed Systems, AAAI Press, San Jose, CA (2002) 21-26Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Younis, M., Akkaya, K., Kunjithapatham, A.: Optimization of Task Allocation in a Cluster-Based Sensor Network. In: Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC 2003), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA (2003)329-334Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Batalin, M., Sukhatme, G.: Using a sensor network for distributed multi-robot task allocation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA2004). Volume 1., IEEE Press, New York, NY (2004) 158-164Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Low, K., Leow, W., Ang, M.: Autonomic mobile sensor network with self-coordinated task allocation and execution. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C 36 (2006) 315-327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G., Deneubourg, J.L.: Quantitative study of the fixed threshold model for the regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B-Biological Sciences 263 (1996) 1565-1569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jesi, G., Montresor, A., Babaoglu, O.: Proximity-aware superpeer overlay technologies. In Keller, A., Martin-Flatin, J.P., eds.: Proceedings of SelfMan’06. Volume 3996 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science., Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany (2006) 43-57 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Labella, T., Dietrich, I., Dressler, F.: BARAKA: A hybrid simulator of sensor/actuator networks. In: Proceedings of the Second IEEE/Create-Net/ICST International Conference on COMmunication System softWAre and MiddlewaRE (COMSWARE 2007), Bangalore, India (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jakobi, N., Husbands, P., Harvey, I.: Noise and the reality gap: the use of simulation in evolutionary robotics. In Moran, F., Moreno, A., Merelo, J., Chacon, P., eds.: Advances in Artificial Life: Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Artificial Life. Volume 929 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science., Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany (1995)704-720 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., Theraulaz, G.: Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems. Oxford University Press, New York (1999) zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abolhasan, M., Wysocki, T., Dutkiewicz, E.: A review of routing protocols for mobile adhoc networks. Ad Hoc Networks 2 (2004) 1-22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Di Caro, G., Ducatelle, F., Gambardella, L.: AntHocNet: An adaptive nature-inspired algorithm for routing in mobile ad hoc networks. European Transactions on Telecommunications, Special Issue on Self-organization in Mobile Networking 16 (2005) 443-455 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perkins, C., Royer, E.: Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing. In: 2nd IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA (1999) 90-100Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Balch, T.: Hierarchic social entropy: An information theoretic measure of robot group diversity. Autonomous Robots 8 (2000) 209-238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Halva Labella
    • 1
  • Falko Dressler
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer Science Autonomic Networking GroupUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Autonomic Networking Group. Department of Computer Science 7University of ErlangenErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations