Experimental Robotics pp 471-480

Part of the Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics book series (STAR, volume 39) | Cite as

Comparing Coordination Schemes for Miniature Robotic Swarms: A Case Study in Boundary Coverage of Regular Structures

  • Nikolaus Correll
  • Samuel Rutishauser
  • Alcherio Martinoli

Summary

We consider boundary coverage of a regular structure by a swarm of miniature robots, and compare a suite of three fully distributed coordination algorithms experimentally. All algorithms rely on boundary coverage by reactive control, whereas coordination of the robots high-level behavior is fundamentally different: random, self-organized, and deliberative with reactive elements.

The self-organized coordination algorithm was designed using macroscopic probabilistic models that lead to analytical expressions for the algorithm’s mean performance. We contrast this approach with a provably complete, near optimal coverage algorithm, which is due to its assumption (noise-less sensors and actuators) infeasible on a real miniature robotic platform, but is considered to yield best-possible policies for an individual robot.

Experimental results with swarms of up to 30 robots show that self-organization significantly improves coverage performance with increasing swarm size. We also observe that enforcing a provably complete policy on a miniature robot with limited hardware capabilities is highly sub-optimal as there is a trade-off between coverage throughput and time spent for localization and navigation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agmon, N., Hazon, N., Kaminka, G.: Constructing spanning trees for efficient multi-robot coverage. In: ICRA. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 1698–1703 (May 2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arkin, R.: Behavior-Based Robotics, 2nd edn. MIT Press, The MIT press, Cambridge, MA, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., Theraulaz, G.: Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems, SFI Studies in the Science of Complexity. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA (1999)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burgard, W., Moors, M., Stachniss, C., Schneider, F.: Coordinated multi-robot exploration. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 21(3), 376–378 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caprari, G., Siegwart, R.: Mobile micro-robots ready to use: Alice. In: IROS. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, pp. 3295–3300 (August 2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Correll, N., Martinoli, A.: Modeling and analysis of beacon-based and beaconless policies for a swarm-intelligent inspection system. In: ICRA. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 2488–2493 (April 2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Correll, N., Martinoli, A.: Collective inspection of regular structures using a swarm of miniature robots. In: ISER. Int. Symp. on Experimental Robotics, Singapore. Springer Tracts for Advanced Robotics (STAR), vol. 21, pp. 375–385 (June 2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Correll, N., Martinoli, A.: Towards optimal control of self-organized robotic inspection systems. In: SYROCO. 8th Int. IFAC Symp. on Robot Control, Bologna, Italy (September 2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Correll, N., Sempo, G., de Meneses, Y.L., Halloy, J., Deneubourg, J.-L., Martinoli, A.: SwisTrack: A tracking tool for multi-unit robotic and biological research. In: IROS. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Beijing, China (October 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Easton, K., Burdick, J.: A coverage algorithm for multi-robot boundary inspection. In: ICRA. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 727–734 (April 2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gage, D.: Many-robot MCM search systems. In: Bottoms, A., Eagle, J., Bayless, H. (eds.) Proc. of the Autonomous Vehicles in Mine Contermeasure Symp., pp. 9.55–9.63 (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martinoli, A., Easton, K., Agassounon, W.: Modeling of swarm robotic systems: A case study in collaborative distributed manipulation. Int. J. of Robotics Research 23(4), 415–436 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michel, O.: Webots: Professional mobile robot simulation. Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 1(1), 39–42 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Polastre, J., Szewczyk, R., Culler, D.: Telos: Enabling ultra-low power wireless research. In: IPSN-SPOTS. IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, Los Angeles, CA, USA (April 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shmoulian, L., Rimon, E.: Roadmap-A*: an algorithm for minimizing travel effort in sensor based mobile robot navigation. In: Proc. of the 1998 IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp. 356–362 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wagner, I., Lindenbaum, M., Bruckstein, A.: MAC vs. PC — determinism and randomness as complementary approaches to robotic exploration of continuous unknown domains. Int. J. of Robotics Research 19(1), 12–31 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Williams, K., Burdick, J.: Multi-robot boundary coverage with plan revision. In: ICRA. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 1716–1723 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikolaus Correll
    • 1
  • Samuel Rutishauser
    • 1
  • Alcherio Martinoli
    • 1
  1. 1.Swarm-Intelligent Systems Group, École Polytechnique Fédérale Lausanne, Station 14LausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations