Experimental Robotics pp 471-480
Comparing Coordination Schemes for Miniature Robotic Swarms: A Case Study in Boundary Coverage of Regular Structures
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.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.Arkin, R.: Behavior-Based Robotics, 2nd edn. MIT Press, The MIT press, Cambridge, MA, USA (2000)Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.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.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.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.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
- 13.Michel, O.: Webots: Professional mobile robot simulation. Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 1(1), 39–42 (2004)Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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