Evolution of Collective Perception in a Group of Autonomous Robots

Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 399)

Abstract

In this paper, we present an evolutionary robotics experiment that aims at studying how a macroscopic variable can be encoded in the collective activity of a group of robots. In particular, we aim at understanding how perception can be the result of a collective, self-organising process. A group of robots is placed in an environment characterised by black spots painted on the ground. The density of the spots is the macroscopic variable that should be perceived by the group. The density varies from trial to trial, and robots are requested to collectively encode such density into a coherent signalling activity. Robots have access only to local information, therefore cannot immediately perceive the global density. By exploiting interactions through an all-to-all communication channel, robots should prove capable of perceiving and encoding the global density. We show how such behaviour can be synthesised exploiting evolutionary robotics techniques, and we present extensive analyses of the evolved strategies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Romo, R., Salinas, E.: Flutter discrimination: neural codes, perception, memory and decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4, 203–218 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loffler, G.: Perception of contours and shapes: Low and intermediate stage mechanisms. Vision Research 48, 2106–2127 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leopold, D.A., Logothetis, N.K.: Activity changes in early visual cortex reflect monkeys  percept during binocular rivalry. Nature 379, 549–553 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rubin, N.: Binocular rivalry and perceptual multi-stability. Trends in Neurosciences 26, 289–291 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grill-Spector, K.: The neural basis of object perception. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 13, 159–166 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dehaene, S.: The neural basis of the weber-fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 145–147 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hölldobler, B., Wilson, E.O.: The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies. W. W. Norton & Company, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Detrain, C., Deneubourg, J.L.: Self-organized structures in a superorganism: do ants “behave” like molecules? Physics of Life Reviews 3, 162–187 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Passino, K., Seeley, T., Visscher, P.: Swarm cognition in honey bees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62, 401–414 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marshall, J.A.R., Bogacz, R., Dornhaus, A., Planqué, R., Kovacs, T., Franks, N.R.: On optimal decision-making in brains and social insect colonies. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 6, 1065–1074 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ratcliff, R., Smith, P.L.: A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review 111, 333–367 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trianni, V., Nolfi, S.: Self-organising sync in a robotic swarm. a dynamical system view. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, Special Issue on Swarm Intelligennce 13, 722–741 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sperati, V., Trianni, V., Nolfi, S.: Self-organised path formation in a swarm of robots. Swarm Intelligence 5, 97–119 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hauert, S., Zufferey, J.C., Floreano, D.: Evolved swarming without positioning information: an application in aerial communication relay. Autonomous Robots 26, 21–32 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beer, R.D.: A dynamical systems perspective on agent-environment interaction. Art. Intell. 72, 173–215 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jonas, P., Buzsaki, G.: Neural inhibition. Scholarpedia 2, 3286 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nieh, J.C.: Negative feedback signal that is triggered by peril curbs honey bee recruitment. Current Biology 20, 310–315 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trianni, V., Tuci, E.: Swarm cognition: an interdisciplinary approach to the study of self-organising biological collectives. Swarm Intelligence 5, 3–18 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISTC-CNRRomeItaly
  2. 2.IRIDIA-CoDE, ULBBrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Aberystwyth UniversityAberystwythU.K.

Personalised recommendations