Advertisement

Communication, Diversity and Learning: Cornerstones of Swarm Behavior

  • Tucker Balch
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3342)

Abstract

This paper reviews research in three important areas concerning robot swarms: communication, diversity, and learning. Communication (or the lack of it) is a key design consideration for robot teams. Communication can enable certain types of coordination that would be impossible otherwise. However communication can also add unnecessary cost and complexity. Important research issues regarding communication concern what should be communicated, over what range, and when the communication should occur. We also consider how diverse behaviors might help or hinder a team, and how to measure diversity in the first place. Finally, we show how learning can provide a powerful means for enabling a team to master a task or adapt to changing conditions. We hypothesize that these three topics are critically interrelated in the context of learning swarms, and we suggest research directions to explore them.

Keywords

Reward Function Learning Team Home Base Goal Communication Control Team 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Balch, T.: Hierarchic Social Entropy: An Information Theoretic Measure of Robot Group Diversity. Autonomous Robots 8(3), 209–238 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balch, T., Arkin, R.: Communication in Reactive Multiagent Robotic Systems. Autonomous Robots 1(1), 27–52 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arkin, R.: Cooperation without Communication: Multi-agent Schema Based Robot Navigation. Journal of Robotic Systems 9(3), 351–364 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mataric, M.J.: Kin recognition, similarity, and group behavior. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference, pp. 705–710 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MacKenzie, D.C., Balch, T.: Making a Clean Sweep: Behavior Based Vacuuming. In: Working Notes of the 1993 AAAI Fall Symposium Instantiating Real-World Agents (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moynihan, M.: Control, Suppression, Decay, Disappearance and Replacement of Displays. Journal of Theoretical Biology 29, 85–112 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parker, L.: Heterogeneous Multi-Robot Cooperation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Ph.D. Dissertation. Available as MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Technical Report 1465 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fontán, M.S., Matarić, M.J.: Territorial multi-robot task division. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 14, 815–822 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coordinating mobile robot group behavior using a model of interaction dynamics. In: Proceedings, The Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 1999), pp. 100–107 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W.: Mathematical theory of communication. Univerisity of Illinois Press, Urbana (1963)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watkins, C., Dayan, P.: Q-Learning. Machine Learning 8, 279–292Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mataric, M.: Reinforcement learning in the multi-robot domain. Autonomous Robots 4(1), 73–83 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zinkevich, M., Balch, T.: Symmetry in Markov Decision Processes and its Implications for Single Agent and Multiagent Learning. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 632–642 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tucker Balch
    • 1
  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations