Mosquito-inspired distributed swarming and pursuit for cooperative defense against fast intruders

  • Daigo ShishikaEmail author
  • Derek A. Paley


Inspired by the swarming behavior of male mosquitoes that aggregate to attract and subsequently pursue a female mosquito, we study how random swarming motion in autonomous vehicles affects the success of target capture. We consider the scenario in which multiple guardians with limited perceptual range and bounded acceleration are deployed to protect an area from an intruder. The main challenge for the guardian (male mosquito) is to quickly respond to a fast intruder (female) by matching its velocity. We focus on the motion strategy for the guardians before they perceive the intruder, which we call the swarming phase. In the parameter space consisting of the intruder’s speed and guardians’ ability (i.e., maximum acceleration and perceptual range) we identify necessary and sufficient conditions for target capture. We propose a swarming algorithm inspired by the behavior of male mosquitoes to improve the target-capture capability. The theoretical results are illustrated by experiments with an indoor quadrotor swarm.


Pursuit evasion Multi-agent system Lyapunov analysis Quadrotor Swarming 



The authors would like to acknowledge Nicholas Manoukis and Sachit Butail for the valuable discussions related to the behavior of mosquitoes, Luis Guerrero for the discussion related to the proofs, and also the support from Derrick Yeo and Katarina Sherman related to the experimental testbed.


  1. Antoniades, A., Kim, H. J., & Sastry, S. (2003). Pursuit–evasion strategies for teams of multiple agents with incomplete information. In IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (pp. 756–761).Google Scholar
  2. Attanasi, A., Cavagna, A., Del Castello, L., Giardina, I., Melillo, S., Parisi, L., et al. (2014). Collective behaviour without collective order in wild swarms of midges. PLoS Computational Biology, 10(7), 1–10.Google Scholar
  3. Becco, C., Vandewalle, N., Delcourt, J., & Poncin, P. (2006). Experimental evidences of a structural and dynamical transition in fish school. Physica A, 367, 487–493.Google Scholar
  4. Bopardikar, S. D., Bullo, F., & Hespanha, J. P. (2009). A cooperative homicidal chauffeur game. Automatica, 45(7), 1771–1777.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Butail, S., Manoukis, N., & Diallo, M. (2013). The dance of male Anopheles gambiae in wild mating swarms. Journal of Medical Entomology, 50(3), 552–559.Google Scholar
  6. Cavagna, A., Cimarelli, A., Giardina, I., Parisi, G., Santagati, R., Stefanini, F., et al. (2010). Scale-free correlations in starling flocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107(26), 11865–11870.Google Scholar
  7. Chung, T. H., & Hollinger, G. A. (2011). Search and pursuit–evasion in mobile robotics a survey. Autonomous Robots, 31(4), 299–316.Google Scholar
  8. Durham, J. W., Franchi, A., & Bullo, F. (2012). Distributed pursuit–evasion without mapping or global localization via local frontiers. Autonomous Robots, 32, 81–95.Google Scholar
  9. Ferrari, S. (2006). Track coverage in sensor networks. In Proceedings American Control Conference (pp. 2053–2059).Google Scholar
  10. Ferrari, S., Fierro, R., Perteet, B., Cai, C., & Baumgartner, K. (2009). A geometric optimization approach to detecting and intercepting dynamic targets using a mobile sensor network. SIAM Journal on Control Optimization, 48(1), 292–320.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedland, B., & Park, Y. J. (1992). On adaptive friction compensation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 37(10), 1609–1612.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Ghose, K., Horiuchi, T., Krishnaprasad, P., & Moss, C. (2006). Echolocating bats use a nearly time-optimal strategy to intercept prey. PLoS Biology, 4(5), 865–873.Google Scholar
  13. Hausman, K., Müller, J., Hariharan, A., Ayanian, N., & Sukhatme, G. S. (2016). Cooperative control for target tracking with onboard sensing. Experimenal Robotics (pp. 879–892). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Hehn, M., & D’Andrea, R. (2011). Quadrocopter trajectory generation and control. IFAC Proceedings, 44(1), 1485–1491.Google Scholar
  15. Jung, B., & Sukhatme, G. S. (2002). Tracking targets using multiple robots: The effect of environment occlusion. Autonomous Robots, 13(3), 191–205.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Khalil, H., & Grizzle, J. (2002). Nonlinear systems. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Kim, T. H., & Sugie, T. (2007). Cooperative control for target-capturing task based on a cyclic pursuit strategy. Automatica, 43(8), 1426–1431.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolling, A., & Carpin, S. (2010). Multi-robot pursuit–evasion without maps. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 3045–3051).Google Scholar
  19. Lee, J., Huang, R., Vaughn, A., & Xiao, X. (2003). Strategies of path-planning for a UAV to track a ground vehicle. In IEEE Conference on Applications, Information and Network Security. Google Scholar
  20. Levant, A. (2006). Flocking for multi-agent dynamic systems: Algorithms and theory. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 51, 1–20.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Li, W., & Member, S. (2017). A dynamics perspective of pursuit–evasion: Capturing and escaping when the pursuer runs faster than the agile evader. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 62(1), 451–457.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Manoukis, N. C., & Diabate, A. (2009). Structure and dynamics of male swarms of Anopheles gambiae. Journal of Medical Entomology, 46(2), 227–235.Google Scholar
  23. Moon, J., Kim, K., & Kim, Y. (2001). Design of missile guidance law via variable structure control. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 24(4), 659–664.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Mueller, M. W., & D’Andrea, R. (2013). A model predictive controller for quadrocopter state interception. In IEEE European Control Conference (pp. 1383–1389).Google Scholar
  25. Olberg, R., Worthington, A., & Venator, K. (2000). Prey pursuit and interception in dragonflies. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural and Behavioral Physiology, 186(2), 155–162.Google Scholar
  26. Olfati-Saber, R., & Murray, R. (2003). Flocking with obstacle avoidance: Cooperation with limited information in mobile networks. In IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (pp. 2022–2028).Google Scholar
  27. Robin, C., & Lacroix, S. (2016). Multi-robot target detection and tracking : Taxonomy and survey. Autonomous Robots, 40(4), 729–760.Google Scholar
  28. Ruiz, R Mc U, Luis, J., Laumond, M Jp, & Hutchinson, S. (2011). Tracking an omnidirectional evader with a differential drive robot. Autonomous Robots, 31, 345–366.Google Scholar
  29. Scott, W., & Leonard, N. E. (2013). Pursuit, herding and evasion: A three-agent model of caribou predation. In Proceedings American Control Conference (pp. 2984–2989).Google Scholar
  30. Selvakumar, J., & Bakolas, E. (2016). Evasion from a group of pursuers with a prescribed target set for the evader. In Proceedings American Control Conference (pp. 155–160).Google Scholar
  31. Shishika, D., & Paley, D. A. (2015). Lyapunov stability analysis of a mosquito-inspired swarm model. In IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (pp. 482–488).Google Scholar
  32. Shishika, D., & Paley, D. A. (2017). Mosquito-inspired swarming algorithm for decentralized pursuit. In Proceedings American Control Conference (pp. 923–929).Google Scholar
  33. Shishika, D., Manoukis, N. C., Butail, S., & Paley, D. A. (2014). Male motion coordination in anopheline mating swarms. Scientific Reports, 4, 1–7.Google Scholar
  34. Shishika, D., Sherman, K., & Paley, D. A. (2017). Competing swarms of autonomous vehicles: Intruders versus guardians. In ASME Dynamical Systems and Control Conference (pp. 1–10).Google Scholar
  35. Shishika, D., Yim, J. K., & Paley, D. A. (2016). Robust Lyapunov control design for bioinspired pursuit with autonomous hovercraft. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 25(99), 1–12.Google Scholar
  36. Shtessel, Y. B. (2009). Guidance and control of missile interceptor using second-order sliding modes. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace Electronic Systems, 45(1), 110–124.Google Scholar
  37. Tian, Y., & Sarkar, N. (2017). Game-based pursuit evasion for nonholonomic wheeled mobile robots subject to wheel slips. Advanced Robotics, 27, 1087–1097.Google Scholar
  38. Wei, E., Justh, E. W., & Krishnaprasad, P. (2009). Pursuit and an evolutionary game. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 465(2105), 1539–1559.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Zarchan, P. (2002). Tactical and strategic missile guidance. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics (Vol. 176). Reston: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.Google Scholar
  40. Zuo, Z. (2010). Trajectory tracking control design with command-filtered compensation for a quadrotor. IET Control Theory and Applications, 4(11), 2343–2355.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.University of Maryland at College ParkCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations