Advertisement

Swarm Intelligence

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 115–143 | Cite as

Closed-loop task allocation in robot swarms using inter-robot encounters

  • Siddharth MayyaEmail author
  • Sean Wilson
  • Magnus Egerstedt
Article

Abstract

In swarm robotics systems, coordinated behaviors emerge via local interactions among the robots as well as between robots and the environment. For a swarm of robots performing a set of pre-defined tasks in an enclosed region, this paper develops a decentralized mechanism to allocate tasks to each robot by leveraging the spatial interactions occurring among the robots as they move around the domain. With the aim of achieving a desired percentage of the swarm performing each task, the developed strategy allows individual robots to switch between different tasks with a certain probability when they encounter other robots in the region. We develop an analytical model to describe the inter-robot encounters occurring in a densely packed swarm of robots using ideas from the Enskog theory of dense gases and illustrate how the swarm can leverage this model to achieve the desired allocation levels. Furthermore, the inter-robot encounters enable the robots to measure the current allocation of the swarm, which is then used to regulate the rate at which they switch between tasks. This allows the swarm to speed up or slow down the rate of transitions between tasks depending on how far the current allocation is from the desired values, ultimately facilitating uninterrupted task execution by the robots. The methods introduced in this paper illustrate how naturally occurring encounters among robots in a swarm can be used to allocate tasks to the robots in a closed-loop manner. The developed algorithm is completely decentralized and can be deployed on minimalistic robots without the need for communication or a central coordinator. The performance of the algorithm is demonstrated on a swarm of real robots.

Keywords

Swarm robotics Inter-robot encounters Task allocation Distributed systems 

Notes

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (mp4 58218 KB)

References

  1. Agassounon, W., & Martinoli, A. (2002). Efficiency and robustness of threshold-based distributed allocation algorithms in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 3 (pp. 1090–1097), ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, M. P., Evans, G. T., Frenkel, D., & Mulder, B. (1993). Hard convex body fluids. Advances in Chemical Physics, 86(1), 166.Google Scholar
  3. Arulampalam, M. S., Maskell, S., Gordon, N., & Clapp, T. (2002). A tutorial on particle filters for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 50(2), 174–188.Google Scholar
  4. Atkins, P., & De Paula, J. (2011). Physical chemistry for the life sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Balinski, M. L. (1985). Signature methods for the assignment problem. Operations Research, 33(3), 527–536.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Berman, S., Halász, Á., & Hsieh, M. (2016). Ant-inspired allocation: Top-down controller design for distributing a robot swarm among multiple tasks (pp. 243–274). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  7. Berman, S., Halász, Á., Hsieh, M. A., & Kumar, V. (2009). Optimized stochastic policies for task allocation in swarms of robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 25(4), 927–937.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2009.2024997.Google Scholar
  8. Brambilla, M., Ferrante, E., Birattari, M., & Dorigo, M. (2013). Swarm robotics: A review from the swarm engineering perspective. Swarm Intelligence, 7(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
  9. Bullock, S., Crowder, R., & Pitonakova, L. (2016). Task allocation in foraging robot swarms: The role of information sharing. In Proceedings of the European conference on artificial life (Vol. 13, pp. 306–313), MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chapman, S., & Cowling, T. G. (1970). The mathematical theory of non-uniform gases: An account of the kinetic theory of viscosity, thermal conduction and diffusion in gases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Charbonneau, D., Sasaki, T., & Dornhaus, A. (2017). Who needs ‘lazy’workers? Inactive workers act as a ‘reserve’labor force replacing active workers, but inactive workers are not replaced when they are removed. PLoS ONE, 12(9), e0184074.Google Scholar
  12. Cheah, C. C., Hou, S. P., & Slotine, J. J. E. (2009). Region-based shape control for a swarm of robots. Automatica, 45(10), 2406–2411.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiu, S. N., Stoyan, D., Kendall, W. S., & Mecke, J. (2013). Stochastic geometry and its applications. Hoboken: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Cortes, J., Martinez, S., Karatas, T., & Bullo, F. (2004). Coverage control for mobile sensing networks. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 20(2), 243–255.Google Scholar
  15. Couzin, I. D. (2009). Collective cognition in animal groups. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 36–43.Google Scholar
  16. Cutchis, P., Van Beijeren, H., Dorfman, J., & Mason, E. (1977). Enskog and van der Waals play hockey. American Journal of Physics, 45(10), 970–977.Google Scholar
  17. Daley, D. J., & Vere-Jones, D. (2007). An introduction to the theory of point processes: Volume II: General theory and structure. New York: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Dias, M. B., Zlot, R., Kalra, N., & Stentz, A. (2006). Market-based multirobot coordination: A survey and analysis. Proceedings of the IEEE, 94(7), 1257–1270.Google Scholar
  19. Ducatelle, F., Förster, A., Di Caro, G. A., & Gambardella, L. M. (2009). New task allocation methods for robotic swarms. In 9th IEEE/RAS conference on autonomous robot systems and competitions. Google Scholar
  20. Einwohner, T., & Alder, B. (1968). Molecular dynamics. VI. Free-path distributions and collision rates for hard-sphere and square-well molecules. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 49(4), 1458–1473.Google Scholar
  21. Fox, D., Thrun, S., Burgard, W., & Dellaert, F. (2001). Particle filters for mobile robot localization. In A. Doucet, N. De Freitas, & N. Gordon (Eds.), Sequential Monte Carlo methods in practice. Statistics for engineering and information science (pp. 401–428). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Franks, N. R., & Deneubourg, J. L. (1997). Self-organizing nest construction in ants: individual worker behaviour and the nest’s dynamics. Animal Behaviour, 54(4), 779–796.Google Scholar
  23. Fukuda, T., Nakagawa, S., Kawauchi, Y., & Buss, M. (1988). Self organizing robots based on cell structures-CKBOT. In IEEE international workshop on intelligent robots 1988 (pp. 145–150). IEEE.Google Scholar
  24. Gerkey, B. P., & Matarić, M. J. (2004). A formal analysis and taxonomy of task allocation in multi-robot systems. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 23(9), 939–954.Google Scholar
  25. Goldberg, D., & Mataric, M. J. (1997). Interference as a tool for designing and evaluating multi-robot controllers. In Proceedings of AAAI-97 (pp. 637–642). AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gordon, D. M. (1996). The organization of work in social insect colonies. Nature, 380, 14.Google Scholar
  27. Gordon, D. M., & Mehdiabadi, N. J. (1999). Encounter rate and task allocation in harvester ants. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 45(5), 370–377.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050573.Google Scholar
  28. Iocchi, L., Nardi, D., & Salerno, M. (2001). Reactivity and deliberation: A survey on multi-robot systems. In M. Hannebauer & J. Wendler (Eds.), Balancing reactivity and social deliberation in multi-agent systems (pp. 9–32). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Jeans, J. (2009). An introduction to the kinetic theory of gases (p. 2009). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, C., & Mataric, M. J. (2003). Adaptive division of labor in large-scale minimalist multi-robot systems. In Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No. 03CH37453) (Vol. 2, pp. 1969–1974). IEEE.Google Scholar
  31. Jordan, M. (1995). Why the logistic function? A tutorial discussion on probabilities and neural networks. Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  32. Khamis, A., Hussein, A., & Elmogy, A. (2015). Multi-robot task allocation: A review of the state-of-the-art (pp. 31–51). Cham: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18299-5_2.Google Scholar
  33. Krieger, M. J., Billeter, J. B., & Keller, L. (2000). Ant-like task allocation and recruitment in cooperative robots. Nature, 406(6799), 992.Google Scholar
  34. Labella, T. H., Dorigo, M., & Deneubourg, J. L. (2006). Division of labor in a group of robots inspired by ants’ foraging behavior. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS), 1(1), 4–25.Google Scholar
  35. Lavancier, F., & Møller, J. (2016). Modelling aggregation on the large scale and regularity on the small scale in spatial point pattern datasets. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 43(2), 587–609.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Le Boudec, J. Y., McDonald, D., & Mundinger, J. (2007). A generic mean field convergence result for systems of interacting objects. In Fourth international conference on the quantitative evaluation of systems, 2007 (pp. 3–18). IEEE.Google Scholar
  37. Lerman, K., Jones, C., Galstyan, A., & Matarić, M. J. (2006). Analysis of dynamic task allocation in multi-robot systems. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 25(3), 225–241.Google Scholar
  38. Liu, Y., & Nejat, G. (2013). Robotic urban search and rescue: A survey from the control perspective. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 72(2), 147–165.Google Scholar
  39. Matérn, B. (2013). Spatial variation (Vol. 36). New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-96365-5.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Mather, T. W., & Ani Hsieh, M. (2011). Macroscopic modeling of stochastic deployment policies with time delays for robot ensembles. International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(5), 590–600.Google Scholar
  41. Mayya, S., Pierpaoli, P., & Egerstedt, M. (2018). Voluntary retreat for decentralized interference reduction in robot swarms. arXiv:1812.02193
  42. Mayya, S., Pierpaoli, P., Nair, G., & Egerstedt, M. (2017). Collisions as information sources in densely packed multi-robot systems under mean-field approximations. In Proceedings of robotics: Science and systems, Cambridge, Massachusetts.  https://doi.org/10.15607/RSS.2017.XIII.044.
  43. Mayya, S., Pierpaoli, P., Nair, G., & Egerstedt, M. (2019). Localization in densely packed swarms using interrobot collisions as a sensing modality. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 35(1), 21–34.Google Scholar
  44. Nam, C., & Shell, D. A. (2015). Assignment algorithms for modeling resource contention in multirobot task allocation. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 12(3), 889–900.Google Scholar
  45. Nunes, E., Manner, M., Mitiche, H., & Gini, M. (2017). A taxonomy for task allocation problems with temporal and ordering constraints. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 90, 55–70.Google Scholar
  46. Oster, G. F., & Wilson, E. O. (1979). Caste and ecology in the social insects. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Paik, S. T. (2014). Is the mean free path the mean of a distribution? American Journal of Physics, 82(6), 602–608.Google Scholar
  48. Pickem, D., Glotfelter, P., Wang, L., Mote, M., Ames, A., Feron, E., et al. (2017). The Robotarium: A remotely accessible swarm robotics research testbed. In IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 2017 (pp. 1699–1706). IEEE.Google Scholar
  49. Pini, G., Brutschy, A., Birattari, M., & Dorigo, M. (2009). Interference reduction through task partitioning in a robotic swarm. In Sixth international conference on informatics in control, automation and robotics-ICINCO (pp. 52–59). INSTICC Press.Google Scholar
  50. Pratt, S. C. (2005). Quorum sensing by encounter rates in the ant Temnothorax albipennis. Behavioral Ecology, 16(2), 488–496.Google Scholar
  51. Reif, F. (2009). Fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics. McGraw-Hill series in fundamentals of physics. Waveland Press. ISBN: 9781577666127.Google Scholar
  52. Şahin, E. (2005). Swarm robotics: From sources of inspiration to domains of application. In E. Şahin & W. M. Spears (Eds.), Swarm robotics (pp. 10–20). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  53. Shell, D. A., Jones, C. V., & Matarić, M. J. (2005). Ergodic dynamics by design: A route to predictable multi-robot systems. In L. E. Parker, F. E. Schneider, & A. C. Schultz (Eds.), Multi-robot systems: From swarms to intelligent automata (Vol. III, pp. 291–297)., Springer Dordrecht: Netherlands.Google Scholar
  54. Thrun, S., Fox, D., Burgard, W., & Dellaert, F. (2001). Robust Monte Carlo localization for mobile robots. Artificial Intelligence, 128(1–2), 99–141.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang, L., Ames, A. D., & Egerstedt, M. (2017). Safety barrier certificates for collisions-free multirobot systems. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 33(3), 661–674.Google Scholar
  56. Zavlanos, M. M., Spesivtsev, L., & Pappas, G. J. (2008). A distributed auction algorithm for the assignment problem. In 47th IEEE conference on decision and control, 2008: CDC 2008 (pp. 1212–1217). IEEE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electrical and Computer EngineeringGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations