Advertisement

Swarm and Entropic Modeling for Landmine Detection Robots

  • Cagdas Bayram
  • Hakki Erhan Sevil
  • Serhan Ozdemir
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 6)

Even at the dawn of the 21st century, landmines still pose a global threat. Buried just inches below the surface, combatants and noncombatants alike are all at risk of stepping on a mine. Their very nature is such that these furtive weapons do not discriminate, making it an urgent task to tackle the problem. According to the U.S.State Department [1], based on an estimate reported just a few years ago, there are well over 100 million anti-personnel mines around the world. The existence of these passive weapons causes a disruption in the development of already impoverished regions, as well as maiming or killing countless innocent passers-by. Since the ratification of the anti-personnel mine total ban treaty in 1997, their detection, removal, and elimination have become a top priority. Nevertheless, at the current rate, given the manpower and the man-hours that could be dedicated to the removal of these sleeping arms, it would take centuries. The concerns regarding the speed of removal and safety of the disposers eventually bring us to the discussion of the proposed method.

Nature already provided good solutions to manage groups of less able beings: fish schools, ant swarms, animal packs, bird flocks, and so on.With the growing desire of humans to create intelligent systems, these biosystems are being thoroughly inspected [3–10] and implemented [11–14] in various studies.

In this study a robotic agent is referred to as a drone, the group of robotic agents is referred to as a swarm, and the agent with mapping abilities is referred to as the alpha drone.

Keywords

Collision Avoidance Wireless Communication System Entropic Modeling Robotic Agent Swarm Behavior 
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.
    US State Department (1998) Hidden Killers: The Global Landmine Crisis. Report released by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Humanitarian Demining Programs, Washington, DC, September 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huang QJ, Nonami K (2003) Humanitarian mine detecting six-legged walking robot and hybrid neuro walking control with position/force control. Mechatronics 13: 773–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dolby AS, Grubb TC (1998) Benefits to satellite members in mixed-species for aging groups: An experimental analysis. Animal Behavior 56: 501–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Adioui M, Treuil JP, Arino O (2003) Alignment in a fish school: A mixed Lagrangian–Eulerian approach. Ecological Modelling 167: 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cale PG (2003) The influence of social behaviour, dispersal and landscape fragmentation on population structure in a sedentary bird. Biological Conservation 109: 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith VA, King AP, West MJ (2002) The context of social learning: Association patterns in a captive flock of brown-headed cowbirds. Animal Behavior 63: 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green M, Alerstam T (2002) The problem of estimating wind drift in migrating birds. Theoretical Biology 218: 485–496.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aoki I (1982) A simulation study on the schooling mechanism in fish. Social Science Fish 48: 1081–1088.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huth A, Wissel C (1992) The simulation of the movement of fish schools. Theoretical Biology 156: 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Couzin D, Krause J, James R, Ruxton GD, Franks NR (2002) Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. Theoretical Biology 218: 1–11.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reynolds, Flocks CW (1987) Herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. Computational Graph 21: 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sugawara K, Sano M (1997) Cooperative acceleration of task performance: Foraging behavior of interacting multi-robots system. Physica D 100: 343–354.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin M, Chopard B, Albuquerque P (2002) Formation of an ant cemetery: Swarm intelligence or statistical accident? FGCS 18: 951–959.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wildermuth D, Schneider FE (2003) Maintaining a common co-ordinate system for a group of robots based on vision. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 44: 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsallis C (1988) Possible generalization of Boltzmann–Gibbs statistics. Journal of Statistical Physics 52: 479–487.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cagdas Bayram
  • Hakki Erhan Sevil
    • 1
  • Serhan Ozdemir
    • 2
  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentIzmir Institute of TechnologyTurkey
  2. 2.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentIzmir Institute of TechnologyIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations