Towards Differentially Private Aggregation of Heterogeneous Robots

Chapter
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics book series (SPAR, volume 6)

Abstract

We are interested in securing the operation of robot swarms composed of heterogeneous agents that collaborate by exploiting aggregation mechanisms. Since any given robot type plays a role that may be critical in guaranteeing continuous and failure-free operation of the system, it is beneficial to conceal individual robot types and, thus, their roles. In our work, we assume that an adversary gains access to a description of the dynamic state of the swarm in its non-transient, nominal regime. We propose a method that quantifies how easy it is for the adversary to identify the type of any of the robots, based on this observation. We draw from the theory of differential privacy to propose a closed-form expression of the leakage of the system at steady-state. Our results show how this model enables an analysis of the leakage as system parameters vary; they also indicate design rules for increasing privacy in aggregation mechanisms.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their constructive feedback. We gratefully acknowledge the support of ONR grants N00014-15-1-2115 and N00014-14-1-0510, ARL grant W911NF-08-2-0004, NSF grant IIS-1426840, and TerraSwarm, one of six centers of STARnet, a Semiconductor Research Corporation program sponsored by MARCO and DARPA.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal, R., Srikant, R.: Privacy-preserving data mining. ACM Sigmod Record 29(2), 439–450 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, D.F., Craciun, G., Kurtz, T.G.: Product-form stationary distributions for deficiency zero chemical reaction networks. Bull. Math. Biol. 1–23 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng, J., Cheng, W., Nagpal, R.: Robust and self-repairing formation control for swarms of mobile agents. AAAI (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Correll, N., Martinoli, A.: Modeling self-organized aggregation in a swarm of miniature robots. In: IEEE International Conference Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dorigo, M., Floreano, D., Gambardella, L.M., Mondada, F., Nolfi, S., et al.: Swarmanoid: a novel concept for the study of heterogeneous robotic swarms. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 20(4), 60–71 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dwork, C.: Differential privacy: a survey of results. In: Theory and Applications of Models of Computation, pp. 1–19. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dwork, C.: Differential privacy. In: Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security, pp. 338–340 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evfimievski, A., Gehrke, J., Srikant, R.: Limiting privacy breaches in privacy preserving data mining. In: the Twenty-second ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium, pp. 211–222. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feinberg, M.: Some recent results in chemical reaction network theory. In: Patterns and Dynamics in Reactive Media, pp. 43–70. Springer, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garnier, S., Jost, C., Gautrais, J., Asadpour, M., Caprari, G., Jeanson, R., Grimal, A., Theraulaz, G.: The embodiment of cockroach aggregation behavior in a group of micro-robots. Artif. Life 14(4), 387–408 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Groß, R., Dorigo, M.: Self-assembly at the macroscopic scale. Proc. IEEE 96(9), 1490–1508 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halloy, J., Sempo, G., Caprari, G., Rivault, C., Asadpour, M., Tache, F., Said, I., Durier, V., Canonge, S., Ame, J.M., Detrain, C., Correll, N., Martinoli, A., Mondada, F., Siegwart, R., Deneubourg, J.L.: Social integration of robots into groups of cockroaches to control self-organized choices. Science 318(5853), 1155–1158 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hosokawa, K., Shimoyama, I., Miura, H.: Dynamics of self-assembling systems: analogy with chemical kinetics. Artif. Life 1(4), 413–427 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kasiviswanathan, S.P., Smith, A.: A note on differential privacy: Defining resistance to arbitrary side information. CoRR abs. (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klavins, E., Burden, S., Napp, N.: Optimal rules for programmed stochastic self-assembly. In: Robotics: Science and Systems (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martinoli, A., Ijspeert, A.J., Gambardella, L.M.: A probabilistic model for understanding and comparing collective aggregation mechanisms. In: Advances in Artificial Life, pp. 575–584. Springer, Berlin (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matthey, L., Berman, S., Kumar, V.: Stochastic strategies for a swarm robotic assembly system. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1953–1958. IEEE, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parrish, J.K., Edelstein-Keshet, L.: Complexity, pattern, and evolutionary trade-offs in animal aggregation. Science 284(5411), 99–101 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prorok, A., Hsieh, A.M., Kumar, V.: Formalizing the impact of diversity on performance in a heterogeneous swarm of robots. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prorok, A., Kumar, V.: A macroscopic privacy model for heterogeneous robot swarms. In: International Conference on Swarm Intelligence (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siegel, D., MacLean, D.: Global stability of complex balanced mechanisms. J. Math. Chem. 27, 89–110 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations