Advertisement

Actuation Constraints and Artificial Physics Control

  • Chris Ellis
  • R. Paul Wiegand
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5199)

Abstract

Swarm systems for multiagent control rely on natural models of behavior. Such models both predict simulated natural behavior and provide control instructions to the underlying agents. These two roles can differ when, for example, controlling nonholonomic robots incapable of executing some control suggestions from the system. We consider a simple physicomimetics system and examine the effects of actuation constraint on that system in terms of its ability to stabilize in regular formations, as well as the impact of such constraints on learning control parameters. We find that in the cases we considered, Physicomimetics is surprisingly robust to certain types of actuation constraint.

Keywords

Mobile Robot Multiagent System Swarm Intelligence Blind Spot Physic Control 
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.
    Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., Theraulaz, G.: Swarm Intelligence. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spears, W., Spears, D., Hamann, J., Heil, R.: Distributed, physics-based control of swarms of vehicles. Autonomous Robots 17, 137–162 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wiegand, R., Potter, M., Sofge, D., Spears, W.: A generalized graph-based method for engineering swarm solutions to multiagent problems. In: Parallel Problem Solving From Nature, pp. 741–750 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zarzhitsky, D., Spears, D., Thayer, D., Spears, W.: A fluid dynamics approach to multi-robot chemical plume tracing. In: Auton. Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1476–1477 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guibas, L., Stolfi, J.: Primitives for the manipulation of general subdivisions and the computation of voronoi. ACM Trans. Graph. 4(2), 74–123 (1985)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwefel, H.P.: Numerical Optimization of Computer Models. Wiley, Chichester (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reif, J.H., Wang, H.: Social Potential Fields: A Distributed Behavioral Control for Autonomous Robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 27(3), 171–194 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reynolds, C.: Flocks, herds and schools. Computer Graphics 21, 25–34 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ogren, P., Egerstedt, M., Hu, X.: A control lyapunov function approach to multiagent coordination. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 18, 847–851 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen, D., Do, K.: Formation control of mobile robots. International Journal of Computers, Communications and Control I(3), 41–59 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lawton, L., Beard, R., Young, B.: A decentralized approach to formation maneuvers. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 19(6), 933–941 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Ellis
    • 1
  • R. Paul Wiegand
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Central FloridaUSA

Personalised recommendations