Pervasive Sensor-less Networks for Cooperative Multi-robot Tasks

  • Keith J. O’Hara
  • Tucker R. Balch


A number of researchers are investigating the use of embedded sensor networks to facilitate mobile robot activities. Previous studies focus individual tasks (e.g. navigation to a goal) using networks of several to tens of expensive (≈ $100) nodes placed by the robots themselves or in predetermined geometric grids. In this work we explore the use of tens up to hundreds of simple and cheap (≈ $10) sensorless nodes placed arbitrarily to support a complex multi-robot foraging task. Experiments were conducted in a multi-robot simulation system. Quantitative results illustrate the sensitivity of the approach to different network sizes, environmental complexities, and deployment configurations. In particular, we investigate how performance is impacted by the density and precision of network node placement.


Mobile Robot Mobile Node Goal Location Navigation Path Embed Network 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    H. V. D. Parunak, S. Brueckner, and J. Sauter, “Synthetic pheromone mechanisms for coordination of unmanned vehicles,” in Proceedings of First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2002, pp. 449–450.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. V. D. Parunak, M. Purcell, and R. O’Connell, “Pheromones for autonomous coordination of swarming uavs,” in Proceedings of First AIAA Unmanned Aerospace Vehicles, Systems, Technologies, and Operations Conference, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Payton, M. Daily, R. Estowski, M. Howard, and C. Lee, “Pheromone Robotics,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 11, pp. 319–324, 2001.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Batalin and G. Sukhatme, “Sensor network-based multi-robot task allocation,” Proceedings of International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003), October 2003.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Batalin and G. Sukhatme, “Coverage, exploration and deployment by a mobile robot and communication network,” Telecommunication Systems Journal, Special Issue on Wireless Sensor Networks, 2003.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Q. Li, M. DeRosa, and D. Rus, “Distributed algorithms for guiding navigation across a sensor network,” The 2nd International Workshop on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. P. Bertsekas, “Distributed dynamic programming,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 610–616, 1982.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Koenig, B. Szymanski, and Y. Liu, “Efficient and inefficient ant coverage methods,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 31, pp. 41–76, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. A. Wagner, M. Lindenbaum, and A. M. Bruckstein, “Smell as a computational resource — a lesson we can learn from the ant,” Proceedings of the ISTCS’96 — 4’th Israeli Symposium on Theory of Computing and Systems, June 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. A. Wagner, M. Lindenbaum, and A. M. Bruckstein, “Distributed covering by ant-robots using evaporating traces,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 15, no. 05, pp. 918–933, October1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Balch and R. C. Arkin, “Communication in Reactive Multiagent Robotic Systems,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 27–52, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Goldberg and M. Matarić, Robot Teams. A K Peters Ltd., 2002, ch. Design and Evaluation of Robust Behavior-Based Controllers for Distributed Multi-Robot Collection Tasks.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. E. Bellman, Dynamic Programming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Ford and D. Fulkerson, Flows in Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    T. Balch, “Clay: Integrating motor schemas and reinforcement learning,” Georgia Institute of Technology, Tech. Rep. GIT-CC-97-11, 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith J. O’Hara
    • 1
  • Tucker R. Balch
    • 1
  1. 1.The BORG Lab College of ComputingGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta

Personalised recommendations