Animal–robots collective intelligence

In this paper we try to define – as ethologists – the easiest ways for creating such a synergy around a common project: mixed groups of interacting animals and robots. The following aspects are explored.(1) During this century, ethology has accumulated numerous results showing that animals' interactions could be rather simple signals and it is possible to interact with animals not only by mimicking their behaviors but also by making specially designed and often simple artifacts.(2) The theory of self-organization in animal societies shows that very simple, but numerous, interactions taking place between individuals may ensure complex performances and produce Collective Intelligence (CI) at the level of the group. This context is the most interesting to develop mixed animal–robots interactions.(3) An experiment using an artifact interacting within a CI system in the wild (gull flocks) is developed.(4) Cases of robots making CI on their own have been developed.(5) Considering (4) and (5), what are the expected difficulties to mix robots and animals in CI systems.(6) Why develop such mixed societies?The control of interactions between artificial systems and living organisms is a key aspect in the design of artificial systems, as well as in many agricultural, medical, scientific and technical fields. Such developments refer generally to human–robots interactions, leading to further complexity of the behavior and algorithms of robots. However, complex performances do not always require complex individual behavior and interesting developments may also refer to simpler interactions. As far as we know, experiments studying animal–robots interactions are rather anecdotal, with a naíve point of view on animal behavior and are often published in non-scientific journals.However, we are very convinced that robotics has much to learn from ethology while robotics in turn may surely help ethology to explore animal behavior. In this paper we try to define – as ethologists – the easiest ways for creating such a synergy around a common project: mixed groups of interacting animals and robots.

[1]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Understanding collective aggregation mechanisms: From probabilistic modelling to experiments with real robots , 1999, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[2]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Collective decision making through food recruitment , 1990, Insectes Sociaux.

[3]  B. Bernstein,et al.  Animal Behavior , 1927, Japanese Marine Life.

[4]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Collective patterns and decision-making , 1989 .

[5]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  Information Processing in Social Insects , 1999, Birkhäuser Basel.

[6]  Guy Theraulaz,et al.  Self-Organization in Biological Systems , 2001, Princeton studies in complexity.

[7]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Recipes for collective movement , 1993 .

[8]  J. Verhaeghe,et al.  Food recruitment inTetramorium impurum (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) , 1982, Insectes Sociaux.

[9]  I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt.  Ethology, the biology of behavior , 1970 .

[10]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  Random behaviour, amplification processes and number of participants: how they contribute to the foraging properties of ants , 1986 .

[11]  Stephen Cameron,et al.  Robot sheepdog project achieves automatic flock control , 1998 .

[12]  Roland Siegwart,et al.  The autonomous micro robot "Alice": a platform for scientific and commercial applications , 1998, MHA'98. Proceedings of the 1998 International Symposium on Micromechatronics and Human Science. - Creation of New Industry - (Cat. No.98TH8388).

[13]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Probabilistic behaviour in ants: A strategy of errors? , 1983 .

[14]  T Pawson,et al.  Cell communication: the inside story. , 2000, Scientific American.

[15]  Richard T. Vaughan,et al.  Introducing the Robot Sheepdog Project , 1997 .

[16]  N. Tinbergen,et al.  The Study of Instinct , 1953 .

[17]  Alcherio Martinoli,et al.  Towards a Reliable Set-Up for Bio-Inspired Collective Experiments with Real Robots , 1997, ISER.

[18]  N. Tinbergen,et al.  On the Stimulus Situation Releasing the Begging Response in the Newly Hatched Herring Gull Chick (Larus Argentatus Argentatus Pont.) , 1951 .

[19]  D. Clayton,et al.  Socially Facilitated Behavior , 1978, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[20]  S. Gueron,et al.  Self-organization of front patterns in large wildebeest herds , 1993 .

[21]  P.-P. Grasse.  La reconstruction du nid et les coordinations interindividuelles chezBellicositermes natalensis etCubitermes sp. la théorie de la stigmergie: Essai d'interprétation du comportement des termites constructeurs , 1959, Insectes Sociaux.

[22]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  From local actions to global tasks: stigmergy and collective robotics , 2000 .

[23]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  Decision-making in foraging by social insects , 1999 .

[24]  T. Seeley,et al.  Collective decision-making in honey bees: how colonies choose among nectar sources , 1991, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[25]  W. Kirchner,et al.  How honeybees perceive communication dances, studied by means of a mechanical model , 1992, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[26]  Frank A. Beach,et al.  The herring gull's world. , 1955 .

[27]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  Self-organization or individual complexity: a false dilemma or a true complementarity? , 1999 .

[28]  E. Bonabeau,et al.  Swarm smarts. , 2000, Scientific American.

[29]  Marco Dorigo,et al.  Swarm intelligence: from natural to artificial systems , 1999 .

[30]  E. Bonabeau,et al.  Self-organization in social insects. , 1997, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[31]  Richard L. Scheaffer,et al.  What Is Random Behavior , 1996 .

[32]  Jean-Louis Deneubourg,et al.  The dynamics of collective sorting robot-like ants and ant-like robots , 1991 .

[33]  L. Edelstein-Keshet,et al.  Complexity, pattern, and evolutionary trade-offs in animal aggregation. , 1999, Science.

[34]  Guy Theraulaz,et al.  Phase-ordering kinetics of cemetery organization in ants , 1998 .

[35]  F. Heppner,et al.  Structure of Turning in Airborne Rock Dove (Columba livia) Flocks , 1992 .

[36]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Self-organization mechanisms in ant societies. I. Trail recruitment to newly discovered food sources , 1987 .

[37]  D. Gordon.  The organization of work in social insect colonies , 1996, Nature.

[39]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Emerging patterns and food recruitment in ants: an analytical study , 1999, Journal of theoretical biology.

[40]  R. Matthews,et al.  Ants. , 1898, Science.

[41]  J. Urry.  Complexity , 2006, Interpreting Art.

[42]  J. Deneubourg,et al.  Kinetics of larval gregarious behavior in the bark beetleDendroctonus micans (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) , 1990, Journal of Insect Behavior.

[43]  I. Aoki.  Experimental and theoretical studies on schooling in fish. II. Internal dynamics of fish schools in relation to inter-fish distance. , 1984 .

[44]  William Rowan,et al.  The Study of Instinct , 1953 .

[45]  A. Huth,et al.  The simulation of the movement of fish schools , 1992 .