Abstract —We investigate the scalability of a morpholog-ically flexible self-assembling robotic system by measuringtask execution performance. We use a scenario consisting ofthree subtasks — gap crossing, bridge traversal and objectpushing. Each subtask can only be solved by a dedicatedself-assembled morphology. To successfully complete the sce-nario, individual robots must autonomously assemble anddisassemble to form morphologies appropriate to the subtaskat hand. Environmental cues tell the robots when they haveencountered a particular task. Parallel execution of tasksis possible when there is a sufficient number of robots.With simulated robots, we perform a series of experimentsdemonstrating the feasibility and the scalability of our system.We implement our distributed control using the scripting lan-guage SWARMORPH-script that has been used in previousstudies to form morphologies with up to nine real robots. I. I NTRODUCTION Self-assembling robotic systems are composed of multi-ple autonomous agents that can physically connect to eachother to form larger composite robotic entities. Two of thekey potential benefits of self-assembling robotic systemsare morphological flexibility and parallelism. Morphologi-cal flexibility is important because any robotic entity musthave a morphology that is in some way appropriate to thetask it needs to perform. In theory, the ability to form awide range of different morphologies should allow futureself-assembling systems to tackle a wider range of tasksthan conventional monolithic robots. Such self-assemblingsystems may well comprise thousands or even millions ofindividual agents. In such large systems, parallelism willbe the key to efficiency—different self-assembled roboticentities will be able to carry out different tasks at the sametime. A well-designed self-assembling system should thusallow for massively parallel task execution.In this study, we explore a scenario designed to investi-gate morphological flexibility and large scale parallelism.In our scenario, a series of subtasks must be completed.Each subtask is solvable by a dedicated self-assembledmorphology, which is incapable of solving the other sub-tasks. The robots start at one end of the arena and performphototaxis towards a light source at the other end of thearena. As they proceed, environmental cues indicate thepresence of particular subtasks to be solved. When theyencounter a subtask, the robots must assemble into theappropriate morphology for the subtask at hand. Once thatsubtask is complete, the robots disassemble and continuephototaxis. They are thus ready to assemble into anothermorphology as soon as they encounter another subtask.The nature of the subtasks allows for a degree of parallelexecution.
[1]
Isao Shimoyama,et al.
Dynamics of self-assembling systems: Analogy with chemical kinetics
,
1994
.
[2]
Shigeo Hirose,et al.
Proposal for cooperative robot "Gunryu" composed of autonomous segments
,
1996,
Robotics Auton. Syst..
[3]
Hod Lipson,et al.
Stochastic self-reconfigurable cellular robotics
,
2004,
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004.
[4]
Pradeep K. Khosla,et al.
Millibot trains for enhanced mobility
,
2002
.
[5]
Toshio Fukuda,et al.
Cell Structured robotic system CEBOT: Control, planning and communication methods
,
1991,
Robotics Auton. Syst..
[6]
Anders Lyhne Christensen,et al.
SWARMORPH-script: a language for arbitrary morphology generation in self-assembling robots
,
2008,
Swarm Intelligence.
[7]
Marco Dorigo,et al.
Morphology control in a multirobot system
,
2007,
IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.
[8]
Gregory S. Chirikjian,et al.
Modular Self-Reconfigurable Robot Systems
,
2007
.
[9]
Shigeo Hirose,et al.
Study of Super-Mechano Colony: concept and basic experimental set-up
,
2001,
Adv. Robotics.
[10]
Anders Lyhne Christensen,et al.
SWARMORPH: Multirobot Morphogenesis Using Directional Self-Assembly
,
2009,
IEEE Transactions on Robotics.
[11]
Tad Hogg,et al.
Emergent structures in modular self-reconfigurable robots
,
2000,
Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065).
[12]
Maja J. Mataric,et al.
Interference as a Tool for Designing and Evaluating Multi-Robot Controllers
,
1997,
AAAI/IAAI.
[13]
Marco Dorigo,et al.
Self-Assembly at the Macroscopic Scale
,
2008,
Proceedings of the IEEE.
[14]
Eric Klavins,et al.
A grammatical approach to self-organizing robotic systems
,
2006,
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.
[15]
Anders Lyhne Christensen,et al.
Autonomous Reconfiguration in a Self-assembling Multi-robot System
,
2008,
ANTS Conference.
[16]
Isao Shimoyama,et al.
Dynamics of Self-Assembling Systems: Analogy with Chemical Kinetics
,
1994,
Artificial Life.
[17]
Marco Dorigo,et al.
Autonomous Self-Assembly in Swarm-Bots
,
2006,
IEEE Transactions on Robotics.
[18]
Zack J. Butler,et al.
Generic Decentralized Control for Lattice-Based Self-Reconfigurable Robots
,
2004,
Int. J. Robotics Res..
[19]
Eiichi Yoshida,et al.
M-TRAN: self-reconfigurable modular robotic system
,
2002
.
[20]
Ying Zhang,et al.
Modular Reconfigurable Robots in Space Applications
,
2003,
Auton. Robots.