Modeling Swarm Robotic Systems: a Case Study in Collaborative Distributed Manipulation

In this paper, we present a time-discrete, incremental methodology for modeling, at the microscopic and macroscopic levels, the dynamics of distributed manipulation experiments using swarms of autonomous robots endowed with reactive controllers. The methodology is well suited for non-spatial metrics, as it does not take into account robot trajectories or the spatial distribution of objects in the environment. The strength of the methodology lies in the fact that it has been generated by considering incremental abstraction steps, fromreal robots to macroscopic models, each with well-defined mappings between successive implementation levels. Precise heuristic criteria based on geometrical considerations and systematic tests with one or two real robots prevent the introduction of free parameters in the calibration procedure of models. As a consequence, we are able to generate highly abstracted macroscopic models that can capture the dynamics of a swarm of robots at the behavioral level while still being closely anchored to the characteristics of the physical setup. Although this methodology has been and can be applied to other experiments in distributed manipulation (e.g. object aggregation and segregation, foraging), in this paper we focus on a strictly collaborative case study concerned with pulling sticks out of the ground, an action that requires the collaboration of two robots to be successful. Experiments were carried out with teams consisting of two to 600 individuals at different levels of implementation (real robots, embodied simulations, microscopic and macroscopic models). Results show that models can deliver both qualitatively and quantitatively correct predictions in time lapses that are at least four orders of magnitude smaller than those required by embodied simulations and that they represent a useful tool for generalizing the dynamics of these highly stochastic, asynchronous, nonlinear systems, often outperforming intuitive reasoning. Finally, in addition to discussing subtle numerical effects, small prediction discrepancies, and difficulties in generating the mapping between different abstractions levels, we conclude the paper by reviewing the intrinsic limitations of the current modeling methodology and by proposing a few suggestions for future work.

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

[2]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  Mathematical Model of Foraging in a Group of Robots: Effect of Interference , 2002, Auton. Robots.

[3]  Alcherio Martinoli,et al.  Swarm intelligence in autonomous collective robotics , 1999 .

[4]  Chris Melhuish,et al.  Stigmergy, Self-Organization, and Sorting in Collective Robotics , 1999, Artificial Life.

[5]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Mobile robot group coordination using a model of interaction dynamics , 1999, Optics East.

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

[7]  R. Chauvin,et al.  Facteurs de direction et d'excitation au cours de l'accomplissement d'une tache chezFormica polyctena , 2005, Insectes Sociaux.

[8]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  A general algorithm for robot formations using local sensing and minimal communication , 2002, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[9]  J. Hutchinson Animal groups in three dimensions , 1999 .

[10]  Eric Bonabeau,et al.  Cooperative transport by ants and robots , 2000, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[11]  Ron Goodman,et al.  On the convergence of puck clustering systems , 2002, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[12]  Luca Maria Gambardella,et al.  Collaboration Through the Exploitation of Local Interactions in Autonomous Collective Robotics: The Stick Pulling Experiment , 2001, Auton. Robots.

[13]  Rodney M. Goodman,et al.  Swarm robotic odor localization , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Expanding the Societal Role of Robotics in the the Next Millennium (Cat. No.01CH37180).

[14]  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.

[15]  Camillo J. Taylor,et al.  A vision-based formation control framework , 2002, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[16]  I. Yoshihara,et al.  Cooperative behavior of interacting robots , 1998, Artificial Life and Robotics.

[17]  Ling Li,et al.  Emergent Specialization in Swarm Systems , 2002, IDEAL.

[18]  Luca Maria Gambardella,et al.  A Probabilistic Model for Understanding and Comparing Collective Aggregation Mechansims , 1999, ECAL.

[19]  Rodney M. Goodman,et al.  A scalable, distributed algorithm for allocating workers in embedded systems , 2001, 2001 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. e-Systems and e-Man for Cybernetics in Cyberspace (Cat.No.01CH37236).

[20]  Lynne E. Parker,et al.  Lifelong Adaptation in Heterogeneous Multi-Robot Teams: Response to Continual Variation in Individual Robot Performance , 2000, Auton. Robots.

[21]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Interaction and intelligent behavior , 1994 .

[22]  Richard Murray,et al.  Self-organized robotic system design and autonomous odor localization , 2002 .

[23]  Alcherio Martinoli,et al.  Modeling Swarm Robotic Systems , 2002, ISER.

[24]  Aude Billard,et al.  A Multi-robot System for Adaptive Exploration of a Fast-changing Environment: Probabilistic Modeling and Experimental Study , 1999, Connect. Sci..

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

[26]  Guy Theraulaz,et al.  Quand les robots imitent la nature , 2002 .

[27]  Alcherio Martinoli,et al.  Efficiency and optimization of explicit and implicit communication schemes in collaborative robotics experiments , 2002, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[28]  Olivier Michel,et al.  Webots: Symbiosis Between Virtual and Real Mobile Robots , 1998, Virtual Worlds.

[29]  Rodney M. Goodman,et al.  Comparing Distributed Exploration Strategies with Simulated and Autonomous Robots , 2000, DARS.

[30]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Sold!: auction methods for multirobot coordination , 2002, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[31]  LermanKristina,et al.  Mathematical Model of Foraging in a Group of Robots , 2002 .

[32]  Ian Darrell Kelly FLOCKING BY THE FUSION OF SONAR AND ACTIVE INFRARED SENSORS ON PHYSICAL AUTONOMOUS MOBILE ROBOTS , 1996 .

[33]  Ken Sugawara,et al.  Cooperative acceleration of task performance: foraging behavior of interacting multi-robots system , 1997 .

[34]  Bernhard Nebel,et al.  CS Freiburg: coordinating robots for successful soccer playing , 2002, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[35]  A. Ijspeert,et al.  A Macroscopic Analytical Model of Collaboration in Distributed Robotic Systems , 2002, Artificial Life.

[36]  Alcherio Martinoli,et al.  Optimization of Swarm Robotic Systems via Macroscopic Models , 2003 .

[37]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Mobile Robot Miniaturisation: A Tool for Investigation in Control Algorithms , 1993, ISER.

[38]  Michael J. B. Krieger,et al.  The call of duty: Self-organised task allocation in a population of up to twelve mobile robots , 2000, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[39]  E. Antonsson,et al.  Evolutionary Design of a Collective Sensory System , 2003 .

[40]  Rodney M. Goodman,et al.  Distributed odor source localization , 2002 .

[41]  Brian Yamauchi,et al.  Decentralized coordination for multirobot exploration , 1999, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[42]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Collective and Cooperative Group Behaviors: Biologically Inspired Experiments in Robotics , 1995, ISER.