Population Coding: A New Design Paradigm for Embodied Distributed Systems

Designing embodied distributed systems, such as multi-robot systems, is challenging especially if the individual components have limited capabilities due to hardware restrictions. In self-organizing systems each component has only limited information and a global, organized system behavior (macro-level) has to emerge from local interactions only (micro-level). A general, structured design approach to self-organizing distributed systems is still lacking. We develop a general approach based on behaviorally heterogeneous systems. Inspired by the concept of population coding from neuroscience, we show in two case studies how designing an embodied distributed system is reduced to picking the right components from a predefined set of controller types. In this way, the design challenge is reduced to an optimization problem that can be solved by a variety of optimization techniques. Our approach is applicable to scenarios that allow for representing the component behavior as (probabilistic) finite state machine. We anticipate the paradigm of population coding to be applicable to a wide range of distributed systems.

[1]  Tad Hogg,et al.  Coordinating microscopic robots in viscous fluids , 2007, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[2]  Spring Berman,et al.  Optimized Stochastic Policies for Task Allocation in Swarms of Robots , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[3]  Eliseo Ferrante,et al.  Swarmanoid: A Novel Concept for the Study of Heterogeneous Robotic Swarms , 2013, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[4]  Falko Dressler,et al.  Self-organization in sensor and actor networks , 2007, Wiley series in communications networking and distributed systems.

[5]  A. P. Georgopoulos,et al.  Neuronal population coding of movement direction. , 1986, Science.

[6]  M. Ani Hsieh,et al.  Fast Redistribution of a Swarm of Heterogeneous Robots , 2016, EAI Endorsed Trans. Scalable Inf. Syst..

[7]  Heinz Wörn,et al.  A framework of space–time continuous models for algorithm design in swarm robotics , 2008, Swarm Intelligence.

[8]  Amanda J. C. Sharkey,et al.  Swarm robotics , 2014, Scholarpedia.

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

[10]  G.,et al.  Global-to-Local Design for Self-Organized Task Allocation in Swarms , 2016 .

[11]  Mauro Birattari,et al.  Self-organized task allocation to sequentially interdependent tasks in swarm robotics , 2012, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[12]  Carsten O. Daub,et al.  Transcriptional Dynamics Reveal Critical Roles for Non-coding RNAs in the Immediate-Early Response , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[13]  Jacob Beal,et al.  Organizing the Aggregate: Languages for Spatial Computing , 2012, ArXiv.

[14]  Marco Dorigo,et al.  Derivation of a Micro-Macro Link for Collective Decision-Making Systems - Uncover Network Features Based on Drift Measurements , 2014, PPSN.

[15]  Eliseo Ferrante,et al.  Evolution of Self-Organized Task Specialization in Robot Swarms , 2015, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[16]  Eliseo Ferrante,et al.  Collective Decision with 100 Kilobots Speed vs Accuracy in Binary Discrimination Problems , 2015 .

[17]  Heiko Hamann Towards swarm calculus: urn models of collective decisions and universal properties of swarm performance , 2013, Swarm Intelligence.

[18]  Thomas Schmickl,et al.  Potential of Heterogeneity in Collective Behaviors: A Case Study on Heterogeneous Swarms , 2015, PRIMA.

[19]  Chris Hanson,et al.  Amorphous computing , 2000, Commun. ACM.

[20]  Toshio Fukuda,et al.  Grand Challenges in Bioengineered Nanorobotics for Cancer Therapy , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.