Skip to main content
Log in

On the right combination of altruism and randomness in the motion of homogeneous distributed autonomous agents

  • Published:
Natural Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We demonstrate the role of randomness and altruism in the motion of artificial agents in a deterministic environment. A swarm of distributed autonomous agents with no possibility of coordination tracks a unique target. The goal is to reach the target as efficiently as possible, i.e. with as few agents moving from their current position as possible. We show in two models how, by adopting features of randomness and altruism in the agent’s motion (which, in our case, translates to yielding to other agents), this objective can be reached. In the first, simplistic representation, agents are dimensionless. The system is formulated as a unidimensional Markov chain, and we show how correctly setting the level of randomness in agents’ movement enables optimization of the swarm total energy expenditure. In the second representation, the agent embodiment raises the question of interference in movement. Again, we show how with no possibility of coordination, and based solely on a partial knowledge of the current system state, it is possible to optimize the swarm movements by dynamically adapting the agent level of randomness in movement. These are but two possible representations of a swarm of simple non-cooperating agents sharing a common target. Yet, they demonstrate how moderating the individual agent attraction to the target by introducing the precise level of randomness in the decision to move or not, helps in breaking ties between agents in their race to the target, and to optimize the overall swarm energy expenditure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Becco C, Vandewalle N, Delcourt J, Poncin P (2006) Experimental evidences of a structural and dynamical transition in fish school. Physica A 367:487–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhl J, Sumpter DJ, Couzin ID, Hale JJ, Despland E, Miller ER, Simpson SJ (2006) From disorder to order in marching locusts. Science 312(5778):1402–1406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgard W, Moors M, Stachniss C, Schneider FE (2005) Coordinated multi-robot exploration. IEEE Trans Rob 21(3):376–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark CM, Morton R, Bekey GA (2009) Altruistic relationships for optimizing task fulfillment in robot communities. In: Distributed autonomous robotic systems, vol 8. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 261–270

  • Czirók A, Barabási AL, Vicsek T (1999) Collective motion of self-propelled particles: kinetic phase transition in one dimension. Phys Rev Lett 82(1):209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deneubourg JL, Pasteels JM, Verhaeghe JC (1983) Probabilistic behaviour in ants: a strategy of errors? J Theor Biol 105(2):259–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deneubourg JL, Aron S, Goss S, Pasteels JM (1987) Error, communication and learning in ant societies. Eur J Oper Res 30(2):168–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein A (1905) Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen. Ann Phys 17:549–560

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Floreano D, Mitri S, Perez-Uribe A, Keller L (2008) Evolution of altruistic robots. In: IEEE world congress on computational intelligence. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 232–248

  • Hacohen S, Shoval S, Shvalb N (2017) Multi agents' multi targets mission under uncertainty using probability navigation function. In: 2017 13th IEEE International conference on control and automation (ICCA). IEEE, pp 845–850

  • Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. J Theor Biol 7(1):17–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1972) Altruism and related phenomena, mainly in social insects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 3(1):193–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imre M, Oztop E, Nagai Y, Ugur E (2019) Affordance-based altruistic robotic architecture for human–robot collaboration. Adapt Behav 27(4):223–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann L, Keller L (2006) The evolution of cooperation and altruism—a general framework and a classification of models. J Evol Biol 19(5):1365–1376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy N, Ben-Elia E (2016) Emergence of system optimum: a fair and altruistic agent-based route-choice model. Procedia Comput Sci 83:928–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lihoreau M, Charleston MA, Senior AM, Clissold FJ, Raubenheimer D, Simpson SJ, Buhl J (2017) Collective foraging in spatially complex nutritional environments. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 372(1727):20160238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarland D, Spier E (1997) Basic cycles, utility and opportunism in self-sufficient robots. Robot Auton Syst 20(2–4):179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nandavar S, Lewis I, White KM (2019) Understanding drivers’ altruistic driving decisions: a theoretically guided investigation. Transp Res F Traffic Psychol Behav 62:212–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niwa HS (2004) Space-irrelevant scaling law for fish school sizes. J Theor Biol 228(3):347–357

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Perrin J (1909) Le mouvement Brownien et la réalité moléculaire. Ann Chim Phys 18(8):5–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratnieks FL, Wenseleers T (2008) Altruism in insect societies and beyond: voluntary or enforced? Trends Ecol Evol 23(1):45–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumpter DJ (2010) Collective animal behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Thammawichai M, Baliyarasimhuni SP, Kerrigan EC, Sousa JB (2018) Optimizing communication and computation for multi-UAV information gathering applications. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 54(2):601–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers RL (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46(1):35–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicsek T, Czirók A, Ben-Jacob E, Cohen I, Shochet O (1995) Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles. Phys Rev Lett 75(6):1226

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan GM, Afanasyev V, Buldyrev SV, Murphy EJ, Prince PA, Stanley HE (1996) Lévy flight search patterns of wandering albatrosses. Nature 381(6581):413–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Hassoun.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Proof of Eq. 4

Appendix: Proof of Eq. 4

Let \(k\) be the number of agents that decide to make a step. Then, under an assumption of independent decisions, the probability \({q}_{m,i}^{k}\) that \(k\) agents decide to move when the system state is \((m,i)\) is

$$q_{m,i}^{k} = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} i \\ k \\ \end{array} } \right)\left( {p_{m,i} } \right)^{k} \left( {1 - p_{m,i} } \right)^{i - k}$$

Assuming \(0<k\), let \(j\), \(0\le j\le k\) be the number of agents that survived after the step to sector of \(m-1\), and denote by \({r}_{k,j}^{m-1}\) the probability that among \(k\) agents that decided to move from sector \(m\) to \(m-1\), exactly \(j\) agents "survived" (i.e., did not collide).

In order to calculate probability \({r}_{k,j}^{m-1}\), let us associate the segments of the current sector with an alphabet of size \(m-1\) and the group of agents with a word of \(k\) letters from this alphabet. Each position in the word (agent) receives a letter (segment assignment). In this formulation, \({r}_{k,j}^{m-1}\) is the probability for a word of \(k\) letters from an alphabet of size \(m-1\) to include exactly \(j\) unique letters (repetitions mean that two agents are assigned to the same segment and, therefore, collide).

Denote by \(f\left(a,b\right)\) the number of possibilities of combining words of length \(a\) from an alphabet of \(b\) letters such that the letters in the words appear either zero or strictly more than one time each. Let \({E}_{i}\) be the event that the \(i\) th letter among \(b\) available ones appears exactly once in the word of length \(a\) and consequently \({\overline{E} }_{i}\) be the event that the \(i\) th letter either does not appear in the word or appears strictly more than one time. We have:

$$\begin{aligned} & f\left( {a,b} \right) = \left| { \cap_{i} \overline{E}_{i} } \right| = b^{a} - \left| { \cup_{i} E_{i} } \right| \\ & \quad = b^{a} - ab\left( {b - 1} \right)^{a - 1} + \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} b \\ 2 \\ \end{array} } \right)a\left( {a - 1} \right)\left( {b - 2} \right)^{a - 2} - \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} b \\ 3 \\ \end{array} } \right)a\left( {a - 1} \right)\left( {a - 2} \right)\left( {b - 3} \right)^{a - 3} \\ & \quad = \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 0}^{a} \left( { - 1} \right)^{i} \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} b \\ i \\ \end{array} } \right)\frac{a!}{{\left( {a - i} \right)!}}\left( {b - i} \right)^{a - i} \\ \end{aligned}$$

Now consider the number of words with the required property. There are \(\left(\begin{array}{c}b\\ j\end{array}\right)\) possibilities of choosing \(k\) letters that appear only one time, \(\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ j\end{array}\right)\) possibilities of choosing the spaces in word that are occupied by these letters, and \(j!\) possible orders of the letters’ appearance. The remaining \(a-j\) spaces are filled by the remaining \(b-j\) unused letters, which either do not appear in the word or appear strictly more than one time. Then, the number of required words is \(\left(\begin{array}{c}b\\ j\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ j\end{array}\right)j!f(a-j, b-j)\).

Note that the number of all possible words of the length \(a\) over the alphabet of the size \(b\) is \({b}^{a}\). Then, the probability of obtaining the word with the required property is \(\left(\begin{array}{c}b\\ j\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}a\\ j\end{array}\right)j!f(a-j, b-j)/{b}^{a}\).

Recall that according to the proposed formulation, the \({r}_{k,j}^{m-1}\) is equal to the probability of obtaining the word of length \(k\) with exactly \(j\) non-repeating letters from a \((m-1)\)-alphabet.

$$r_{k,j}^{m - 1} = \frac{{\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {m - 1} \\ j \\ \end{array} } \right)\left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c} k \\ j \\ \end{array} } \right)j!f\left( {k - j,m - 1 - j} \right)}}{{\left( {m - 1} \right)^{k} }}$$

Q.E.D.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hassoun, M., Kagan, E. On the right combination of altruism and randomness in the motion of homogeneous distributed autonomous agents. Nat Comput 22, 393–407 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-021-09876-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-021-09876-w

Keywords

Navigation