Skip to main content
Log in

Steering self-organized robot flocks through externally guided individuals

  • Swarm Robotics
  • Published:
Neural Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we study how a self-organized mobile robot flock can be steered toward a desired direction through externally guiding some of its members. Specifically, we propose a behavior by extending a previously developed flocking behavior to steer self-organized flocks in both physical and simulated mobile robots. We quantitatively measure the performance of the proposed behavior under different parameter settings using three metrics, namely, (1) the mutual information metric, adopted from Information Theory, to measure the information shared between the individuals during steering, (2) the accuracy metric from directional statistics to measure the angular deviation of the direction of the flock from the desired direction, and (3) the ratio of the largest aggregate to the whole flock and the ratio of informed individuals remaining with the largest aggregate, as a metric of flock cohesion. We conducted a systematic set of experiments using both physical and simulated robots, analyzed the transient and steady-state characteristics of steered flocking, and evaluate the parameter conditions under which a swarm can be successfully steered. We show that the experimental results are qualitatively in accordance with the ones that were predicted in Couzin et al. model (Nature, 433:513–516, 2005) and relate the quantitative differences to the differences between the models.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aldana M, Huepe C (2003) Phase transitions in self-driven many-particle systems and related non-equilibrium models: a network approach. J Statis Phys 112(1/2):135–153

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Bonabeau E, Dorigo M, Theraulaz G (ed) (1999) Swarm intelligence from natural to artificial systems, vol 4433. Oxford University Press, USA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Buhl J, Sumpter DJT, Couzin I, Hale J, Despland E, Miller E, Simpson SJ (2006) From disorder to order in marching locusts. Science 312(5778):1402–1406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Camazine S, Deneubourg J-L, Franks NR, Sneyd J, Theraulaz G, Bonabeau E (2001) Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  5. Çelikkanat H, Turgut AE, Şahin E (2008) Guiding a robot flock via informed robots. In: Asama H, Kurokawa H, Ota J, Sekiyama K (eds) Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on distributed autonomous robotic systems (DARS 2008). Springer, Berlin, pp 215–225

  6. Couzin ID, Krause J, Franks NR, Levin SA (2005) Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature 433:513–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Şahin E, Spears W (eds) (2005) Swarm robotics workshop: state-of-the-art survey, vol 3342. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  8. Şahin E, Winfield A (2008) Special issue: swarm robotics. Swarm Intelligence 2(2–4):69–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Şahin E, Winfield A, Spears W (eds) (2007) Swarm robotics: second SAB 2006 international workshop, vol 4433. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  10. Czirók A, Stanley HE, Vicsek T (1997) Spontaneously ordered motion of self-propelled particles. J Phys A Math Gen 30:1375–1385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dorigo M, Şahin E (2004) Special issue: swarm robotics. Auton Robots 17(2-3):111–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Feldman D (2002) A brief introduction to: information theory, excess entropy and computational mechanics. Technical report, Department of Physics, University of California

  13. Grassberger P (1988) Finite sample corrections to entropy and dimension estimates. Phys Lett A 128:369–373

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Gregoire G, Chate H, Tu Y (2003) Moving and staying together without a leader. Physica D 181:157–170

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Halloy J, Sempo G, Caprari G, Rivault C, Asadpour M, Tache F, Said I, Durier V, Canonge S, Ame JM, Detrain C, Correll N, Martinoli A, Mondada F, Siegwart R, Deneubourg JL (2007) Social integration of robots into groups of cockroaches to control self-organized choices. Science 318:1155–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hayes A, Dormiani-Tabatabaei P (2002) Self-organized flocking with agent failure: off-line optimization and demonstration with real robots. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. pp 3900–3905

  17. Hemelrijk CK, Kunz H (2005) Density distribution and size sorting in sh schools: an individual-based model. Behav Ecol 16:178–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huepe C, Aldana M (2008) New tools for characterizing swarming systems: a comparison of minimal models. Physica A 387:2809–2822

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jacob C, von Mammen S (2007) Swarm grammars: growing dynamic structures in 3d agent spaces. Digit Creativ 18(1):54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jadbabaie A, Lin J, Morse A (2003) Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules. IEEE Trans Autom Contr 48(6):988–1001

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Kazadi S, Chang J (2008) Hijacking swarms. In: Proceedings of the 11th IASTED international conference on intelligent systems and control. pp 228–234

  22. Kelly I, Keating D (1996) Flocking by the fusion of sonar and active infrared sensors on physical autonomous robots. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on mechatronics and machine vision in practice, vol 1. pp 14–17

  23. Kwong H, Jacob C (2003) Evolutionary exploration of dynamic swarm behaviour. In: Proceedings of the congress on evolutionary computation. pp 662–669

  24. Lien JM, Bayazit OB, Sowell RT, Rodríguez S, Amato NM (2004) Shepherding behaviors. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on robotics and automation. pp 4159 – 4164

  25. Lien JM, Rodríguez S, Malric J-P, Amato NM (2005) Shepherding behaviors with multiple shepherds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on robotics and automation. pp 3402–3407

  26. Lungarella M, Pegors T, Bulwinkle D, Sporns O (2005) Methods for quantifying the information structure of sensory and motor data. Neuroinformatics 3(3):243–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. von Mammen S, Jacob C (2008) The spatiality of swarmsquantitative analysis of dynamic interaction networks. In: Proceedings of artificial life. pp 662–669

  28. von Mammen S, Jacob C (2009) Swarming for Games: immersion in complex systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 293–302

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mardia KV (1972) Statistics of directional data. Academic Press, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Matarić MJ (1994) Interaction and intelligent behavior. Ph.D. thesis, MIT

  31. Mermin ND, Wagner H (1966) Absence of ferromagnetism or antiferromagnetism in one- or two-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg models. Phys Rev Lett 17(22):1133–1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Correll NMS, Rus D (2008) Social control of herd animals by integration of artificially controlled congeners. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on simulation of adaptive behavior, LNAI, vol 5040. Springer, pp 437–447

  33. Nagry M, Daruka I, Vicsek T (2007) New aspects of the continuous phase transition in the scalar noise model (snm) of collective motion. Physica A 373:445–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nembrini J (2005) Minimalist coherent swarming of wireless networked autonomous mobile robots. Ph.D. thesis, University of the West of England

  35. Nembrini J, Winfield AFT, Melhuish C (2002) Minimalist coherent swarming of wireless networked autonomous mobile robots. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on the simulation of adaptive behavior conference, vol 7. pp 273–382

  36. Olfati-Saber R (2006) Flocking for multi-agent dynamic systems: algorithms and theory. IEEE Trans Autom Contr 51(3):401–420

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Olfati-Saber R, Murray R (2004) Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays. IEEE Trans Autom Contr 49(9):1520–1533

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Parunak HVD, Brueckner S (2001) Entropy and self-organization in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents. pp 124–130

  39. Parunak HVD, Brueckner S, Fleischer M, Odell J (2002) Co-x: defining what agents do together. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS’02, workshop on teamwork and coalition formation. pp 62–69

  40. Reebs SG (2000) Can a minority of informed leaders determine the foraging movements of a fish shoal? Anim Behav 59:403–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Reynolds C (1987) Flocks, herds and schools: a distributed behavioral model. In: Proceedings of SIGGRAPH’87. ACM Press, pp 25–34

  42. Romey WL (1996) Individual differences make a difference in the trajectories of simulated schools of fish. Ecol Model 92:65–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Shi H, Wang L, Chu T (2006) Virtual leader approach to coordinated control of multiple mobile agents with asymmetric interactions. Physica D 213:51–65

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  44. Sperati V, Trianni V, Nolfi S (2008) Evolving coordinated group behaviours through maximization of mean mutual information. Swarm Intell 2(2–4):73–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sporns O, Lungarella M (2006) Evolving coordinated behavior by maximizing information structure. In: Rocha L et al (eds) Artificial life X. MIT Press, Cambridge

  46. Steuer RE, Kurths J, Daub CO, Weise J, Selbig J (2002) The mutual information: detecting and evaluating dependencies between variables. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computational biology. pp 231–240

  47. Seeley TDRA, Morse PKV (1979) The natural history of the flight of honey bee swarms. Psyche 86(2–3):103–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tanner HG, Jadbabaie A, Pappas GJ (2003) Stable flocking of mobile agents part i: fixed topology. In: Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE conference on decision and control, vol 2. IEEE Press, New Jersey, pp 2010–2015

  49. Tanner HG, Jadbabaie A, Pappas GJ (2003) Stable flocking of mobile agents part ii: dynamic topology. In: Proceedings of 42nd IEEE conference on decision and control, vol 2. IEEE Press, New Jersey, pp 2016–2021

  50. Toner J, Tu Y (1998) Flocks, herds, and schools: a quantitative theory of flocking. Phys Rev E 58(4):4828–4858

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  51. Tononi G, Sporns O, Edelman GM (1994) A measure for brain complexity: relating functional segregation and integration in the nervous system. Proc Nat Acad Sci 91:5033–5037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Turgut AE, Çelikkanat H, Gökçe F, Şahin E (2008) Self-organized flocking in mobile robot swarms. Swarm Intell 2(2–4):97–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Turgut AE, Çelikkanat H, Gökçe F, Şahin, E (2008) Self-organized flocking with a mobile robot swarm. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. pp 39–46

  54. Turgut AE, Huepe C, Çelikkanat H, Gökçe F, Şahin E (2008) Modeling phase transition in self-organized mobile robot flocks. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on ant colony optimization and swarm intelligence, LNCS, vol 5217. Springer, London, pp 108–119

  55. Vaughan R, Sumpter N, Henderson J, Frost A, Cameraon S (2000) Experiments in automatic flock control. Rob Auton Syst 31:109–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 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):1226–1229

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ward AJW, Sumpter DJT, Couzin ID, Hart PJB, Krause J (2008) Quorum decision-making facilitates information transfer in fish schools. Proc Nat Acad Sci 105(19):6948–6953

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is funded by TÜBİTAK (Turkish Scientific and Technical Council) through the “KARİYER: Kontrol Edilebilir Robot Oğulları” project with number 104E066. Additionally, Hande Çelikkanat acknowledges the partial support of the TÜBİTAK graduate student fellowship. The simulations have been performed on the High Performance Computing Center of the Department of Computer Engineering, Middle East Technical University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erol Şahin.

Appendix

Appendix

Mutual Information: Adopting the notation of Feldman [12] and indicating a discrete random variable with the capital letter X, which can take values \(x \in {\mathcal{X}}\), the information entropy is defined as:

$$ H[X] = - \sum_{x \in{\mathcal{X}}} p(x) \cdot \log_{2} p(x) $$

where p(x) is the probability that X will take the value of x. H[X] is also called the marginal entropy of X, since it depends on only the marginal probability of one random variable. The marginal entropy of the random variable X is zero if X always assumes the same value with p(Xx′) = 1 and maximum if X assumes all possible states with equal probability. Having defined the marginal entropy of a single random variable, this definition is easily extended to the joint entropy of two random variables:

$$ H[XY] = - \sum_{x \in{\mathcal{X}}} \sum_{y \in {\mathcal{Y}}} p(x,y) \cdot \log_{2}p(x, y) $$

as well as the conditional entropy of these two random variables:

$$ H[X|Y] = - \sum_{x \in{\mathcal{X}}} \sum_{y \in {\mathcal{Y}}} p(x, y) \cdot \log_{2}p(x | y) $$

where p(x, y) is the joint probability that X will take the value of x and Y will take the value of y, and p(x | y) is the conditional probability that X will take the value of x given that Y takes the value of y. Thus, the conditional entropy is the entropy of X, given that Y is known.

Then, the mutual information MI[XY] is defined as:

$$ MI[X,Y] = - \sum_{x \in {\mathcal{X}}} \sum_{y \in {\mathcal{Y}}} p(x, y) \cdot \log_{2} {\frac{p(x).p(y)}{p(x, y)}} $$

or equivalently,

$$ \begin{aligned} MI[X,Y] &= H[X] + H[Y] - H[XY]\\ &= H[X] - H[X|Y]\\ &= H[Y] - H[Y|X]. \end{aligned} $$

When p(x|y) becomes 1, the mutual information MI[XY] is maximized to be H[X]. Note that, the value of H[X] depends on the discretization of x. For instance, if the value of random variable x is discretized into 8, then p(x) becomes \({\frac{1}{8}}\) leading to \(H[X] = -8 \cdot {\frac{1}{8}} \cdot \log_{2} {\frac{1}{8}} = 3.\)

Angular Deviation: The angular deviation is calculated as follows [29]. Let θ1...θ n denote a set of unit vectors whose angular deviation is to be calculated. Then, their (normalized) mean vector is the vector from (0, 0) to \((\bar{C}, \bar{S})\), where

$$ \bar{C} = {\frac{1}{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \cos \theta_i, \quad \bar{S} = {\frac{1}{n}} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sin \theta_i. $$

Let \(\bar{R} = \sqrt{\bar{S}^2 + \bar{C}^2}\) be the length of this normalized mean vector and \(\bar{x}_0\) be its angle with the x-axis such that:

$$ \bar{C} = \bar{R} \cos \bar{x}_0, \quad \bar{S} = \bar{R} \sin \bar{x}_0. $$

Then, the angular deviation of these vectors around their normalized mean vector is given by:

$$ S_0 = 1 - \bar{R}. $$

This intuitively means that the more aligned the vectors are, i.e, the less the angular deviation is, the longer is the mean vector. On the other hand, if they are scattered around the unit circle in a random manner, then their vector sum results in a shorter mean vector, denoting a greater angular deviation from the mean.

The angular deviation around a specific direction can be calculated as an extension of this formulation by letting α denote the angle of the desired direction with the x-axis. Then

$$ \bar{C}^{\prime} = \bar{R} \cos (\bar{x}_0 - \alpha), \qquad \bar{S}^{\prime} = \bar{R} \sin (\bar{x}_0 - \alpha) $$

give the components of the mean vector in the desired direction, and

$$ S_0^{\prime} = 1 - \bar{C}^{\prime} $$

gives the angular deviation around this direction. In the accuracy calculations, we utilize this extended formulation which gives the angular deviation around the desired direction of the flock.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Çelikkanat, H., Şahin, E. Steering self-organized robot flocks through externally guided individuals. Neural Comput & Applic 19, 849–865 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-010-0355-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-010-0355-y

Keywords

Navigation