Skip to main content
Log in

Self-organized task allocation to sequentially interdependent tasks in swarm robotics

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article we present a self-organized method for allocating the individuals of a robot swarm to tasks that are sequentially interdependent. Tasks that are sequentially interdependent are common in natural and artificial systems. The proposed method does neither rely on global knowledge nor centralized components. Moreover, it does not require the robots to communicate. The method is based on the delay experienced by the robots working on one subtask when waiting for input from another subtask. We explore the capabilities of the method in different simulated environments. Additionally, we evaluate the method in a proof-of-concept experiment using real robots. We show that the method allows a swarm to reach a near-optimal allocation in the studied environments, can easily be transferred to a real robot setting, and is adaptive to changes in the properties of the tasks such as their duration. Finally, we show that the ideal setting of the parameters of the method does not depend on the properties of the environment.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Also referred to as intentional approaches to task allocation [24].

  2. In biology, the interface delay is commonly referred to as “queuing delay” (cf. [2, 3]]). We do not use the term “queue” as it implies an order in the arrival of robots at the task interface, which is not present in the stochastic system that we consider.

  3. Differences in average interface delays can be caused by differences in the properties of the problem such as subtask duration or swarm size.

  4. http://www.swarm-bots.org/

  5. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/argos/

  6. http://www.swarmanoid.org/

  7. The short duration of the segments is due to two reasons. First, we used robots equipped with old and non-replaceable batteries. Second, robots depleted their batteries in an inhomogeneous way—robots that transported many objects depleted their battery at a much faster pace—and we had to stop the experiment as soon as the first robot ran out of energy.

References

  1. Agassounon, W., & Martinoli, A. (2002). Efficiency and robustness of threshold-based distributed allocation algorithms in multi-agent systems. Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS-02) (pp. 1090–1097). New York: ACM Press.

  2. Anderson, C., & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (1999a). Task partitioning in insect societies. I: Effect of colony size on queueing delay and colony ergonomic efficiency. The American Naturalist, 154(5), 521–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, C., & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (1999b). Task partitioning in insect societies. II: Use of queueing delay information in recruitment. The American Naturalist, 154(5), 536–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, C., & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2000). Task partitioning in insect societies: Novel situations. Insectes Sociaux, 47(2), 198–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berman, S., Halasz, A., Hsieh, M. A., & Kumar, V. (2009). Optimized stochastic policies for task allocation in swarms of robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 25, 927–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., & Theraulaz, G. (1999). Swarm intelligence: From natural to artificial systems. New York: Oxford University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Brutschy, A., Pini, G., Pinciroli, C., Birattari, M., & Dorigo, M. (2011). Self-organized task allocation to sequentially interdependent tasks in swarm robotics—Online supplementary material. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/supp/IridiaSupp2011-002/.

  8. Campo, A., & Dorigo, M. (2007). Efficient multi-foraging in swarm robotics. In M. Capcarrere, A. A. Freitas, P. J. Bentley, C. G. Johnson, & J. Timmis (Eds.), Advances in artificial life: Proceedings of the VIIIth European conference on artificial life (ECAL 2005) (Vol. 4648, pp. 696–705). Berlin: Springer.

  9. Christensen, A. L., O’Grady, R., & Dorigo, M. (2007). Morphology control in a multirobot system. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 11(6), 732–742.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cicirello, V. A., & Smith, S. F. (2004). Wasp-like agents for distributed factory coordination. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 8(3), 237–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dahl, T. S., Matarić, M. J., & Sukhat, G. S. (2009). Multi-robot task allocation through vacancy chain scheduling. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 57, 674–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dasgupta, P. (2011). Multi-robot task allocation for performing cooperative foraging tasks in an initially unknown environment. In L. C. Jain, E. V. Aidman, & C. Abeynayake (Eds.), Innovations in defence support systems 2. Studies in computational intelligence (Vol. 338, pp. 5–20). Berlin: Springer.

  13. Dias, M. B., Zlot, R., Kalra, N., & Stentz, A. (2006). Market-based multirobot coordination: A survey and analysis. Proceedings of the IEEE, 94, 1257–1270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dorigo, M. (2005). SWARM-BOT: An experiment in swarm robotics. In P. Arabshahi & A. Martinoli (Eds.), 2005 IEEE swarm intelligence symposium (SIS-05) (pp. 192–200). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dorigo, M., Floreano, D., Gambardella, L. M., Mondada, F., Nolfi, S., Baaboura, T., et al. (2013). Swarmanoid: A novel concept for the study of heterogeneous robotic swarms. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine (in press).

  16. Dorigo, M., Trianni, V., Şahin, E., Groß, R., Labella, T. H., Baldassarre, G., et al. (2004). Evolving self-organizing behaviors for a swarm-bot. Autonomous Robots, 17(2–3), 223–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ferreira, P. R., Boffo, F. S., & Bazzan, A. L. C. (2008). Using Swarm-GAP for distributed task allocation in complex scenarios. In N. Jamali, P. Scerri, & T. Sugawara (Eds.), Massively multi-agent technology. LNCS (Vol. 5043, pp. 107–121). Berlin: Springer.

  18. Fowler, H. H., & Robinson, S. W. (1979). Foraging by Atta sexdens (Formicidae: Attini): Seasonal patterns, caste and efficiency. Ecological Entomology, 4(3), 239–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gerkey, B. P., & Matarić, M. J. (2003). Multi-robot task allocation: Analyzing the complexity and optimality of key architectures. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA 2003) (pp. 3862–3867). Pitscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.

  20. Gerkey, B. P., & Matarić, M. J. (2004). A formal analysis and taxonomy of task allocation in multi-robot systems. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 23(9), 939–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goldberg, D., Cicirello, V., Dias, M. B., Simmons, R., Smith, S., & Stentz, A. (2003). Task allocation using a distributed market-based planning mechanism. In Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 996–997). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  22. Groß, R., Bonani, M., Mondada, F., & Dorigo, M. (2006). Autonomous self-assembly in swarm-bots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 22(6), 1115–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ikemoto, Y., Miura, T., & Asama, H. (2010). Adaptive division-of-labor control algorithm for multi-robot systems. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics, 22(4), 514–525.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kalra, N., & Martinoli, A. (2006). A comparative study of market-based and threshold-based task allocation. In Distributed autonomous robotic systems 7 (pp. 91–102). Berlin: Springer.

  25. Krieger, M. J. B., & Billeter, J.-B. (2000). The call of duty: Self-organised task allocation in a population of up to twelve mobile robots. Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 30, 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Labella, T. H., Dorigo, M., & Deneubourg, J.-L. (2006). Division of labor in a group of robots inspired by ants’ foraging behavior. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems, 1(1), 4–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liu, W., Winfield, A., Sa, J., Chen, J., & Dou, L. (2007). Towards energy optimization: Emergent task allocation in a swarm of foraging robots. Adaptive Behavior, 15(3), 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mondada, F., Pettinaro, G. C., Guignard, A., Kwee, I. V., Floreano, D., Deneubourg, J.-L., et al. (2004). SWARM-BOT: A new distributed robotic concept. Autonomous Robots, 17(2–3), 193–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nouyan, S., Campo, A., & Dorigo, M. (2008). Path formation in a robot swarm. Self-organized strategies to find your way home. Swarm Intelligence, 2(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nouyan, S., Groß, R., Bonani, M., Mondada, F., & Dorigo, M. (2009). Teamwork in self-organized robot colonies. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 13(4), 695–711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pinciroli, C., Trianni, V., O’Grady, R., Pini, G., Brutschy, A., Brambilla, M., et al. (2011a). ARGoS: A modular, multi-engine simulator for heterogeneous swarm robotics. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2011) (pp. 5027–5034). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

  32. Pinciroli, C., Trianni, V., O’Grady, R., Pini, G., Brutschy, A., Brambilla, M., et al. (2012). ARGoS: A modular, parallel, multi-engine simulator for multi-robot systems. Swarm intelligence, 6(4), 271–295.

  33. Pini, G., Brutschy, A., Birattari, M., & Dorigo, M. (2011a). Task partitioning in swarms of robots: Reducing performance losses due to interference at shared resources. In J.-L. Ferrier & J. Filipe (Eds.), Informatics in control, automation and robotics: Selected papers from the international conference on informatics in control, automation and robotics 2009. LNEE (Vol. 85). Berlin: Springer.

  34. Pini, G., Brutschy, A., Frison, M., Roli, A., Dorigo, M., & Birattari, M. (2011b). Task partitioning in swarms of robots: An adaptive method for strategy selection. Swarm Intelligence, 5(3–4), 283–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ratnieks, F. L. W., & Anderson, C. (1999). Task partitioning in insect societies. Insectes Sociaux, 46(2), 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Scheidler, A., Merkle, D., & Middendorf, M. (2008). Stability and performance of ant queue inspired task partitioning methods. Theory in Biosciences, 127(2), 149–161.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Theraulaz, G., Bonabeau, E., & Deneubourg, J.-L. (1998). Response threshold reinforcement and division of labour in insect societies. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 265(1393), 327–332.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research leading to the results presented in this paper has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement no. 246939. Marco Dorigo, Mauro Birattari, and Arne Brutschy acknowledge support from the Belgian F.R.S.–FNRS. Giovanni Pini acknowledges support from Université Libre de Bruxelles through the “Fonds David & Alice Van Buuren”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arne Brutschy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brutschy, A., Pini, G., Pinciroli, C. et al. Self-organized task allocation to sequentially interdependent tasks in swarm robotics. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 28, 101–125 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-012-9212-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-012-9212-y

Keywords

Navigation