SWARM ROBOTICS

VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY BELGAUM

A SEMINAR REPORT ON SWARM ROBOTICS SUBMITTED BY WADHER AJAY K. USN: 3PG08ME060 Under the guidance of Mr. Shivaprakash Swamy During the year 2011-12

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGG

BELLARY V.V SANGHAS PROUDHADEVARAYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY T.B.DAM 583 225, HOSPET BELLARY (DIST), KARNATAKA (Approved by A.I.C.T.E, New Delhi)

DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET

Page 1

SWARM ROBOTICS
Bellary V.V. Sanghas PROUDHADEVARAYA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY T.B.DAM 583 225, HOSPET BELLARY (DIST), KARNATAKA

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGG CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Wadher Ajay K.(3PG08ME060) studying in VIII semester B.E., has satisfactorily completed the seminar on Swarm Robotics in partial fulfillment of Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering by the board of Visvesvaraya Technological

University, Belgaum during the year 2011-2012.

Seminar Coordinator Prof.B.M.Manjunath

Head of the Department Prof.Shivaprakash Swamy

DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET

Page 2

SWARM ROBOTICS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Salutation to our beloved and highly esteemed institute Proudhadevaraya Institute of Technology, for grooming us up into Mechanical Engineers. I heartily express my sincere thanks to the principal Dr.P.Khageshan, and HOD Prof.Shivaprakash Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Seminar Coordinators for their cooperation and support. I would like to extend my gratitude to my friends for the constant encouragement to make the seminar successful. I extend my special thanks to my family members for their constant support.

Wadher Ajay K.

DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET

Page 3

SWARM ROBOTICS
ABSTRACT -Swarm robotics is a relatively new technology that is being explored for its potential use in a variety of different applications and environments. Previous emerging technologies have often overlooked security until later developmental stages, when it has had to be undesirably (and sometimes expensively) retrofitted. In particular, swarms of robots potentially employ different types of communication channels; have special concepts of identity; and exhibit adaptive emergent behavior which could be modified by an intruder. Addressing these issues now will prevent undesirable consequences for many applications of this type of technology. Swarm robotics is a novel approach to the coordination of large numbers of relatively simple robots which takes its inspiration from social insects. This paper proposes a definition to this newly emerging approach by 1) describing the desirable properties of swarm robotic systems, as observed in the system-level functioning of social insects, 2) proposing a definition for the term swarm robotics, and putting forward a set of criteria that can be used to distinguish swarm robotics research from other multi-robot studies, 3) providing a review of some studies which can act as sources of inspiration, and a list of promising domains for the utilization of swarm robotic systems.

DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET

Page 4

SWARM ROBOTICS CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................6 BACKGROUNDS...7 SYSTEM LEVEL PROPERTIES..................................................................................8 DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS...........................8 COORDINATION MECHANISM...9 RESEARCH DIRECTION..10 DESIGN...10 MODELLING AND ANALYSIS....11 ROBOTS...13 RELEATED TECHNOLOGIES...15 GOALS AND APPLICATIONS....................................................................................16 FROM CENTRALIZED INTELLIGENCE TO SWARM INTELLIGENCE.17 BENEFITS17 DISADVANTAGES.17 FUTURE TREANDS18 CONCLUSION.19 REFERENCES......20

DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET

Page 5

SWARM ROBOTICS
INTRODUCTION

Swarm of open-source Jasmine micro-robots recharging themselves The term swarm has been applied to many systems (in biology, engineering, computation, etc.) as they have some of the qualities that the English-language term swarm denotes. Swarm means great number (of insects or other small creatures) moving together. E.g.: a swarm of honeybees (see photo). Robotics means a machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control. Swarm robotics is a new approach to the coordination of multirobot systems which consist of large numbers of mostly simple physical robots. It is supposed that a desired collective behavior emerges from the interactions between the robots and interactions of robots with the environment. This approach emerged on the field of artificial swarm intelligence, as well as the biological studies of insects, ants and other fields in nature, where swarm behavior occurs. The research of swarm robotics is to study the design of robots, their physical body and their controlling behaviors. It is inspired but not limited by the emergent behavior observed in social insects, called swarm intelligence. Relatively simple individual rules can produce a large set of complex swarm behavior. A key-component is the communication between the members of the group that build a system of constant feedback. The swarm behavior involves constant change of individuals in cooperation with others, as well as the behavior of the whole group.

Comparison of size of swarm robots & ant

DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET Page 6

SWARM ROBOTICS
BACKGROUND -The mechanisms that underlie social insect behavior have inspired an approach that emphasizes autonomy, emergence and distributed functioning, and avoids a reliance on centralized control and communication. This approach underlies both swarm robotics, and the closely related notion of artificial "swarm intelligence". The term "swarm intelligence" was first coined in the context of cellular robotic systems, on the basis of the features that the simulated robotic collections shared with social insects: namely "decentralized control, lack of synchronicity, simple and (quasi) identical members" and size (1989). Bonabeauetal (1999) describe as swarm intelligence, "any attempt to design algorithms or distributed problem-solving devices inspired by the collective behavior of social insect colonies and other animal societies" (1999). The key ingredients of swarm intelligence that they emphasize are self-organization, and stigmergy, (indirect communication via the environment). Mar-tinoli (2001) similarly describes the swarm intelligence approach as emphasizing "parallelism, distributedness, and exploitation of direct (agent-to-agent) or indirect (via the environment) local interactions among relatively simple agents. Swarm robotics has been described as the application of swarm intelligent principles to collective robotics (2006). The same principles of decentralized local control and communication are applied to physically instantiated robots. In swarm robotics, the emphasis is on using a number of simple robots that are autonomous, not subject to global control, and that have limited communication abilities. The reliance on local communication means that the potential problems of communication bottlenecks, or centralized failure, are avoided. The system benefits from the redundancy of using several robots: if individual robots were to fail, others could take over, and new ones could be added without the need for recalibration of communicative systems. In the same way, the activities of an ant colony need not be affected by the removal of some of its members. The simplicity of the individual robots means that they are able to respond quickly to the environment. There are also several tasks, such as exploring an environment that can be accomplished more efficiently if a number of robots are used. Of course, using a collection of robots creates some new problems itself (1999). There is the possibility of stagnation: without global knowledge, a group of robots can find themselves in
DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET Page 7

SWARM ROBOTICS
a deadlock situation. Too many robots trying to reach the same location, or perform the same task could obstruct each other. Another problem is finding a solution to a task: how can situations are engineered in order that a desired solution can emerge? Nonetheless, the promise of being able to send a number of autonomous robots to perform a task, particularly in sites that are remote and inhospitable to humans, outweighs the disadvantages.

System-level properties-The system-level operation of a swarm robotic system should exhibit three functional properties that are observed in natural swarms and remain as desirable properties of multi-robot systems. Robustness. The swarm robotic system should be able to operate despite disturbances from the environment or the malfunction of its individuals. A number of factors can be observed in social insects behind the robustness of their operation. First, swarms are inherently redundant systems; the loss of an individual can be immediately compensated by another one. Second, coordination is decentralized and therefore the destruction of a particular part of the swarm is unlikely to stop its operation. Third, the individuals that make up the swarm are relatively simple, making them less prone to failure. Fourth, sensing is distributed; hence the system is robust against the local perturbances in the environment. Flexibility. The individuals of a swarm should be able to coordinate their behaviors to tackle tasks of different nature. For instance, the individuals in an ant colony can collectively find the shortest path to a food source or carry a large prey through the utilization of different coordination strategies. Scalability. The swarm should be able to operate under a wide range of group sizes and support large number of individuals without impacting performance considerably. That is, the coordination mechanisms and strategies to be developed for swarm robotic systems should ensure that the operation of the swarm under varying swarm sizes.

Distinguishing characteristics-We will now summarize the main distinguishing characteristics of swarm robotics. First, the research should be relevant to the coordination of a swarm of robots. That is, the individuals should have a physical embodiment, be situated, and be able to physically interact
DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET Page 8

SWARM ROBOTICS
with their environment. Moreover, the coordination mechanisms being studied should promise to be scalable for a wide range of swarm sizes. Second, the robotic system being studied should be rather homogeneous. That is, the individuals that make up the swarm should be rather identical, at least at the level of interactions. Coordination strategies developed for heterogeneous multi-robot systems, which consist of individuals that differ in their interactions due to their physical embodiment or their behavioral control, fall outside of the swarm robotics approach. Third, the individuals should be relatively simple. The simplicity criterion in the definition does not directly refer to the hardware and software complexity of the robots, but rather meant to emphasize the limitations in their individual capabilities relative to the task. The members of the swarm system should be relatively incapable or inefficient on their own with respect to the task at hand. That is, either (i) the task should be hard or impossible to be carried out by a single robot, and the cooperation of a group of robots should be essential, or (ii) the deployment of a group of robots should improve the performance/robustness of the handling of the task. Fourth, the individuals should have local interaction abilities. This constraint ensures that the coordination between the robots is distributed, and that it is more likely to scale with the size of the swarm. Mechanisms that rely on global interaction capabilities is likely to be bounded by the bandwidth and the range of communication channel and may create unsalable coordination mechanisms.

Coordination mechanisms-Studies in physical and biological systems have revealed that there are a number of coordination mechanisms that are at work in natural systems which can act as sources of inspiration for coordinating swarm robotic systems. Two main coordination mechanisms that are known to be at work: self-organization and stigmergy. Self-organization, defined as a process in which pattern at the global level of a system emerges solely from numerous interactions among the lower level components of the system, is common in natural systems. Studies of selforganization in natural systems show that interplay of positive and negative feedback of local interactions among the individuals is essential. In these systems, positive feedback is typically generated through autocatalytic behaviors; that is the change inflicted in the swarm-environment
DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET Page 9

SWARM ROBOTICS
system by the execution of a behavior increases the triggering of the very same behavior. Such a positive feedback cycle is then counterbalanced by a negative feedback mechanism, which typically stems from a depletion of physical resources. In addition to these mechanisms, selforganization also depends on the existence of randomness within the system and multiple interactions. Studies of self-organization in natural systems often develop models that are built with simplified interactions in the environment and abstract behavioral mechanisms in individuals. The self-organization models of social insects and animals have already been used as inspiration sources since, in a sense, swarm robotics can be considered as the engineering and utilization of self organization in physically embodied swarms. Stigmergy, defined as indirect communication of individuals through environment, was first proposed by Grasse to explain the coordination mechanisms behind the building of nests in termites. Stigmergic communication is common in many social insects; ants are known to lay pheromone on the ground to mark the paths to food sources and that these pheromones act as attractants to-be-followed by ants. Stigmergy is of interest to swarm robotics since it provides a communication mechanism that is local, distributed and scalable.

Research directions-During the last 4-5 years, interest on swarm robotics has been on the rise. The growing interest in this new approach is being fueled by the advances in mechatronics and other technologies, such as MEMS, which have started to shrink the size and the cost of robots for mass-production and opened the way towards the deployment of large-scale swarm robotic systems in real world applications. In the discussion below, we will provide a brief review of the swarm robotics studies in four categories; namely design, modeling and analysis, robots, and problems.

Design-The main problem of swarm robotic system can be stated as follows: How should one design individuals, both in terms of their physical embodiment as well as their behavioral control, such that a desired swarm-level behavior emerges from the interactions among the
DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET Page 10

SWARM ROBOTICS
individuals as well as between the individuals and the environment? This goal, which can also be considered as the engineering of self-organization in multi-robot systems, is a challenging task that is difficult, if not impossible, to solve in general terms. The studies within this category can be grouped into two as: ad-hoc and principled approaches. In ad-hoc approaches, behaviors of individual robots are designed manually to achieve a desired swarm-level behavior. In this approach, usually, though not always, behaviors of social insects are usually adapted to the robots at hand. This process implicitly assumes that the behaviors used as inspiration sources are observed at a certain abstraction level that captures the essential parameters of these behavior needed to adapt to robots and yet reproduce similar swarm-level behaviors. In principled approaches, instead of designing a specific swarm-level behavior, a general methodology through which desired swarm-level behaviors can be used to build necessary individual behaviors, is proposed or utilized. One such approach is the use of artificial evolution. Evolutionary methods have been successfully used to develop behaviors within the Swarm-bots project. In particular, the SwarmBot3D, a physics-based simulation environment for simulating the Swarm-bots robotic system at different levels of complexity, was used. In most of these studies, simple feed forward or recurrent multi-layer perceptions were used to encode the behaviors and that the evolved behaviors in the simulation environment were later successfully transferred to the physical robot system.

Modeling and analysis-The behavior of a swarm robotic system at the system-level emerges from the interactions of its individuals. These interactions, determined by the behaviors of the individuals and the environment, are inherently probabilistic. As a consequence of this, the behavioral outcome of swarm robotic systems is not straightforward and modeling and analysis of the swarm is desirable for at least two purposes. First, for a desired task to be accomplished, and a proposed behavioral design at the individual level, one needs to obtain guarantees for systemlevel performance. Second, in most of ad-hoc approaches, although the overall composition of individual behaviors may be known, the optimum values of the parameter may remain unknown. Systematic experiments with physical robots are often difficult make and they can provide only
DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET Page 11

SWARM ROBOTICS
limited guarantee with little insight into the operation of the system. The models that can be used towards this end can be reviewed in three groups. In sensor-based modeling, the sensing and actuation of the individual robots as well as robot-robot and robot-environment interactions are modeled. This kind of modeling, mostly used for building realistic simulators of robotic systems, allows conducting experiments in simulation and yet obtains results that are in agreement with the ones obtained from physical robots. Although this type of modeling is common in building robotics simulators, models to be used in swarm robotics requires more fidelity at the level of inter-robot interactions. However, the building of these models is subject to the trade-off between realism and simplicity models and interactions need to be realistic to be useful, and, yet, at the same time they must be as simple as possible for speed. One simulation platform built with all these issues in mind is Swarmbot3D, a physicsbased simulator specifically developed for the swarm-bot robotic system. The simulator contained models of the s-bot robot at different-levels of complexity and was verified against the physical robot. The simulator was used both to generate behaviors for different problems using evolutionary methods (see the previous subsection) as well as to systematically analyze the resulting system-level behaviors. These simulations, even at the lowest level of complexity, proved to be computationally intensive, and a system that can parallelize the simulations over a cluster of computers was developed in. This type of modeling can be used as a constructive means to design behaviors, and provide insight to the behavior of the swarm through systematic experimentation. In microscopic modeling, similar to the sensor-based modeling approach, modeling is carried out at the individual level. The states of the individuals and the transitions among these states are modeled analytically. Such a modeling takes into account the characteristics of the environment, the physical embodiment and the behavioral control of the robots. Through such modeling, instead of simulating the individual interactions within the system, the model can evolve the states of the individuals in time. An excellent example of this type of modeling in swarm robotics can be found in. In this study, the authors studied the stick pulling problem, in which two robots have to collaborate to pull sticks from ground, as a case study. They proposed a probabilistic model to represent the changes in the states of the robots. The model, which is essentially a set of rate equations, was built using the physical characteristics of the robots, such as the body shape and size of the robot
DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET Page 12

SWARM ROBOTICS
as well as the placement and characteristics of the sensors, and the environment. It also took into account the behavioral design of the individual robots and used it as a basis for the transitions among the different states. Microscopic modeling was reported to be much faster than the sensor-based modeling and yet provide means to link the behavioral parameters to the systemlevel outcomes. In macroscopic modeling, unlike the previous two approaches, modeling is done at the swarm-level. This type of modeling, in which the behavior of some average quantities that represent the state of the systems is represented, is common in physics and chemistry. Contrary to sensor-based and microscopic models, macroscopic models need to be solved only once to obtain the steady state of the model. This allows one to find the optimum behavioral parameters without conducting any systematic experiments with the robots and provides a theoretical guarantee over the system-level behavior of the swarm. One example of such modeling can be found in. In this study, an analytical macroscopic model of the stick pulling problem, mentioned above, is proposed. In this model, the number of robots in a certain state as well the number of unrestricted sticks are used to represent the state of the system and the rate equations describing the change in them were derived. Using such a model, the authors were able to determine optimum parameters for the behaviors of the individual robots without making any systematic experiments.

Robots-One major research direction has been the development of physical swarm robotic systems since the building of a swarm robotic system takes more than gathering a number of copies of a generic robot platform. All the studies towards this end have focused on developing mobile robots that are aimed to provide a research platform and not intended for real-world operation. Below we will discuss the extra requirements (or wish list from the researchers viewpoint) expected from robots that would be used in swarm robotic systems. Sensing and Signaling. The main emphasis in swarm robotics is the interaction among the robots as well as the interaction of the robots with their environment, resulting in extra
DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET Page 13

SWARM ROBOTICS
constraints for the robots to be used. In particular, (i) the interference among the sensing systems of the robots and the effect of environmental factors on them should be minimal, (ii) the robots should be able to distinguish other kin-robots (preferably as easy as proximity sensing), and (iii) the robots should be able to leave marks in the environment and be able to sense them (i.e. stigmergy). Furthermore, it is preferable that the robots are equipped with (or extendable) some form of generic sensing capability to allow the researcher to test novel sensing strategies. Communication. Unlike stand-alone robotic systems, communication by plugging cables to the robots is no longer a feasible option. Therefore the robots have to support wireless communication (i) between a console and the robots, to allow easier monitoring and debugging of algorithms on individual robots, (ii) among robots such as in the form of ad-hoc networks. The robots should also be programmable in parallel through a wireless communication channel since control algorithms are mostly the same for all the robots and programming the swarm as a whole would be a big time-saver. Physical interaction. The robots should be able to physically interact with each other and the environment since self-assembly or self-organized constructions are interesting topics for research. Power. The robots should have a long battery life. In most studies, the swarm may need to operate for a period that is long enough for the collective behavior to emerge, and the goal to be reached. Cost. The robots should be as cheap as possible, since, unlike stand-alone robots, they will be sold at least in groups of tens. Size. Size does matter in swarm robotic systems. The robots should be small enough not to increase the size of test arena when experimenting with the system, and yet big enough not to limit the expandability of the robot or increase the cost of the swarm robots due to miniaturization in components. Simulation. The swarm robotic systems require realistic simulators which would be essential to speed up development of new control algorithms. Such simulators need to model the interactions between the robots as well as the interactions of the robots with their environment in a realistic way that is also verified against the physical robots.

DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET

Page 14

SWARM ROBOTICS
Related Technologies-Before considering the security of swarm robotic networks it will be useful to review how similar technologies, some of which have been subjected to a degree of security analysis, relate to robotic swarms. This will allow us to identify the unique features of robotic swarms that may benefit from closer scrutiny in terms of security. Multi-Robot Systems Swarm robotics differs from more traditional multi-robot systems in that their command and control structures are not hierarchical or centralized, but are fully distributed, self-organized and inspired by the collective behavior of social insect colonies and other animal societies. Selforganization means that sometimes the collective behavior, even if unpredictable, may well result in solutions to problems that are superior to ones that could have been devised in advance. The parallel drawn with social societies in the animal world extends to communication interactions between the robots can be indirect as well as direct. Fault-tolerance, which is related to security, has already been extensively researched within the context of multi-robot systems with hierarchical command and control, notably in the work of Parkers ALLIANCE control architecture. Mobile Sensor Networks Sensor networks consist of collections of devices (or nodes) with sensors that typically communicate over a wireless network. A mobile sensor network is a sensor network where the nodes are either placed on objects which move or where the nodes may move themselves. In the latter case they are sometimes known as robotic sensor networks.1 Hybrid systems also exist, where mobile robots work in conjunction with static sensors. Although mobile sensor networks exhibit many similarities to swarm robotic networks, there are distinct differences. For example, robotic swarms may utilize a wider range of communications technologies, which extend to indirect communication such as stigmergy. Additionally, individual identity may be more important in a sensor network if it is important to determine exactly where some sensed data originated. Furthermore, and importantly, a sensor network is not designed to have the collective emergent behavior of a robotic swarm. MANETs Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs) consist of wireless mobile nodes that relay each others traffic, with the nodes spontaneously forming the wireless network themselves. The special
DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET Page 15

SWARM ROBOTICS
properties of MANETs, such as the lack of infrastructure, absence of trusted third parties, as well as possible resource constraints, make implementing security a very challenging task. MANETs can consist of many types of mobile devices and there is considerable existing work on their security. Although MANETs do not exhibit the emergent behavior of swarms, some MANET security techniques could have relevance to swarm robotics depending on the communication method used by the swarm. Software Agents There is no universally agreed definition of a software agent, but we take one proposed by Wooldridge: An agent is a computer system that is situated in some environment, and that is capable of autonomous action in this environment in order to meet its design objectives. A multiagent system (MAS) is a system composed of multiple autonomous agents, where each agent cannot solve a problem unaided; there is no global system control; data is decentralized; and computation is asynchronous. Thus mobile multi-agent systems may share many features with swarm robotic systems, but in a virtual world. Corresponding to the active interest in mobile software agents and their rapid adoption, there has been much interest in their security. However this does not always translate easily to robotic swarms because of the particular characteristics of robotic swarms which differentiate them, such as their physical nature, diverse communication mechanisms and control structure. GOALS AND APPLICATIONS Both miniaturization and cost are key-factors in swarm robotics. These are the constraints in building large groups of robotics; therefore the simplicity of the individual team member should be emphasized. This should motivate a swarm-intelligent approach to achieve meaningful behavior at swarm-level, instead of the individual level. Potential applications for swarm robotics include tasks that demand for miniaturization (nanorobotics, macrobiotics), like distributed sensing tasks in micro machinery or the human body. On the other hand swarm robotics can be suited to tasks that demand cheap designs, for instance mining tasks or agricultural foraging tasks. Also some artists use swarm robotic techniques to realize new forms of interactive art.

DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET

Page 16

SWARM ROBOTICS
FROM CENTRALIZED INTELLEGANCE TO SWARMS INTELLIGANCE -The basics of programming code of the future i.e. diffuse applications codes, are based on three main principles: 1. The interaction between the codes of two objects becomes weaker as the number of objects increases. Non-synchronized communication is therefore the future of programs based on swarm intelligence that run parallel to one another. 2. The notion of micro-components is strongly connected to the spreading of the code that is controlled on a macroscopic level. 3. Algorithms need to adapt to certain problems, i.e. they need to find methods to solve problems themselves. Future programs will develop according to the task they carry out within their environment. The concept uses mutant applications. BENEFITS OF SWARM ROBOTICS -Adaptable Conventional workgroups devise various standard operating procedures to react to predetermined stimuli. But swarms have better ability to adjust to new situations or to change beyond a narrow range of options. Countless novel possibilities exist in the exponential combinations of many interlinked individuals. Evolvable Evolution is the result of adaptation. Conventional bureaucratic systems can shift the locus of adaptation (slowly) from one part of the system to another. In swarm systems, individual variation and imperfection lead to perpetual novelty, which leads to evolution. Resilient A swarm is a collective system made up of multitudes in parallel, which results in enormous redundancy. Because the swarm is highly adaptable and evolves quickly, failures tend to be minimal. DISADVANTAGES OF SWARM ROBOTICS -Non-optimal Because swarm systems are highly redundant and have no central control, they tend to be inefficient. The allocation of resources is not efficient, and duplication of effort is

DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET

Page 17

SWARM ROBOTICS
always rampant. Swarms can dampen inefficiency, but never to the degree that a linear system can; Uncontrollable It is very difficult to exercise control over a swarm. Swarm systems require guidance in the way that a shepherd drives a herd: by applying force at crucial leverage points; Unpredictable The complexity of a swarm system leads to unforeseeable results. Emergent novelty is a primary characteristic of self-organization by adaptive systems. Not all novelty is desirable; Non-understandable Sequential systems are understandable; complex adaptive systems, instead, are a jumble of intersecting logic. Instead of A causing B, which in turn causes C, A indirectly causes everything, and everything indirectly causes A; Non-immediate Linear systems tend to be very direct: Flip a switch and the light comes on. Simple collective systems tend to operate simply. But complex swarm systems with rich hierarchies take time. The more complex the swarm, the longer it takes to shift states. Each hierarchical layer has to settle down, peripheral players have to come to rest, and a multitude of autonomous agents need to become acquainted with each other. FUTURE TRENDS -An avenue that could be explored in future swarm robotic research is that of incorporating simple forms of memory and representational ability, without compromising the swarm-related benefits of local control and communication and scalability. Relatively simple robots could, for instance, be given some minimal representational abilities: the ability for instance to learn a route, or to recognize landmarks. Similarly, it would be interesting to explore the use of some further communicative abilities other than that of pheromone trail lying. For example, robots could be given the ability to convey, and to sense, the tasks that they and other robots are involved in, and to keep account of the frequency of their encounters. This would enable some distributed decision making abilities, and dynamic switching between tasks based on their local records of the numbers performing each task. These limited cognitive abilities would still depend on entirely local control, and would be scalable, but such extensions could be used to extend the range and complexity of tasks to which swarm robotics could be applied.
DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET Page 18

SWARM ROBOTICS
CONCLUSION -In this article, we have surveyed swarm robotics research and discussed the source of its biological inspiration - the self-organized behavior of social insects. Some representative studies have been described, and their common characteristics noted. These include the ideas that the robots in a swarm should be simple, autonomous, and subject to local control and communication. The expected benefits of using such robots are that they should be able to provide a robust and flexible solution for practical applications in inaccessible areas; one that benefits from an inherent redundancy, since robots could fail or be replaced without the need for recalibration of the control and communication methods. The approach is of interest, but still in its early stages. There is still some disagreement about the use of the term 'swarm robotics', and the constraints it implies. In particular, it is not clear whether swarm robotics necessarily involves the use of reactive robots with effectively no representational ability. There are reasons to prefer the simplest possible solution for a given task, but the argument is made here that there is evidence that social insects do have some ability to represent the environment, and that incorporating such abilities into swarm robotics would extend the range of tasks to which the approach could be applied, without compromising its swarm-related advantages.

KEY TERMS Social Insects: Insects that live cooperatively in colonies and exhibit a division of labor among distinct castes. E.g. termites, ants, bees, some wasps. Swarm Intelligence: Describes attempts to design algorithms and to solve problems, using methods inspired by observations of the collective behavior of biological groups such as insect colonies.

DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET

Page 19

SWARM ROBOTICS REFERENCES

[1] L. Bayindir and E. ahin, \A review of studies in swarm robotics," Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering, vol. 15, pp. 115{147, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/elektrik/issues/elk- 07-15-2/elk-15-2-2-0705-13.pdf [2] E. ahin and W. Spears, Eds., Swarm Robotics Workshop: State-of-the- art Survey, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2005, vol. 3342. [3] E. ahin, W. Spears, and A. Winfield, Eds., Swarm Robotics. Revised Selected Papers from the Second International Workshop, SAB 2006. Rome. Italy. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2007, vol. 4433/2007. [4] A. Winfield and J. Nembrini, \Safety in numbers: fault-tolerance in robot swarms," International Journal of Modeling, Identification and Control, vol. 1, pp. 30{37, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.ias.uwe.ac.uk/ a-winfie/WinNemIJMIC06.pdf

DEPT OF MECHANICAL, PDIT HOSPET

Page 20