Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
162 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Shaping Multi-Robot Patrol Performance with Heterogeneity in Individual Learning Behavior (2403.01181v1)

Published 2 Mar 2024 in cs.RO

Abstract: Individual differences in learning behavior within social groups, whether in humans, other animals, or among robots, can have significant effects on collective task performance. This is because it can affect individuals' response to the environment and their interactions with each other. In recent years there has been rising interest in the question of how individual differences, whether in learning or other traits, affect collective outcomes: studied, for example, in social insect foraging behavior. Multi-robot, 'swarm' systems have a heritage of bioinspiration from such examples, and here we consider whether heterogeneity in a learning behavior called latent inhibition (LI) may be useful for a team of patrolling robots tasked with environmental monitoring and anomaly detection. Individuals with high LI can be seen as better at learning to be inattentive to irrelevant or unrewarding stimuli, while low LI individuals might be seen as 'distractible' and yet, more positively, more exploratory. We introduce a simple model of the effects of LI as the probability of re-searching a location for a reward (anomalous reading) where it has previously been found to be unrewarding (irrelevant). In simulated patrols, we find that a negatively skewed distribution of mostly high LI robots, and just a single low LI robot, is collectively most effective at monitoring dynamic environments. These results are an example of 'functional heterogeneity' in 'swarm engineering' and could inform predictions for ecological distributions of learning traits within social groups.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (45)
  1. N. Basilico. Recent trends in robotic patrolling. Current Robotics Reports, 3:65–76, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s43154-022-00078-5.
  2. Effect of genotype but not of age or caste on olfactory learning performance in the honey bee, apis mellifera. Animal Behaviour, 48:1357–1369, 1994. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1994.1372.
  3. E. Billing and C. Balkenius. Modeling the interplay between conditioning and attention in a humanoid robot: Habituation and attentional blocking. In 4th International Conference on Development and Learning and on Epigenetic Robotics, pages 41–47, 2014. doi: 10.1109/DEVLRN.2014.6982952.
  4. Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems. Oxford University Press, 1999.
  5. C. Brown and E. Irving. Individual personality traits influence group exploration in a feral guppy population. Behavioral Ecology, 25:95–101, 2014. doi: 10.1093/beheco/art090.
  6. Mechanisms of collective learning: how can animal groups improve collective performance when repeating a task? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B, 378:20220060, 2023. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2022.0060.
  7. Individual learning phenotypes drive collective behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117:17949–17956, 2020. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1920554117.
  8. Individual differences in learning and biogenic amine levels influence the behavioural division between foraging honeybee scouts and recruits. Journal of Animal Ecology, 88:236–246, 2019. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12911.
  9. I. D. Couzin. Collective cognition in animal groups. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13:36–43, 2009. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.10.002.
  10. R. Dukas. Cognitive ecology: the evolutionary ecology of information processing and decision making. University of Chicago Press, 1998.
  11. M. Dunbabin and L. Marques. Robots for environmental monitoring: Significant advancements and applications. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 19:24–39, 2012. doi: 10.1109/MRA.2011.2181683.
  12. Sensitivity to a change in reward is heritable in the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Animal Behaviour, 61:527–534, 2001. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1635.
  13. Latent inhibition of predator recognition by embryonic amphibians. Biology Letters, 5:160–162, 2008. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0641.
  14. Cognition and personality: an analysis of an emerging field. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 30:207–214, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.01.012.
  15. H. Hamann and T. Schmickl. Modelling the swarm: Analysing biological and engineered swarm systems. Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems, 18:1–12, 2012. doi: 10.1080/13873954.2011.601426.
  16. Latent inhibition. In C. J. Mitchell and M. E. Le Pelley, editors, Attention and Associative Learning: From Brain to Behaviour, pages 99–130. Oxford University Press, 2010.
  17. A survey of multi-robot regular and adversarial patrolling. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 6:894–903, 2019. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2019.1911537.
  18. E. R. Hunt. Phenotypic plasticity provides a bioinspiration framework for minimal field swarm robotics. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7:23, 2020. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2020.00023.
  19. E. R. Hunt. Plastic ‘personalities’ for effective field swarms. In Proceedings of The 3rd UK-RAS Conference, 2020. doi: 10.31256/Xa2Lf8K.
  20. SPIDER: a Bioinspired Swarm Algorithm for Adaptive Risk-Taking. Proc. Conf. Artificial Life, 32:44–51, 2020. doi: 10.1162/isal_a_00279.
  21. Honey bee nest thermoregulation: Diversity promotes stability. Science, 305:402–404, 2004. doi: 10.1126/science.1096340.
  22. Respecializing swarms by forgetting reinforced thresholds. Swarm Intelligence, 14:171–204, 2020. doi: 10.1007/s11721-020-00181-3.
  23. Bees in two-armed bandit situations: foraging choices and possible decision mechanisms. Behavioral Ecology, 13:757–765, 2002. doi: 10.1093/beheco/13.6.757.
  24. Balancing collective exploration and exploitation in multi-agent and multi-robot systems: A review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 8, 2022. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2021.771520.
  25. Molecular determinants of scouting behavior in honey bees. Science, 335:1225–1228, 2012. doi: 10.1126/science.1213962.
  26. R. E. Lubow and A. Moore. Latent inhibition: the effect of nonreinforced pre-exposure to the conditional stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52(4):415, 1959.
  27. Unpacking the exploration–exploitation tradeoff: A synthesis of human and animal literatures. Decision, 2(3):191, 2015. doi: 10.1037/dec0000033.
  28. Friend or foe? the role of latent inhibition in predator and non-predator labelling by coral reef fishes. Animal Cognition, 14:707–714, 2011. doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0405-6.
  29. The keystone individual concept: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Animal Behaviour, 89:53–62, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.12.020.
  30. Task allocation and site fidelity jointly influence foraging regulation in honeybee colonies. Royal Society Open Science, 4:170344, 2017. doi: 10.1098/rsos.170344.
  31. Genetic diversity promotes homeostasis in insect colonies. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 22:408–413, 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.06.001.
  32. Functional heterogeneity in superorganisms: Emerging trends and concepts. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 114:562–574, 2020. doi: 10.1093/aesa/saaa039.
  33. L. E. Parker. On the design of behavior-based multi-robot teams. Advanced Robotics, 10:547–578, 1995. doi: 10.1163/156855396X00228.
  34. D. Portugal and R. Rocha. A survey on multi-robot patrolling algorithms. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 349 AICT:139–146, 2011. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19170-1_15.
  35. Key individuals and the organisation of labor in ants. In C. Detrain, J. L. Deneubourg, and J. M. Pasteels, editors, Information Processing in Social Insects, pages 239–259. Birkhäuser, Basel, 1999. doi: 10.1007/978-3-0348-8739-7_13.
  36. E. Şahin. Swarm robotics: From sources of inspiration to domains of application. In E. Şahin and W. M. Spears, editors, SAB 2004 Int. Workshop on Swarm Robotics, pages 10–20. LNCS, vol 3342, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-30552-1_2.
  37. Multi-agent patrolling with reinforcement learning. In Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, International Joint Conference on, volume 4, pages 1122–1129. IEEE Computer Society, 2004.
  38. Restraint and cancellation: Multiple inhibition deficits in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35:229–238, 2007. doi: 10.1007/s10802-006-9075-2.
  39. N. A. Schmajuk. The psychology of robots. Proceedings of the IEEE, 84:1553–1561, 1996. doi: 10.1109/5.537118.
  40. Swarm robotic behaviors and current applications. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7:36, 2020. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2020.00036.
  41. A. Sih and M. D. Giudice. Linking behavioural syndromes and cognition: A behavioural ecology perspective. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B, 367:2762–2772, 2012. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0216.
  42. M. Speekenbrink and E. Konstantinidis. Uncertainty and exploration in a restless bandit problem. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7:351–367, 2015. doi: 10.1111/tops.12145.
  43. D. J. T. Sumpter. Collective Animal Behavior. Princeton University Press, 2010.
  44. An empirical method for benchmarking multi-robot patrol strategies in adversarial environments. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing, pages 787–790. ACM, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3555776.3577802.
  45. A review on collective behavior modeling and simulation: building a link between cognitive psychology and physical action. Applied Intelligence, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s10489-023-04924-7.
Citations (2)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.