DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Inspirations for Distributed Robotics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Inspirations for Distributed Robotics Biological Inspirations for Distributed Robotics Dr. Daisy Tang Outline Biological inspirations Understand two types of biological parallels Understand key ideas for distributed robotics obtained from study of biological systems Understand concept of stigmergy Understand use of stigmergy for tasks in collective robotics Biology vs. Multi-Robot Teams Movies of Some Animal Collectives School of fish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tGOKngtkt4&feature=related Flock of birds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL8diH-I9EQ Etc. Why Biological Systems? Key reasons: Animal behavior defines intelligence Animal behavior provides existence proof that intelligence is achievable Typical objects of study: Ants Bees Birds Fish Herding animals A Broad Classification of Animal Societies (Tinbergen, 1953) Societies that Differentiate Innate differentiation of blood relatives Strict division of work and social interaction Individuals: Exist for the good of society Are totally dependent on society Examples: Bees Ants, termites Stay Together A Typical Bee Colony Societies that Integrate Depend on the attraction of individual animals Exhibit loose division of labor Individuals: Integrate ways of behavior Thrive on support provided by society Are motivated by selfish interests Examples: Wolf, hunting dogs, etc. Bird colonies Come Together Parallels to Cooperative Robotics Which Approach To Choose? Differentiating approach : For tasks that require numerous repetitions of same activity over a fairly large area Examples: Waxing floor Removing barnacles off ships Collecting rock samples on Mars Integrating approach : For tasks that require several distinct subtasks Examples: Search and rescue Security, surveillance, or reconnaissance Key Ideas from Biological Inspiration Communication Auditory, chemical, tactile, electrical Direct, indirect, explicit, implicit Roles Strict division vs. loose “assignments” Hierarchies Absolute linear ordering, partial ordering, relative ordering Purpose: reduction in fighting, efficiency Territoriality Reduces fighting, disperses group, simplifies interactions Imitation Complex mechanism for learning Our Distributed Robotics Studies First : low-level, homogeneous, swarm robots Swarming, dispersion, homing, etc. Search/coverage Etc. Then : higher-level strategies, heterogeneous robots Multi-robot path planning, traffic management Task allocation Etc. Key Concept in “Swarm” Distributed Robotics: Stigmergy Stigmergy : Term used by some biologists to describe influence on behavior due to persisting environmental effects of previous behavior Originally used by French biologist Pierre-Paul Grasse to describe behavior of nest-building termites and trails Equivalent concept: implicit communication by means of modifying the environment A mechanism for binding task state information to local features of a task site, and for communicating (implicitly) by modifying those features Stigmergy is a powerful tool for coordination in a loosely coupled system Stigmergy in Nature Ant trails Ants find the shortest path to a food source in their vicinity using stigmergy to maintain traffic statistics Termite nest-building Termites build columns and arches using stigmergy to retain state about the building process Ant corpse-gathering Ants pick up dead ants and drop them in piles, preferring larger piles, until there is only one pile left Ants Finding The Shortest Path Ants follow random paths, influenced by presence of pheromones Ants returning with food leave stronger trails Pheromones evaporate, causing frequent trails to dominate Shortcuts result in higher traffic (more trips per ant per unit time) and thus are selected with greater probability http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN0M49iqFRc Termites Building An Arch Termites make mud balls with pheromones Termites deposit mud balls near existing pheromone concentrations As columns get taller pheromones on the bottom evaporate Pheromones on neighboring columns cause the top to be built together to form an arch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m7odGafpQU&feature=Pl ayList&p=598428DDC4E49D85&index=0&playnext=1 Ant Corpse-Gathering Scattered corpses are picked up and dropped Small piles form Gradually the piles are aggregated into a single large pile How Does Stigmergy Produce Complex Patterns? The state of the environment , and the current distribution of agents within it, determine how the environment and the distribution of agents will change in the future Any structure emerging is a result of self- organization Self-organization : A set of dynamic mechanisms whereby structures appear at global level of a system resulting from interactions among lower-level components Rules specifying interaction are executed purely based on local information, without reference to global pattern Minimal Qualities of Agent and Environment to Support Stigmergy Agent has 2 key abilities : It can move through environment It can act on environment To enable stigmergy: Environment must be changed locally by agents Changes must persist long enough to affect the choice, parameters, or consequences of agents’ behavior Two Ways to Structure Behavioral Sequences In solitary species Execution of first movement in sequences sets internal state With external cue, internal state initiates second movement, etc. In solitary and social insects No internal state required (in many, but not all, cases) External cue alone is sufficient to invoke subsequent actions Sets the stage for stigmergy Compare Stigmergy to Direct Communication Direct communication requires : Sending robot to encode and transmit message about what is to be done, and where it is to be done Implies knowledge of location Message is local in time and space, therefore only robots close enough and not otherwise engaged will be free to receive the message Robots must decode received messages, and remember them long enough to get to the place and carry out the action, or even longer if they are currently carrying out a more important task Stigmergic communication : Requires no encoding or decoding Requires no knowledge of place Requires no memory Is not transient Example Use of Stigmergy in Collective Robotics Paper references: “Stigmergy, Self-Organization, and Sorting in Collective Robotics ”, by Holland and Melhuish, Artificial Life 5: 173-202, 1999. “From Local Actions to Global Tasks: Stigmergy and Collective Robotics ”, by Beckers, Holland and Deneubourg in Brooks and Maes (eds.), Artificial Live IV: 181-189, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1994. Collective Pile Formation Task The robots ~20cm square base with two wheels and a gripper Battery powered Infrared (IR) sensors for obstacle detection Gripper force sensor Environment Square arena, about Beckers’ approach 2.5x2.5m 81 circular pucks (4cm) arranged on a 25cm grid The Pile Formation Experiment The initial task given the robots was to push all the pucks into a single pile At the start of an experiment, robots are in the center, oriented randomly After each 10 minute interval, the robots are stopped and sizes and positions of clusters noted Experiment ends when all pucks are in single cluster Robot Behaviors Very simple set of 3 behaviors: If IR sensor active: turn away from obstacle through a random angle If force sensor active: Force sensor triggered when 3 or more pucks are pushed When sensor activates, pucks are dropped Reverse both motors for one second Then turn away to a random angle Default: move forward until sensor activated Back to Experiment (Becker) How it works? Robots move around randomly If they bump into a puck, they will push it along When they bump into their third puck, they drop Initially, all piles are of size 1 Robots will pick them up and will not deposit until they have collected 3 pucks A pile of 3 or more tends to get bigger Robots that hit a pile of 3 or more head-on will add their pucks to pile How do Piles Aggregate? Initially, a few small clusters form quickly Then, gradually those clusters are aggregated This occurs when pucks are stripped from the edge of a pile and then deposited elsewhere Large piles have a larger ratio of areas in the middle to those on the edge. Therefore probability of hitting tangent to pile decreases with increasing pile size Thus larger piles have a larger probability of increasing as a result of this process Where is the Stigmergy? By adding pucks to a pile, a robot makes the pile larger, and “votes” (implicitly) for that pile to be largest This stigmergically encodes a message “this is the largest pile, add more pucks to it” The strongest such message (i.e. the largest pile) wins and eventually accretes all the pucks Because all state information is encoded in observed pile size, new robots can be added with no “communication overhead ” Experimental Results (Beckers) The experiment was performed with varying numbers of robots Adding robots sped convergence, up to 3 robots Why? More than three robots got in each others’ way (i.e., interference) Whenever they turn to avoid each other, they run the risk of scattering a nearby pile as they turn away Because the frequency of interactions increases with more robots, 3 was experimentally determined to be optimal Interference is a function of robot density Experimental Results (Cont.) 1. Over time, size of the biggest 1. Over time, # of clusters cluster grows shrinks 2. More robots faster cluster 2. More robots faster growth up to a point of robot
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AI, Robots, and Swarms: Issues, Questions, and Recommended Studies
    AI, Robots, and Swarms Issues, Questions, and Recommended Studies Andrew Ilachinski January 2017 Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. This document contains the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the sponsor. Distribution Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Specific authority: N00014-11-D-0323. Copies of this document can be obtained through the Defense Technical Information Center at www.dtic.mil or contact CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123. Photography Credits: http://www.darpa.mil/DDM_Gallery/Small_Gremlins_Web.jpg; http://4810-presscdn-0-38.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/ Robotics.jpg; http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-edia/image/upload/18kxb5jw3e01ujpg.jpg Approved by: January 2017 Dr. David A. Broyles Special Activities and Innovation Operations Evaluation Group Copyright © 2017 CNA Abstract The military is on the cusp of a major technological revolution, in which warfare is conducted by unmanned and increasingly autonomous weapon systems. However, unlike the last “sea change,” during the Cold War, when advanced technologies were developed primarily by the Department of Defense (DoD), the key technology enablers today are being developed mostly in the commercial world. This study looks at the state-of-the-art of AI, machine-learning, and robot technologies, and their potential future military implications for autonomous (and semi-autonomous) weapon systems. While no one can predict how AI will evolve or predict its impact on the development of military autonomous systems, it is possible to anticipate many of the conceptual, technical, and operational challenges that DoD will face as it increasingly turns to AI-based technologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactive Robots in Experimental Biology 3 4 5 6 Jens Krause1,2, Alan F.T
    1 2 Interactive Robots in Experimental Biology 3 4 5 6 Jens Krause1,2, Alan F.T. Winfield3 & Jean-Louis Deneubourg4 7 8 9 10 11 12 1Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Department of Biology and 13 Ecology of Fishes, 12587 Berlin, Germany; 14 2Humboldt-University of Berlin, Department for Crop and Animal Sciences, Philippstrasse 15 13, 10115 Berlin, Germany; 16 3Bristol Robotics Laboratory, University of the West of England, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol 17 BS16 1QY, UK; 18 4Unit of Social Ecology, Campus Plaine - CP 231, Université libre de Bruxelles, Bd du 19 Triomphe, B-1050 Brussels - Belgium 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Corresponding author: Krause, J. ([email protected]), Leibniz Institute of Freshwater 29 Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Department of the Biology and Ecology of Fishes, 30 Müggelseedamm 310, 12587 Berlin, Germany. 31 32 33 1 33 Interactive robots have the potential to revolutionise the study of social behaviour because 34 they provide a number of methodological advances. In interactions with live animals the 35 behaviour of robots can be standardised, morphology and behaviour can be decoupled (so that 36 different morphologies and behavioural strategies can be combined), behaviour can be 37 manipulated in complex interaction sequences and models of behaviour can be embodied by 38 the robot and thereby be tested. Furthermore, robots can be used as demonstrators in 39 experiments on social learning. The opportunities that robots create for new experimental 40 approaches have far-reaching consequences for research in fields such as mate choice, 41 cooperation, social learning, personality studies and collective behaviour.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Versus Collective Cognition in Social Insects
    Individual versus collective cognition in social insects Ofer Feinermanᴥ, Amos Kormanˠ ᴥ Department of Physics of Complex Systems, Weizmann Institute of Science, 7610001, Rehovot, Israel. Email: [email protected] ˠ Institut de Recherche en Informatique Fondamentale (IRIF), CNRS and University Paris Diderot, 75013, Paris, France. Email: [email protected] Abstract The concerted responses of eusocial insects to environmental stimuli are often referred to as collective cognition on the level of the colony.To achieve collective cognitiona group can draw on two different sources: individual cognitionand the connectivity between individuals.Computation in neural-networks, for example,is attributedmore tosophisticated communication schemes than to the complexity of individual neurons. The case of social insects, however, can be expected to differ. This is since individual insects are cognitively capable units that are often able to process information that is directly relevant at the level of the colony.Furthermore, involved communication patterns seem difficult to implement in a group of insects since these lack clear network structure.This review discusses links between the cognition of an individual insect and that of the colony. We provide examples for collective cognition whose sources span the full spectrum between amplification of individual insect cognition and emergent group-level processes. Introduction The individuals that make up a social insect colony are so tightly knit that they are often regarded as a single super-organism(Wilson and Hölldobler, 2009). This point of view seems to go far beyond a simple metaphor(Gillooly et al., 2010)and encompasses aspects of the colony that are analogous to cell differentiation(Emerson, 1939), metabolic rates(Hou et al., 2010; Waters et al., 2010), nutrient regulation(Behmer, 2009),thermoregulation(Jones, 2004; Starks et al., 2000), gas exchange(King et al., 2015), and more.
    [Show full text]
  • Stigmergic Landmark Foraging
    Stigmergic Landmark Foraging Nyree Lemmens Karl Tuyls Faculty of Humanities and Sciences, MICC, Faculty of Industrial Design, Eindhoven Maastricht University University of Technology P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Maastricht, The Netherlands Eindhoven, The Netherlands [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT through unfamiliar worlds. Instead, for navigation, they use a strat- In this paper, we describe a nature-inspired optimization algorithm egy named Path Integration (PI). Bees are able to compute their based on bee foraging behavior. This algorithm combines the high present location from their past trajectory continuously and, as a performance of bee path-integration navigation with ant-like stig- consequence, can return to their starting point by choosing the di- mergic behavior in the form of landmarks. More precisely, each rect route rather than retracing their outbound trajectory [15, 21]. individual landmark can be created at any walkable state in the For recruitment, bees employ a direct strategy by dancing in the environment and contains a collection of direction markers with nest. Their dance communicates distance and direction towards a which visiting agents can find their way in an unknown environ- destination [27]. ment. A landmark can either be represented by an agent or any In previous research, we introduced a foraging algorithm in- other information distributing object (e.g., a RFID). Essentially, we spired by bees and compared it to an Ant System [17]. Our compar- implement ant recruitment behavior based on pheromone. How- ison showed that the bee-inspired, non-pheromone-based algorithm ever, instead of using attracting or repelling pheromone in every clearly outperformed the ant-inspired, pheromone-based algorithm state of the environment, we only update directional information at in relatively unobstructed environments; more precisely, the bee al- key locations in the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Malte Andersson 30.10.2019
    Social evolution, and levels of selection Malte Andersson 30.10.2019 1 Social evolution, Malte Andersson, 30.10. 2019 Fitness: an individual’s expected genetic contribution to the next generation Direct fitness: numbers of surviving own offspring A behaviour leading to higher fitness is favored by selection and will spread over the generations 2 1 Mobbing a raptor is risky for a crow 3 A honey bee dies after stinging an enemy 4 2 Costly helping: how can it evolve and persist? Does it benefit the donor of help via: 1) direct fitness (individual selection) ? 2) delayed direct fitness, by reciprocity ? 3) donor’s relatives: kin selection ? 4) a larger community: group selection ? These questions are debated. They were first asked by Darwin (1859), about sterile workers in eusocial insects. Some individuals can not reproduce, but offer their lives for the colony (for instance honey bee workers). Can natural selection lead to such behaviour? 5 Altruism (meaning in ecology): Helpful behavior that raises the recipient’s but lowers the donor’s direct fitness 6 3 Alarm signals - selfish or altruistic? Black-throated Shrike-Tanager, Springbok stotting, Kalahari Belize Stotting tells a predator it is detected Warning flock members, also using by a gazelle in good condition. Better the signal for own feeding advantage to hunt another prey (Caro 1986) 7 Is sentinel behavior in meerkats altruistic? Probably not. Sentinels are safer and have a direct benefit from their behavior. (Clutton-Brock et al. 1999) 8 4 0.5 0.4 0.3 Females 0.2 Males 0.1 0 Without close With With offspring genetic relatives nondescendant relatives Black-tailed prairie dogs Individuals give alarm calls mainly with relatives (offspring and others).
    [Show full text]
  • Animating Predator and Prey Fish Interactions
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Computer Science Dissertations Department of Computer Science 5-6-2019 Animating Predator and Prey Fish Interactions Sahithi Podila Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cs_diss Recommended Citation Podila, Sahithi, "Animating Predator and Prey Fish Interactions." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2019. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cs_diss/149 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Computer Science at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Computer Science Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANIMATING PREDATOR AND PREY FISH INTERACTIONS by SAHITHI PODILA Under the Direction of Ying Zhu, PhD ABSTRACT Schooling behavior is one of the most salient social and group activities among fish. They form schools for social reasons like foraging, mating and escaping from predators. Animating a school of fish is difficult because they are large in number, often swim in distinctive patterns that is they take the shape of long thin lines, squares, ovals or amoeboid and exhibit complex coordinated patterns especially when they are attacked by a predator. Previous work in computer graphics has not provided satisfactory models to simulate the many distinctive interactions between a school of prey fish and their predator, how does a predator pick its target? and how does a school of fish react to such attacks? This dissertation presents a method to simulate interactions between prey fish and predator fish in the 3D world based on the biological research findings.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Assessment of Stigmergy: a Report for the Department of National Defence
    Expert Assessment of Stigmergy: A Report for the Department of National Defence Contract No. W7714-040899/003/SV File No. 011 sv.W7714-040899 Client Reference No.: W7714-4-0899 Requisition No. W7714-040899 Contact Info. Tony White Associate Professor School of Computer Science Room 5302 Herzberg Building Carleton University 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6 (Office) 613-520-2600 x2208 (Cell) 613-612-2708 [email protected] http://www.scs.carleton.ca/~arpwhite Expert Assessment of Stigmergy Abstract This report describes the current state of research in the area known as Swarm Intelligence. Swarm Intelligence relies upon stigmergic principles in order to solve complex problems using only simple agents. Swarm Intelligence has been receiving increasing attention over the last 10 years as a result of the acknowledgement of the success of social insect systems in solving complex problems without the need for central control or global information. In swarm- based problem solving, a solution emerges as a result of the collective action of the members of the swarm, often using principles of communication known as stigmergy. The individual behaviours of swarm members do not indicate the nature of the emergent collective behaviour and the solution process is generally very robust to the loss of individual swarm members. This report describes the general principles for swarm-based problem solving, the way in which stigmergy is employed, and presents a number of high level algorithms that have proven utility in solving hard optimization and control problems. Useful tools for the modelling and investigation of swarm-based systems are then briefly described.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecology of Mutualism
    Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline AngRev. Ecol. Syst. 1982.13:315--47 Copyright©1982 by Annual Reviews lnc. All rightsreserved THE ECOLOGY OF MUTUALISM Douglas 1t. Boucher Departementdes sciences biologiques, Universit~ du Quebec~ Montreal, C. P. 8888, Suet. A, Montreal, Quebec, CanadaH3C 3P8 Sam James Departmentof Ecologyand Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA48109 Kathleen H. Keeler School of Life Sciences, University of Nebraska,Lincoln, Nebraska,USA 68588 INTRODUCTION Elementaryecology texts tell us that organismsinteract in three fundamen- tal ways, generally given the namescompetition, predation, and mutualism. The third memberhas gotten short shrift (264), and even its nameis not generally agreed on. Terms that may be considered synonyms,in whole or part, are symbiosis, commensalism,cooperation, protocooperation, mutual aid, facilitation, reciprocal altruism, and entraide. Weuse the term mutual- by University of Kanas-Lawrence & Edwards on 09/26/05. For personal use only. ism, defined as "an interaction betweenspecies that is beneficial to both," Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1982.13:315-347. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org since it has both historical priority (311) and general currency. Symbiosis is "the living together of two organismsin close association," and modifiers are used to specify dependenceon the interaction (facultative or obligate) and the range of species that can take part (oligophilic or polyphilic). We make the normal apologies concerning forcing continuous variation and diverse interactions into simple dichotomousclassifications, for these and all subsequentdefinitions. Thus mutualism can be defined, in brief, as a -b/q- interaction, while competition, predation, and eommensalismare respectively -/-, -/q-, and -t-/0. There remains, however,the question of howto define "benefit to the 315 0066-4162/82/1120-0315 $02.00 Annual Reviews www.annualreviews.org/aronline 316 BOUCHER, JAMES & KEELER species" without evoking group selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Hunting Booklet
    Basic Hunting Passing on a time-honored tradition Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources From the Commissioner. The North American Model of Wildlife Management depends on hunters. This model incorporates principles of conservation from the past 100 years and was formally adopted in 2002. Over the years the number of hunters has decreased. Fish and Wildlife agencies from across the nation view this as a major problem. Many factors contrib- ute to this decline, including habitat loss, a growing urban population, and increased competition for leisure time. We do have one key ele- ment upon which we can rely: the people who enjoy the opportunity to step outside and enjoy shooting and hunting. Kentucky’s Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources has worked for several decades to give the shooter and hunter every pos- sible opportunity. We have developed shooting ranges, assisted land- owners in improving habitat, and enhanced the quality of the hunt for numerous species. In addition, we strive to provide Wildlife Manage- ment Areas for public use. In fact, the amount of land the department manages has more than doubled in the last 10 years. You and your family and friends are essential to the future of hunting. Each new hunter must have consistent support to continue to grow and expand his or her interest. I think you will find this expe- rience extremely rewarding for everyone involved. In a tribute to his father, Alan Jackson stated in a song about boating that it was “…a piece of my childhood that will never be forgotten.” I feel your involve- ment in hunting with your friends and family will fall in that “special memory” category.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction Ruling Animal Collective Behavior Depends on Topological Rather Than Metric Distance: Evidence from a Field Study
    Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: Evidence from a field study M. Ballerini*†, N. Cabibbo‡§, R. Candelier‡¶, A. Cavagna*ʈ**, E. Cisbani†, I. Giardina*ʈ, V. Lecomte††‡‡, A. Orlandi*, G. Parisi*‡§**, A. Procaccini*‡, and M. Viale‡§§, and V. Zdravkovic* *Centre for Statistical Mechanics and Complexity (SMC), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche-Istituto Nazionale per la Fisica della Materia, ‡Dipartimento di Fisica, and §Sezione Instituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Universita’ di Roma ‘‘La Sapienza,’’ Piazzale Aldo Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy; †Istituto Superiore di Sanita’, viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Roma, Italy; ʈIstituto dei Sistemi Complessi (ISC), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, via dei Taurini 19, 00185 Roma, Italy; and ††Laboratoire Matie`re et Syste`mes Complexes, (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique Unite Mixte de Recherche 7057), Universite´Paris VII, 10 rue Alice Domon et Le´onie Duquet, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France Contributed by G. Parisi, December 4, 2007 (sent for review September 25, 2007) Numerical models indicate that collective animal behavior may no bird remains isolated, and soon the flock reforms as whole. emerge from simple local rules of interaction among the individ- The question we want to answer is ‘‘what kind of interaction uals. However, very little is known about the nature of such maintains cohesion in such a robust way?’’ interaction, so that models and theories mostly rely on aprioristic To grant cohesion, models make the sound assumption that assumptions. By reconstructing the three-dimensional positions of individuals align and attract each other, and that such interaction individual birds in airborne flocks of a few thousand members, we decays with increasing distance between individuals.
    [Show full text]
  • Stigmergy As a Universal Coordination Mechanism: Components, Varieties and Applications
    to appear in T. Lewis & L. Marsh (Eds.), Human Stigmergy: Theoretical Developments and New Applications. Springer. Stigmergy as a Universal Coordination Mechanism: components, varieties and applications Francis Heylighen Evolution, Complexity and Cognition group Vrije Universiteit Brussel Abstract: The concept of stigmergy has been used to analyze self-organizing activities in an ever-widening range of domains, including social insects, robotics, web communities, and human society. Yet, it is still poorly understood, and as such its full power remains underappreciated. The present paper clarifies the issue by defining stigmergy as a mechanism of indirect coordination in which the trace left by an action in a medium stimulates a subsequent action. It then analyses the fundamental concepts used in the definition: action, agent, medium, trace and coordination. Stigmergy enables complex, coordinated activity without any need for planning, control, communication, simultaneous presence, or even mutual awareness. This makes the concept applicable to a very broad variety of cases, from chemical reactions to individual cognition and Internet-supported collaboration in Wikipedia. The paper classifies different varieties of stigmergy according to general aspects (number of agents, scope, persistence, sematectonic vs. marker-based, and quantitative vs. qualitative), while emphasizing the fundamental continuity between these cases. This continuity can be understood from a non-linear dynamics that lets more complex forms of coordination evolve out of simpler ones. The paper concludes with two specifically human applications, cognition and cooperation, suggesting that without stigmergy these phenomena may never have evolved in the first place. Past, present and future of the “stigmergy” concept The concept of stigmergy was introduced by the French entomologist Pierre-Paul Grassé (Grassé, 1959) to describe a mechanism of coordination used by insects.
    [Show full text]
  • Diffusion of Individual Birds in Starling Flocks
    Diffusion of individual birds in starling flocks A. Cavagna♯,♭, S. M. Duarte Queir´os♯, I. Giardina♯,♭, F. Stefanini† and M. Viale♯,♭ ♯ Istituto dei Sistemi Complessi, UOS Sapienza, CNR, via dei Taurini 19, 00185 Roma, Italy ♭ Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`aSapienza, P.le Aldo Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy † Institute of Neuroinformatics, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse, 190 CH-8057, Zurich, Switzerland Abstract Flocking is a paradigmatic example of collective animal behaviour, where global order emerges out of self-organization. Each individual has a tendency to align its flight direction with those of neighbours, and such a simple form of interaction produces a state of collective motion of the group. As compared to other cases of collective ordering, a crucial feature of animal groups is that the interaction network is not fixed in time, as each individual moves and continuously changes its neighbours. The possibility to exchange neighbours strongly enhances the stability of global ordering and the way information is propagated through the group. Here, we assess the relevance of this mechanism in large flocks of starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). We find that birds move faster than Brownian walkers both with respect to the centre of mass of the flock, and with respect to each other. Moreover, this behaviour is strongly anisotropic with respect to the direction of motion of the flock. We also measure the amount of neighbours reshuffling and find that neighbours change in time exclusively as a consequence of the random fluctuations in the individual motion, so that no specific mechanism to keep one’s neighbours seems to be enforced.
    [Show full text]