Distributed swarm control for multi-robot systems inspired by shepherding behaviors
Source abstract
Abstract
Swarming behaviors play an eminent role in both biological and engineering research, and show great potential applications in many emerging fields. Traditional swarming models still lack integrity, uniformity, and stability in swarm forming processes, resulting in fragmentation and void phenomena. Inspired by the shepherding behaviors observed in nature, we propose an integrated negotiation-control scheme for distributed swarm control of massive robots. The core idea of this scheme is that the robots at the boundary of the group herd the internal robots to form an equilibrium swarm. For this purpose, we introduce a concept of virtual group center towards which boundary robots herd internal robots. Then, a distributed negotiation mechanism is designed to allow each robot to negotiate the virtual group center only through local interactions with its neighbors. After that, we propose a shepherding-inspired swarm control law to drive a group of robots to form an integrated, uniform, and stable configuration from any initial states. Both numerical and flight simulations are presented to verify the effectiveness of our proposed swarm control scheme.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Distributed Control Multi-Agent Systems · Modular Robots and Swarm Intelligence · Adaptive Control of Nonlinear Systems
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (44)
Show source-provided references
1. Vicsek T, Zafeiris A. Collective motion. Phys Rep, 2012, 517: 71–14010.1016/j.physrep.2012.03.004 ↗
2. Chen Y, Kolokolnikov T. A minimal model of predator-swarm interactions. J R Soc Interface, 2014, 11: 2013120810.1098/rsif.2013.1208 ↗
3. Chuang Y L, Huang Y R, D’Orsogna M R, et al. Multi-vehicle flocking: Scalability of cooperative control algorithms using pairwise potentials. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Rome: IEEE, 2007. 2291–2299
4. Yang J C, Lu Q S, Lang X F. Flocking shape analysis of multi-agent systems. Sci China Tech Sci, 2010, 53: 741–74710.1007/s11431-010-0072-x ↗
5. Tang Y, Hu Y, Cui J, et al. Vision-aided multi-UAV autonomous flocking in GPS-denied environment. IEEE Trans Ind Electron, 2019, 66: 616–62610.1109/TIE.2018.2824766 ↗
6. Xu Y, Luo D L, You Y C, et al. New advances in multiple autonomous aerial robots formation control technology. Sci China Tech Sci, 2019, 62: 1871–187210.1007/s11431-018-9457-9 ↗
7. Wang X, Lu J. Collective behaviors through social interactions in bird flocks. IEEE Circuits Syst Mag, 2019, 19: 6–2210.1109/MCAS.2019.2924507 ↗
8. Wang X X, Liu Z X, Chen Z Q. Event-triggered fault-tolerant consensus control with control allocation in leader-following multi-agent systems. Sci China Tech Sci, 2021, 64: 879–88910.1007/s11431-020-1686-5 ↗
9. Yu Y P, Liu J C, Wei C. Hawk and pigeons intelligence for UAV swarm dynamic combat game via competitive learning pigeon-inspired optimization. Sci China Tech Sci, 2022, 65: 1072–108610.1007/s11431-021-1951-9 ↗
10. Li J, Li L, Zhao S. Predator-prey survival pressure is sufficient to evolve swarming behaviors. New J Phys, 2023, 25: 09200110.1088/1367-2630/acf33a ↗
11. Sun G, Zhou R, Di B, et al. A physicochemically inspired approach to flocking control of multiagent system. Nonlinear Dyn, 2020, 102: 2627–264810.1007/s11071-020-06062-y ↗
12. Reynolds C W. Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. SIGGRAPH Comput Graph, 1987, 21: 25–3410.1145/37402.37406 ↗
13. Vicsek T, Czirók A, Ben-Jacob E, et al. Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles. Phys Rev Lett, 1995, 75: 1226–122910.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1226 ↗
14. Vásárhelyi G, Virágh C, Somorjai G, et al. Optimized flocking of autonomous drones in confined environments. Sci Robot, 2018, 3: eaat353610.1126/scirobotics.aat3536 ↗
15. Gómez-Nava L, Bon R, Peruani F. Intermittent collective motion in sheep results from alternating the role of leader and follower. Nat Phys, 2022, 18: 1494–150110.1038/s41567-022-01769-8 ↗
16. Romanczuk P, Couzin I D, Schimansky-Geier L. Collective motion due to individual escape and pursuit response. Phys Rev Lett, 2009, 102: 01060210.1103/PhysRevLett.102.010602 ↗
17. Luo Q, Duan H. Distributed UAV flocking control based on homing pigeon hierarchical strategies. Aerosp Sci Tech, 2017, 70: 257–26410.1016/j.ast.2017.08.010 ↗
18. Cai H, Zhang T Y, Gao H L, et al. Cooperative driven algorithm for Couzin model based fish school by multiple predators. Wireless Commun Mobile Comput, 2022, 2022: 1494–150110.1155/2022/4708496 ↗
19. Cucker F, Smale S. Emergent behavior in flocks. IEEE Trans Autom Control, 2007, 52: 852–86210.1109/TAC.2007.895842 ↗
20. Yin X, Yue D, Chen Z. Asymptotic behavior and collision avoidance in the Cucker-Smale model. IEEE Trans Autom Control, 2020, 65: 3112–311910.1109/TAC.2019.2948473 ↗
21. Zhang Z, Yin X, Gao Z. Non-flocking and flocking for the Cucker-Smale model with distributed time delays. J Franklin Inst, 2023, 360: 8788–880510.1016/j.jfranklin.2022.03.028 ↗
22. Olfati-Saber R. Flocking for multi-agent dynamic systems: Algorithms and theory. IEEE Trans Autom Control, 2006, 51: 401–42010.1109/TAC.2005.864190 ↗
23. Saif O, Fantoni I, Zavala-Río A. Distributed integral control of multiple UAVs: Precise flocking and navigation. IET Control Theory Appl, 2019, 13: 2008–201710.1049/iet-cta.2018.5684 ↗
24. Levine H, Rappel W J, Cohen I. Self-organization in systems of self-propelled particles. Phys Rev E, 2000, 63: 01710110.1103/PhysRevE.63.017101 ↗
25. Katz Y, Tunstrøm K, Ioannou C C, et al. Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2011, 108: 18720–1872510.1073/pnas.1107583108 ↗
26. Ling H, Mclvor G E, van der Vaart K, et al. Costs and benefits of social relationships in the collective motion of bird flocks. Nat Ecol Evol, 2019, 3: 943–94810.1038/s41559-019-0891-5 ↗
27. Koren Y, Borenstein J. Potential field methods and their inherent limitations for mobile robot navigation. In: Proceedings of the 1991 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Sacramento: IEEE, 1991. 1398–140410.1109/ROBOT.1991.131810 ↗
28. Wang Z Y, Gu D B, Hu H S. Leader-follower flocking experiments using estimated flocking center. In: Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation. Changchun: IEEE, 2009. 3733–373810.1109/ICMA.2009.5246636 ↗
29. Gu D, Wang Z. Leader-follower flocking: Algorithms and experiments. IEEE Trans Control Syst Tech, 2009, 17: 1211–121910.1109/TCST.2008.2009461 ↗
30. Bhowmick C, Behera L, Shukla A, et al. Flocking control of multi-agent system with leader-follower architecture using consensus based estimated flocking center. In: Proceedings of the IECON 2016 - 42nd Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society. Florence: IEEE, 2016. 166–17110.1109/IECON.2016.7793149 ↗
31. Zhao S, Dimarogonas D V, Sun Z, et al. A general approach to coordination control of mobile agents with motion constraints. IEEE Trans Autom Control, 2018, 63: 1509–151610.1109/TAC.2017.2750924 ↗
32. Sun G, Zhou R, Ma Z, et al. Mean-shift exploration in shape assembly of robot swarms. Nat Commun, 2023, 14: 347610.1038/s41467-023-39251-5 ↗
33. Li J, Ning Z, He S, et al. Three-dimensional bearing-only target following via observability-enhanced helical guidance. IEEE Trans Robot, 2023, 39: 1509–152610.1109/TRO.2022.3218268 ↗
34. Ma X, Jiao Z, Wang Z, et al. 3-D decentralized prioritized motion planning and coordination for high-density operations of micro aerial vehicles. IEEE Trans Control Syst Tech, 2018, 26: 939–95310.1109/TCST.2017.2699165 ↗
35. Rubenstein M, Cornejo A, Nagpal R. Programmable self-assembly in a thousand-robot swarm. Science, 2014, 345: 795–79910.1126/science.1254295 ↗
36. Zhu G L, Liu K X, Gu H B, et al. Neural-network-based fully distributed formation control for nonlinear multi-agent systems with event-triggered communication. Sci China Tech Sci, 2024, 67: 209–22010.1007/s11431-022-2410-1 ↗
37. Yuan G S, Duan H B. Extremum seeking control for UAV close formation flight via improved pigeon-inspired optimization. Sci China Tech Sci, 2024, 67: 435–44810.1007/s11431-023-2463-0 ↗
38. Beaver L E, Malikopoulos A A. An overview on optimal flocking. Annu Rev Control, 2021, 51: 88–9910.1016/j.arcontrol.2021.03.004 ↗
39. Fang H, Wei Y, Chen J, et al. Flocking of second-order multiagent systems with connectivity preservation based on algebraic connectivity estimation. IEEE Trans Cybern, 2017, 47: 1067–107710.1109/TCYB.2016.2537307 ↗
40. Li X, Zhou R, Sun G, et al. Connectivity-preserving flocking of multiagent systems via selecting critical neighbors. IEEE Trans Network Sci Eng, 2023, 10: 3779–3792
41. Ren W, Atkins E. Distributed multi-vehicle coordinated control via local information exchange. Int J Robust NOnlinear Control, 2007, 17: 1002–103310.1002/rnc.1147 ↗
42. Zhang X, Jia S, Li X. Improving the synchronization speed of self-propelled particles with restricted vision via randomly changing the line of sight. NOnlinear Dyn, 2017, 90: 43–5110.1007/s11071-017-3644-5 ↗
43. Ballerini M, Cabibbo N, Candelier R, et al. Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: Evidence from a field study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2008, 105: 1232–123710.1073/pnas.0711437105 ↗
44. Shah S, Dey D, Lovett C, et al. AirSim: High-fidelity visual and physical simulation for autonomous vehicles. In: Hutter M, Siegwart R (eds.). Field and Service Robotics. Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics. Vol. 5. Cham: Springer, 2018. 621–63510.1007/978-3-319-67361-5_40 ↗