Aggregation in swarm robotics is referred to as the gathering of spatially distributed robots into a single aggregate. Aggregation can be classified as cue-based or self-organized. In cue-based aggregation, there is a cue in the environment that points to the aggregation area, whereas in self-organized aggregation no cue is present. In this paper, we proposed a novel fuzzy-based method for cue-based aggregation based on the state-of-the-art BEECLUST algorithm. In particular, we proposed three different methods: naïve, that uses a deterministic decision-making mechanism; vector-averaging, using a vectorial summation of all perceived inputs; and fuzzy, that uses a fuzzy logic controller. We used different experiment settings: one-source and two-source environments with static and dynamic conditions to compare all the methods. We observed that the fuzzy method outperformed all the other methods and it is the most robust method against noise.
Albertos PerezP.Sala PiquerasA. (1998). Fuzzy logic controllers. Advantages and drawbacks. In VIII Congreso Latinoamericano de Control Automático IFAC (pp. 833–844).
2.
ArvinF.BekraviM. (2013). Encoderless position estimation and error correction techniques for miniature mobile robots. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences, 21, 1631–1645.
3.
ArvinF.DoraisamyS. (2009). A real-time note transcription technique using static and dynamic window sizes. In International Conference on Signal Acquisition and Processing (pp. 30–33).
4.
ArvinF.SamsudinK.RamliA. R. (2009). Development of a miniature robot for swarm robotic application. International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, 1(4), 436–442.
5.
ArvinF.SamsudinK.RamliA. R. (2010). Development of IR-based short-range communication techniques for swarm robot applications. Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering, 10(4), 61–68.
6.
ArvinF.SamsudinK.RamliA. R.BekraviM. (2011). Imitation of honeybee aggregation with collective behavior of swarm robots. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 4(4), 739–748.
7.
ArvinF.TurgutA. E.YueS. (2012). Fuzzy-based aggregation with a mobile robot swarm. In DorigoM.. (Eds.), Swarm intelligence (pp. 346–347). Berlin: Springer.
8.
BoneC.DragicevicS.RobertsA. (2006). A fuzzy-constrained cellular automata model of forest insect infestations. Ecological Modelling, 192, 107–125.
9.
BonnerJ. T. (1944). A descriptive study of the development of the slime mold Dictyostelium discoideum. American Journal of Botany, 31(3), 175–182.
10.
BrambillaM.FerranteE.BirattariM.DorigoM. (2013). Swarm robotics: A review from the swarm engineering perspective. Swarm Intelligence, 7, 1–41.
11.
CamazineS.FranksN.SneydJ.BonabeauE.DeneubourgJ.-L.TheraulazG. (2001). Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
CampoA.GarnierS.DédricheO.ZekkriM.DorigoM. (2011). Self-organized discrimination of resources. PloS One, 6(5), e19888.
13.
CastroJ. L. (1995). Fuzzy logic controllers are universal approximators. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 25(4), 629–635.
14.
GarnierS.GautraisJ.AsadpourM.JostC.TheraulazG. (2009). Self-organized aggregation triggers collective decision making in a group of cockroach-like robots. Adaptive Behavior, 17(2), 109–133.
15.
GarnierS.JostC.GautraisJ.AsadpourM.CaprariG.JeansonR.… TheraulazG. (2008). The embodiment of cockroach aggregation behavior in a group of micro-robots. Artificial Life, 14(4), 387–408.
16.
GrünbaumD.OkuboA. (1994). Modelling social animal aggregations. In LevinS. (Ed.), Frontiers in mathematical biology (pp. 296–325). Berlin: Springer.
17.
HalloyJ.SempoG.CaprariG.RivaultC.AsadpourM.TacheF.DeneubourgJ. L. (2007). Social integration of robots into groups of cockroaches to control self-organized choices. Science, 318(5853), 1155–1158.
18.
HamannH. (2012). Towards swarm calculus: Universal properties of swarm performance and collective decisions. In DorigoM.. (Eds.), Swarm intelligence (pp. 168–179). Berlin: Springer.
19.
HeranH. (1952). Untersuchungen uber den temperatursinn der honigbiene Apis mellifica unter besonderer berucksichtigung der wahrnehmung strahlender warme. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, 34(2), 179–206.
20.
HollandO.MelhuishC. (1997). An interactive method for controlling group size in multiple mobile robot systems. In 8th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (pp. 201–206).
21.
IshikawaS. (1991). A method of indoor mobile robot navigation by using fuzzy control. In IEEE International Workshop on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 1013–1018).
22.
JeansonR.RivaultC.DeneubourgJ.-L.BlancoS.FournierR.JostC.TheraulazG. (2005). Self-organized aggregation in cockroaches. Animal Behaviour, 69(1), 169–180.
23.
KernbachS.TheniusR.KernbachO.SchmicklT. (2009). Re-embodiment of honeybee aggregation behavior in an artificial micro-robotic system. Adaptive Behavior, 17(3), 237–259.
24.
KubeC.ZhangH. (1993). Collective robotics: From social insects to robots. Adaptive Behavior, 2(2), 189–219.
25.
MermoudG.MattheyL.EvansW.MartinoliA. (2010). Aggregation-mediated collective perception and action in a group of miniature robots. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 599–606).
26.
MorrellL.JamesR. (2008). Mechanisms for aggregation in animals: Rule success depends on ecological variables. Behavioral Ecology, 19(1), 193–201.
27.
NaitohY.FuruhashiT.UchikawaY. (1991). A variable ordinal structure model for fuzzy reasoning and its application to decision problem of working order. In International Conference on Industrial Electronics, Control and Instrumentation (pp. 1536–1543).
28.
ParrishJ.Edelstein-KeshetL. (1999). Complexity, pattern, and evolutionary trade-offs in animal aggregation. Science, 284(5411), 99–101.
29.
PhamD.AwadallaM. (2004). Fuzzy-logic-based behaviour coordination in a multi-robot system. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 218(6), 583–598.
30.
PirjanianP.HuntsbergerT.Trebi-OllennuA.AghazarianH.DasH.JoshiS.SchenkerP. (2000). CAMPOUT: A control architecture for multi-robot planetary outposts. In SPIE 4196, Sensor Fusion and Decentralized Control in Robotic Systems III (pp. 221–230).
31.
RappelW.-J.NicolA.SarkissianA.LevineH.LoomisW. F. (1999). Self-organized vortex state in two-dimensional Dictyostelium dynamics. Physical Review Letters, 83, 1247–1250.
32.
ŞahinE. (2005). Swarm robotics: From sources of inspiration to domains of application. In ŞahinE.SpearsW. (Eds.), Swarm robotics (pp. 10–20). Berlin: Springer.
33.
ŞahinE.GirginS.BayndrL.TurgutA. E. (2008). Swarm robotics. In BlumC.MerkleD. (Eds.), Swarm intelligence (pp. 87–100). Berlin: Springer.
34.
SamsudinK.AhmadF.MashohorS. (2011). A highly interpretable fuzzy rule base using ordinal structure for obstacle avoidance of mobile robot. Applied Soft Computing, 11(2), 1631–1637.
35.
ScheafferR. L.MulekarM. S.McClaveJ. T. (2010). Probability and statistics for engineers. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
36.
SchmicklT.HamannH. (2011). BEECLUST: A swarm algorithm derived from honeybees. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
37.
SchmicklT.TheniusR.MoeslingerC.RadspielerG.KernbachS.SzymanskiM.CrailsheimK.2009. Get in touch: Cooperative decision making based on robot-to-robot collisions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 18(1), 133–155.
38.
SoysalO.BahçeciE.ŞahinE. (2007). Aggregation in swarm robotic systems: Evolution and probabilistic control. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences, 15(2), 199–225.
39.
SoysalO.ŞahinE.2005. Probabilistic aggregation strategies in swarm robotic systems. In Swarm Intelligence Symposium (pp. 325–332).
40.
TrianniV.GroßR.LabellaT. H.ŞahinE.DorigoM. (2003). Evolving aggregation behaviors in a swarm of robots. In BanzhafW.ZieglerJ.ChristallerT.DittrichP.KimJ.T. (Eds.), Advances in artificial life (pp. 865–874). Berlin: Springer.
41.
TurgutA. E.ÇelikkanatH.GökçeF.ŞahinE. (2008). Self-organized flocking in mobile robot swarms. Swarm Intelligence, 2(2), 97–120.
WangM.LiuJ. (2008). Fuzzy logic-based real-time robot navigation in unknown environment with dead ends. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 56(7), 625–643.
