Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Ant-like task allocation and recruitment in cooperative robots

Nature volume 406, pages 992–995 (2000)Cite this article

Abstract

One of the greatest challenges in robotics is to create machines that are able to interact with unpredictable environments in real time. A possible solution may be to use swarms of robots behaving in a self-organized manner, similar to workers in an ant colony1,2,3,4,5. Efficient mechanisms of division of labour, in particular series–parallel operation and transfer of information among group members6, are key components of the tremendous ecological success of ants7,8. Here we show that the general principles regulating division of labour in ant colonies indeed allow the design of flexible, robust and effective robotic systems. Groups of robots using ant-inspired algorithms of decentralized control techniques foraged more efficiently and maintained higher levels of group energy than single robots. But the benefits of group living decreased in larger groups, most probably because of interference during foraging. Intriguingly, a similar relationship between group size and efficiency has been documented in social insects9,10,11. Moreover, when food items were clustered, groups where robots could recruit other robots in an ant-like manner were more efficient than groups without information transfer, suggesting that group dynamics of swarms of robots may follow rules similar to those governing social insects.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2: Relative colony energy (per robot) (mean ± s.e.) in groups of 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 robots with uniform food distribution and no recruitment.
Figure 3
Figure 4: Relative colony energy (per robot) (mean ± s.e.) in groups of 3, 6, 9 and 12 robots with clustered food distribution and recruitment (no experiments were conducted with single robots as at least 2 robots are necessary for recruitment to occur).

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kube, C. R. & Zhang, H. Collective robotics: From social insects to robots. Adapt. Behav. 2, 189– 218 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beckers, R., Holland, O. E. & Deneubourg, J. L. in Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Artificial Life (eds Brooks, R. & Meas, P.) 181–189 (MIT Press, Boston, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Deneubourg, J. L. et al. in Proceedings of the first International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. From Animals to Animats (eds Meyer, J.-A. & Wilson, S. W.) 181–189 (MIT Press, Boston, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M. & Théraulaz, G. Swarm Intelligence. From Natural to Artificial Systems (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1999).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Cao, Y. U., Fukunaga, A. S. & Kahng, A. B. Cooperative mobile robotics: Antecedents and directions. Autonom. Robots 4, 7–27 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Detrain, C., Deneubourg, J. L. & Pasteels, J. M. in Information Processing in Social Insects (eds Detrain, C., Deneubourg, J. L. & Pasteels, J. M.) 537– 547 (Birkhäuser, Basel, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Oster, G. & Wilson, E. O. Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wilson, E. O. Success and Dominance in Ecosystems: The Case of the Social Insects (Ecology Institute, Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jeanne, R. L. & Nordheim, E. V. Productivity in a social wasp. Per capita output increases with swarm size. Behav. Ecol. 7, 43–48 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tschinkel, W. R. Sociometry and sociogenesis of colonies of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta during one annual cycle. Ecol. Mon. 63, 427–457 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sundström, L. Sex allocation and colony maintenance in monogyne and polygyne colonies of Formica truncorum (Hymenoptera: Formicidae); the impact of kinship and mating structure. Am. Nat. 146, 182– 201 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Anderson, C. & Ratnieks, F. L. W. Task partitioning in insect societies. I. Effect of colony size on queueing delay and colony ergonomic efficiency. Am. Nat. 154, 521– 535 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Robinson, G. E. Regulation of division of labor in insect societies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 37, 637–665 ( 1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Seeley, T. D. Honey bee colonies are group-level adaptive units. Am. Nat. 150, S22–S41 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hölldobler, B. & Wilson, E. O. The Ants (Springer, Berlin, 1990).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Gordon, D. M., Paul, R. E. & Thorpe, K. What is the function of encounter patterns in ant colonies? Anim. Behav. 45, 1083– 1100 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Robinson, G. E. Modulation of alarm pheromone perception in the honey bee: evidence for division of labour based on hormonally regulated response thresholds. J. Comp. Physiol. 160, 613–619 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Robinson, G. E., Fahrbach, S. E. & Winston, M. L. Insect societies and the molecular biology of social behavior. Bioessays 19, 1099– 1108 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G. & Deneubourg, J. L. Quantitative study of the fixed threshold model for the regulation of division of labour in insect societies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 327–332 (1996).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Pacala, S. W., Gordon, D. M. & Godfray, H. C. J. Effects of social group size on information transfer and task allocation. Evol. Ecol. 10, 127 –165 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mondada, F., Franzi, E. & Ienne, P. in Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Experimental Robotics 1993 (eds Yoshikawa, T. & Miyazaki, F.) 501–513 (Springer, Berlin, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wilson, E. O. The Insect Societies (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Seeley, T. D. The Wisdom of the Hive. The Social Physiology of Honey Bee Colonies (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hölldobler, B., Möglich, M. & Maschwitz, U. Communication by tandem running in the ant Camponotus sericeus. J. Comp. Physiol. 90, 105– 127 (1974).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Möglich, M., Maschwitz, U. & Hölldobler, B. Tandem calling: a new kind of signal in ant communication. Science 186, 1046–1047 (1974).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. Biometry. The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research 3rd edn (Freeman, San Francisco, 1995).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. D. Nicoud, E. Franzi, A. Guignard, A. Martinol, P. Maechler and K-Team SA for their sustained help, as well as A. Buchan, M. Chapuisat, T. Clutton-Brock, J.-L. Deneubourg, D. Gordon, B. Jeanne, J. Parker, F. Ratnieks, D. Queller, M. Reuter and K. Ross for comments on the manuscript. This work was funded by the ‘Fonds UNIL-EPFL 1997’, the ‘Stiftung für wissenschaftliche Forschung’ and several grants from the Swiss NSF.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Michael J. B. Krieger

    Present address: Department of Entomology and Department of Microbiology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 30602, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Ecology, University of Lausanne, BB, Lausanne, 1015, Switzerland

    Michael J. B. Krieger & Laurent Keller

  2. Laboratoire de micro-informatique, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne , 1015, Switzerland

    Jean-Bernard Billeter

Authors
  1. Michael J. B. Krieger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Bernard Billeter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laurent Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurent Keller.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krieger, M., Billeter, JB. & Keller, L. Ant-like task allocation and recruitment in cooperative robots. Nature 406, 992–995 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/35023164

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35023164

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing