A Decentralized Mobile Computing Network for Multi-Robot Systems Operations

Collective animal behaviors are paradigmatic examples of fully decentralized operations involving complex collective computations such as collective turns in flocks of birds or collective harvesting by ants. These systems offer a unique source of inspiration for the development of fault-tolerant and self-healing multi-robot systems capable of operating in dynamic environments. Specifically, swarm robotics emerged and is significantly growing on these premises. However, to date, most swarm robotics systems reported in the literature involve basic computational tasks---averages and other algebraic operations. In this paper, we introduce a novel Collective computing framework based on the swarming paradigm, which exhibits the key innate features of swarms: robustness, scalability and flexibility. Unlike Edge computing, the proposed Collective computing framework is truly decentralized and does not require user intervention or additional servers to sustain its operations. This Collective computing framework is applied to the complex task of collective mapping, in which multiple robots aim at cooperatively map a large area. Our results confirm the effectiveness of the cooperative strategy, its robustness to the loss of multiple units, as well as its scalability. Furthermore, the topology of the interconnecting network is found to greatly influence the performance of the collective action.Comment: Accepted for Publication in Proc. 9th IEEE Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conferenc

Towards adaptive multi-robot systems: self-organization and self-adaptation

Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.The development of complex systems ensembles that operate in uncertain environments is a major challenge. The reason for this is that system designers are not able to fully specify the system during specification and development and before it is being deployed. Natural swarm systems enjoy similar characteristics, yet, being self-adaptive and being able to self-organize, these systems show beneficial emergent behaviour. Similar concepts can be extremely helpful for artificial systems, especially when it comes to multi-robot scenarios, which require such solution in order to be applicable to highly uncertain real world application. In this article, we present a comprehensive overview over state-of-the-art solutions in emergent systems, self-organization, self-adaptation, and robotics. We discuss these approaches in the light of a framework for multi-robot systems and identify similarities, differences missing links and open gaps that have to be addressed in order to make this framework possible

Global Solutions vs. Local Solutions for the AI Safety Problem

There are two types of artificial general intelligence (AGI) safety solutions: global and local. Most previously suggested solutions are local: they explain how to align or “box” a specific AI (Artificial Intelligence), but do not explain how to prevent the creation of dangerous AI in other places. Global solutions are those that ensure any AI on Earth is not dangerous. The number of suggested global solutions is much smaller than the number of proposed local solutions. Global solutions can be divided into four groups: 1. No AI: AGI technology is banned or its use is otherwise prevented; 2. One AI: the first superintelligent AI is used to prevent the creation of any others; 3. Net of AIs as AI police: a balance is created between many AIs, so they evolve as a net and can prevent any rogue AI from taking over the world; 4. Humans inside AI: humans are augmented or part of AI. We explore many ideas, both old and new, regarding global solutions for AI safety. They include changing the number of AI teams, different forms of “AI Nanny” (non-self-improving global control AI system able to prevent creation of dangerous AIs), selling AI safety solutions, and sending messages to future AI. Not every local solution scales to a global solution or does it ethically and safely. The choice of the best local solution should include understanding of the ways in which it will be scaled up. Human-AI teams or a superintelligent AI Service as suggested by Drexler may be examples of such ethically scalable local solutions, but the final choice depends on some unknown variables such as the speed of AI progres