Abstract
AbstractMulti-option collective decision-making is a challenging task in the context of swarm intelligence. In this paper, we extend the problem of collective perception from simple binary decision-making of choosing the color in majority to estimating the most likely fill ratio from a series of discrete fill ratio hypotheses. We have applied direct comparison (DC) and direct modulation of voter-based decisions (DMVD) to this scenario to observe their performances in a discrete collective estimation problem. We have also compared their performances against an Individual Exploration baseline. Additionally, we propose a novel collective decision-making strategy called distributed Bayesian belief sharing (DBBS) and apply it to the above discrete collective estimation problem. In the experiments, we explore the performances of considered collective decision-making algorithms in various parameter settings to determine the trade-off among accuracy, speed, message transfer and reliability in the decision-making process. Our results show that both DC and DMVD outperform the Individual Exploration baseline, but both algorithms exhibit different trade-offs with respect to accuracy and decision speed. On the other hand, DBBS exceeds the performances of all other considered algorithms in all four metrics, at the cost of higher communication complexity.
Funder
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference26 articles.
1. Alanyali, M., Venkatesh, S., Savas, O., & Aeron, S. (2004). Distributed Bayesian hypothesis testing in sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference, vol 6, pp. 5369–5374 vol. 6, https://doi.org/10.23919/ACC.2004.1384706
2. Bartashevich, P., & Mostaghim, S. (2019). Benchmarking collective perception: New task difficulty metrics for collective decision-making. In: Moura Oliveira P., Novais P., Reis L.P. (eds) Progress in Artificial Intelligence. EPIA 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Cham, pp 699–711, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30241-2_58
3. Brambilla, D. (2015). Environment classification: an empirical study of the response of a robot swarm to three different decision-making rules. Master’s thesis, Polytechnic University of Milan, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32, 20133 Milano MI, Italy.
4. Camazine, S., Franks, N. R., Sneyd, J., Bonabeau, E., Deneubourg, J. L., & Theraulaz, G. (2001). Self-Organization in Biological Systems. USA: Princeton University Press.
5. Crosscombe, M., Lawry, J., & Bartashevich, P. (2019). Evidence propagation and consensus formation in noisy environments. In: Ben Amor N., Quost B., Theobald M. (eds) Scalable Uncertainty Management. SUM 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Cham, vol 11940, pp 310–323, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35514-2_23
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献