Skip to Content
  • Feature Paper
  • Article
  • Open Access

19 February 2024

Inverse Firefly-Based Search Algorithms for Multi-Target Search Problem

,
,
,
and
1
LabSTIC Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, 8 Mai 1945 University, P.O. Box 401, Guelma 24000, Algeria
2
CNR, National Research Council of Italy, Institute for High Performance Computing and Networking (ICAR), Via P. Bucci 8/9C, 87036 Rende, Italy
3
Department of Computer Science, 8 Mai 1945 University, P.O. Box 401, Guelma 24000, Algeria
4
Department of Informatics, Modeling, Electronics, and Systems, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy

Abstract

Efficiently searching for multiple targets in complex environments with limited perception and computational capabilities is challenging for multiple robots, which can coordinate their actions indirectly through their environment. In this context, swarm intelligence has been a source of inspiration for addressing multi-target search problems in the literature. So far, several algorithms have been proposed for solving such a problem, and in this study, we propose two novel multi-target search algorithms inspired by the Firefly algorithm. Unlike the conventional Firefly algorithm, where light is an attractor, light represents a negative effect in our proposed algorithms. Upon discovering targets, robots emit light to repel other robots from that region. This repulsive behavior is intended to achieve several objectives: (1) partitioning the search space among different robots, (2) expanding the search region by avoiding areas already explored, and (3) preventing congestion among robots. The proposed algorithms, named Global Lawnmower Firefly Algorithm (GLFA) and Random Bounce Firefly Algorithm (RBFA), integrate inverse light-based behavior with two random walks: random bounce and global lawnmower. These algorithms were implemented and evaluated using the ArGOS simulator, demonstrating promising performance compared to existing approaches.

1. Introduction

Swarm robotics represents an innovative approach to coordinating large numbers of robots, drawing inspiration from the collective behaviors observed in social insects [1]. It represents the application of Swarm Intelligence (SI) within Multi-Robot Systems (MRSs). This paradigm emphasizes the significance of physical embodiment and realistic interactions among robots and their environment. Swarm robotics is characterized by the emergence of synchronized behaviors at the system level, even when individual agents may be relatively limited, centralized coordination is absent, and interactions are kept simple [2].
Multi-robot exploration involves deploying a group of robots with the task of searching for multiple targets dispersed in an unknown environment. In such environments, employing a random walk strategy presents a viable choice as it offers the potential to discover more targets. However, this approach can be time-consuming, as robots may repeatedly cover already explored areas. Moreover, there is a risk that robots may not reach the most distant areas, thereby reducing the likelihood of finding additional targets. A widespread dispersion of robots facilitates the exploration of more areas, thereby increasing the chances of locating more targets. Another alternative is distributing the search areas among robots, enabling rapid exploration of environments. However, achieving this in swarms of robots without direct communication can be challenging.
The practical implementation of multi-target search and foraging algorithms poses challenges in swarm robotics, as there remains a disparity between proposed algorithms and their actual deployment. One contributing factor to this disparity could be the communication methods employed among robots. For instance, while stigmergic communication is often proposed, its real-world application is often limited by cost considerations. In contrast, light-based communication has emerged as a promising alternative. This method entails wireless data transmission through light, where Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) emit light pulses modulated with data. Light-based communication facilitates the transmission of various data types, including position information, sensor data, and commands. Compared to radio-based communication, light-based communication offers several advantages in the context of swarm robotics search tasks:
1.
It avoids bandwidth problems compared to radio-frequency communication.
2.
It offers a more reliable and interference-free communication channel compared to other electronic devices and radio signals.
3.
It is an energy-efficient communication mechanism designed specifically for robots with limited power. This will expand the life of the robots and thus provide longer mission duration.
4.
The signals can be directed toward specific robots. This will help in improving communication efficiency and reduce interference.
5.
Light-based communication can scale to large swarm sizes without performance degradation.
In this paper, we propose two lightweight multi-target search algorithms named Random Bounce Firefly Algorithm (RBFA) and Global Lawnmower Firefly Algorithm (GLFA). These algorithms integrate inverse light-based behavior with two random walks: random bounce and global lawnmower. Light-based communication is used here to realize the following three main objectives:
1.
Ensuring robots disperse widely throughout their environment to maximize object discovery;
2.
Implicitly partitioning the search space among robots through indirect communication;
3.
Ensuring effective local exploration.
The proposed algorithms are implemented in the multi-robots ArGOS simulator. The obtained results are compared with two other related algorithms (LFA [3] and the original Firefly algorithm (FF) [4]). The comparisons are promising and prove the superiority of the proposed algorithms in some simulation scenarios.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: we present related works and background algorithms in Section 2. In Section 3, we introduce the finite state machine and provide the pseudo-code for the proposed algorithms. Following this, we present and discuss the experimental results in Section 4. Section 5 highlights real-world applications and limitations, while Section 6 offers insights into implementing the proposed algorithms with real robots. Finally, the paper concludes in Section 7.

3. The Proposed Algorithms

In this work, we propose two swarm intelligence-based algorithms to resolve the multi-target search problem. We choose the Firefly algorithm (FF) [23] to fit our contributions in using light-based communication. Unlike the related works in the literature, the light here is used to repulse robots from regions under exploration. This repulsive behavior guarantees an implicit division of the search space between robots and ensures efficient exploration. In unknown environments, the random walk is important since it allows the robots to explore far regions. In the proposed algorithms, we combine the FF with Random Bounce (RB) random walk producing the Random Bounce Firefly Algorithm (RBFA) and the FF with Global Lawnmower (GL) random walk to produce the Global Lawnmower Firefly Algorithm (GLFA). The two proposed algorithms, GLFA and RBFA, use the same finite state machine illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Finite state machine of Random Bounce Firefly Algorithm (RBFA) and Global Lawnmower Firefly Algorithm (GLFA) Robots.
In the proposed algorithms, robots start with the Global Exploration state (Algorithm 1) since no obstacle, target, or light is detected. In RBFA, robots use the random bounce algorithm and in GLFA, the global lawn-mower algorithm. When a target is found, the robot switches to the local exploration state (Algorithm 2) and: (1) destructs the found target and increases its number, (2) decreases the number of rounds, (3) increases the light intensity, and (4) continues its local search. After five rounds, if no target is found, the robot switches to the global exploration state using RB or GL Algorithms (Algorithm 1). When light is detected at a distance d (Equation (4)), the robot switches to the light avoidance state (Algorithm 3), where it changes its direction, and increases its velocity to move away from the emitted light source. If a target is found in its path, it switches to the local exploration state (Algorithm 2), or else it switches to the global exploration state (Algorithm 1). From any state, if an obstacle is encountered, the robot switches to the obstacle avoidance state (Algorithm 4). A detailed textual description and the pseudo-codes of the different states are given below.
Algorithm 1: Global exploration using RB or GL
Bdcc 08 00018 i001
Algorithm 2: Local exploration algorithm
Bdcc 08 00018 i002
Algorithm 3: Light avoidance algorithm
Bdcc 08 00018 i003
Algorithm 4: Obstacle avoidance algorithm
Bdcc 08 00018 i004
1.
Global Exploration: In this state, robots explore their space, searching for targets. They use Random Bounce (RB) or Global Lawnmower (GL) random walks. When a robot locates a target, it switches to the local exploration state. A brief description of RB and GL algorithms is given below:
  • The random bounce algorithm is based on a random walk where each robot moves randomly in different directions according to Equation (1). However, when encountering an obstacle, a robot, or a predefined boundary, it bounces in a random direction to avoid the obstacle [24].
    Θ n e w = Θ + n
    In Equation (1), Θ represents the robot’s direction at the time of detection, n is a uniform random variable, and the distribution is determined by which side of the robot encountered the obstacle, thereby triggering the rotation.
    If the robot detects something on the left side, it adheres to a distribution n U ( π 4 , 3 π 4 ) , on the right side n U ( 3 π 4 , π 4 ) , and at the center n U ( 3 π 4 , 5 π 4 ) .
  • The global lawnmower algorithm involves a systematic search method where robots move in parallel lines, covering the entire search area in a way similar to mowing a lawn. This method ensures complete region coverage but may be less efficient in complex environments [25]. The pattern encompasses two primary movements: (1) a straight path and (2) a semi-circular path. The ’Pitch’ denotes the spacing between two consecutive straight trajectories. Corners and edges are often missed and overlooked due to the rotation. In fact, many types of searches suffer from this dependency.
2.
Local exploration: When locating a target, the robot: (1) executes a local exploration using a square spiral search, (2) increases the light intensity using Equation (2), (3) disperses the light intensity according to the distance from the source using Equation (3).
I t + 1 = I t × T
In Equation (2), I t represents the intensity of light at time t, and T represents the value of the increase in intensity.
I ( r ) = I t × K
In Equation (3), I ( r ) represents the intensity of light at a distance r, and K represents the value of the increase in distance.
3.
Obstacle avoidance: When an obstacle is detected, the robot alters its direction to avoid it. It returns to the same state if possible; otherwise, it switches to the global exploration state.
4.
Light avoidance: When the robot detects that it is within a distance d (Equation (4)) from the source of emitted light, it changes its direction of 90 degrees and moves away using a new velocity according to Equation (5) until no light is detected, then the robot changes to the global exploration state.
d = k I m a x
In Equation (4), d is the distance from the light source; k represents the initial intensity; I m a x is the intensity at which the robot should start avoiding light,
v i + 1 = v i × z i
In Equation (5), v i is the speed of the robot at the current time, and z i is the coefficient of inertia of the robot.

4. Experimental Analysis

The experimental simulation was conducted using the multi-physics robot simulator ARGoS [26], known for its efficiency in simulating large-scale swarms of diverse robots. Several computer simulations were executed to evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithms. The robots use their sensors to capture shapes, colors, distances, and environmental features. After that, they process the collected data to recognize and identify the objects using a computer vision algorithm with some predefined criteria. In our simulations, targets are represented by a green 3D cylinder with dimensions of 2.5 cm × 10 cm.

4.1. Simulation Scenarios

Table 2 displays the considered simulation scenarios. Each simulation was executed for a duration of 20 min. In all the simulations, the obstacle density was set to 10 % . Given that we are using stochastic algorithms, the results presented in the following experiments are the averages of 10 simulations for each scenario. The four scenarios implemented were designed to investigate the impact of the following variations, respectively: (i) the number of robots, (ii) the size of the environment, (iii) the number of clusters, and (iv) the distribution of targets (clustered or uniform). For the scenarios run, the parameters are detailed in Table 2.
Table 2. The parameters used in the simulation scenarios.

4.2. Results and Discussion

We conducted a comparative analysis of the proposed algorithms (GLFA, RBFA) with Lévy walk and Firefly Algorithm (LFA [3]) and the Firefly Algorithm (FF [4]). In the subsections below, we will present the results obtained in various scenarios and discuss and analyze the outcomes.

4.2.1. Results of Scenario 1

In this scenario, our focus lies in investigating how varying the number of robots influences the performance of the RBFA, GLFA, LFA, and FF algorithms. The number of robots ranges from 30 to 60, with the results summarized in Table 3 and depicted in Figure 2. As the number of robots increases, the percentage of found targets also rises. For instance, with 30 robots, RBFA located 77.38 % of the targets, while LFA found 28.42 % , GLFA discovered 65.97 % , and FF located 36.02 % . With each incremental increase in the number of robots, algorithm performance improves as robots cover more areas of the environment. With 60 robots, RBFA identified 87.71 % of the targets, GLFA found 78.43 % , whereas LFA and FF found 41.9 % and 1.20 % respectively. In conclusion, RBFA and GLFA consistently outperform LFA and FF algorithms. FF’s reliance on random walks results in slower target discovery, while LFA’s attractive behavior limits exploration opportunities. Conversely, the repulsive behavior in GLFA and RBFA fosters broader exploration, leading to higher target discovery rates.
Table 3. Percentage of found targets when increasing the number of robots—Scenario 1.
Figure 2. Percentage of found targets when increasing the number of robots—Scenario 1.

4.2.2. Results of Scenario 2

This scenario investigates how the environment’s size impacts the proposed algorithms’ efficacy. In each successive simulation, we progressively expanded the environment size from 80 m2 to 200 m2. The results are summarized in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure 3. Across all four algorithms, the percentage of discovered targets decreased as the environment size increased. The RBFA and LFA algorithms yielded notably superior results compared to the GLFA and FF algorithms. In RBFA, including repulsive behavior facilitated exploration into distant regions, albeit at the expense of spending more time on exploration rather than target exploitation. Conversely, in the LFA algorithm, the attractive behavior enhances the likelihood of target exploitation over exploration, particularly in larger environments.
Table 4. Percentage of found targets when increasing the size of the environment—Scenario 2.
Figure 3. Percentage of found targets when increasing the size of the environment—Scenario 2.

4.2.3. Results of Scenario 3

This scenario investigates the impact of varying the number of clusters on the performance of the four algorithms. Targets are grouped into clusters of different sizes to determine if distributing them across multiple clusters enhances algorithm performance. The number of clusters is adjusted from 2 to 16, doubling in each new simulation. The results, as depicted in Table 5 and Figure 4, show that the percentage of found targets increases with more clusters. RBFA and LFA yield closely comparable results. LFA performs better with 2 and 4 clusters, while RBFA outperforms with 8 and 16 clusters. This distinction arises because the LFA algorithm prioritizes exploitation upon target discovery, leading to superior results with smaller clusters (2 and 4) where exploitation opportunities are more abundant. Conversely, with larger clusters (8 and 16), the limited number of targets diminishes the efficacy of exploitation, favoring RBFA’s emphasis on exploration. In RBFA, encouraging exploration into other regions facilitates exploitation by individual robots.
Table 5. Percentage of found targets when increasing the number of clusters—Scenario 3.
Figure 4. Percentage of found targets when increasing the cluster number—Scenario 3.

4.2.4. Results of Scenario 4

In this scenario, we aim to investigate how different target distribution patterns affect the performance of the four algorithms. We consider two cases: targets grouped into clusters and targets uniformly distributed across the environment. The results are presented in Table 6 and Figure 5. Overall, the performance of all algorithms improves when targets are grouped into clusters. For instance, RBFA achieved 93.66 % target discovery, while LFA found 89.9 % . Despite both algorithms delivering commendable results, LFA consistently outperforms RBFA in uniformly distributed scenarios. Conversely, RBFA and GLFA exhibit notably poorer performance when targets are uniformly distributed, failing to reach even 50 % discovery rates. This suggests that the randomness inherent in RBFA and GLFA strategies may hinder exploration in such cases. Additionally, the results indicate RBFA’s resilience to environmental variations compared to GLFA when targets are clustered. In summary, all discussed algorithms outperform FF in this scenario.
Table 6. Percentage of found targets when changing the distribution of targets (clusters, uniform)—Scenario 4.
Figure 5. Percentage of found targets when changing the distribution of targets (clusters, uniform)—Scenario 4.

5. Applications and Limitations

This section aims to explore the potentialities and limitations of the proposed algorithm, particularly focusing on the light-based communication mechanism for which we can enumerate several potential real-world applications:
  • In underwater exploration scenarios, light presents a viable alternative to traditional radio waves, offering enhanced penetration capabilities in certain conditions;
  • Light-based communication is promising for search and rescue missions, providing effective communication among multiple robots operating in disaster-stricken areas;
  • Within warehouse environments, where GPS signals may be unreliable, light-based communication could facilitate navigation and coordination among robotic systems;
  • Autonomous vehicles, such as drones or cars, stand to benefit from light-based communication, enabling swift transmission of information regarding targets or obstacles;
  • In applications requiring secure and reliable communication, such as military operations, industrial settings, and smart healthcare systems, light-based communication offers a compelling alternative.
Despite its potential advantages, light-based communication also entails certain limitations that must be considered for real-world applications in multi-target search tasks:
  • Light-based communication necessitates a direct line of sight between communicators, posing challenges in cluttered environments;
  • Light has a limited range compared to radio frequency signals and operates effectively only within short distances;
  • Environmental conditions, such as fog or rain, can significantly impact the performance of light-based communication, leading to decreased effectiveness;
  • Devices utilizing light-based communication require power, necessitating efficient energy consumption management mechanisms for applications with critical battery life requirements.

6. Implementation with Real Robots

This section offers insights into implementing the proposed algorithm with real robots. The design of a multi-target real robot with a light-based communication mechanism should incorporate both traditional robot design aspects (such as autonomous and adaptable navigation, power management, localization, and mapping) and elements specific to our proposition (such as light sensor integration and repulsive behavior). We elaborate on each design aspect below:
1.
Autonomous and adaptable navigation: the robot should integrate algorithms for planning and executing efficient paths while avoiding obstacles. Additionally, it should be equipped with mobility mechanisms to navigate various ground conditions effectively.
2.
Power management: design considerations should prioritize energy-efficient mobility mechanisms, supplemented by efficient power management systems to extend operational time.
3.
Localization: robots should employ localization algorithms to determine their position accurately.
4.
Sensor integration: implementing a light-based communication system may involve visible light communication or other light modulation techniques. Different colors or frequencies of light could be utilized to encode information, necessitating specific communication protocols to avoid interference.
5.
Repulsive behavior: algorithms should enable robots to detect the presence of other robots through light signals. Control mechanisms must be implemented to adjust the robot’s movements, avoiding the light source and selecting alternative directions for exploration.

7. Conclusions

The utilization of swarm intelligence-based algorithms for collective problem-solving has become pervasive in mobile robotics, encompassing tasks, such as demining, cleaning, search and rescue, among others. Central to these applications is environmental exploration, where multi-robot systems navigate space employing deployment strategies to search for valuable objects. The choice of exploration strategy can range from random to strategic or hybrid walks. Literature suggests that random walking enhances the likelihood of locating objects in unknown environments.
In this study, our focus lies in robot dispersion achieved by implicitly partitioning the environment using light as a repulsive force, inspired by the attraction behavior of fireflies. Specifically, we introduce two algorithms, RBFA and GLFA, which enhance the RB and GL algorithms by integrating light-induced repulsion behavior. These algorithms were implemented in ARGoS to validate their efficacy, and simulation results indicate that RBFA outperforms GLFA.
In future work, we aim to conduct other experiments by considering factors such as variable lighting conditions and interference from external light sources. Moreover, we plan to enhance our light-based communication mechanism to deal with the limited direct line-of-sights. One approach involves enabling robots to relay messages using light-based communication, even without a direct line of sight. Another solution could be integrating alternative communication technologies (such as RFID) to navigate cluttered spaces more effectively. Finally, we intend to perform a wide range of experiments with ARGoS and Gazebo simulators to validate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm in real-world scenarios.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.Z. and A.G.; formal analysis, O.Z. and A.G., writing—–original draft preparation, O.Z. and A.G.; writing—–review and editing, O.Z. and A.G.; supervision, G.F. and H.S.; implementation and test: A.B.; funding acquisition, G.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work has been partially supported by the European Union—NextGeneration-EU—National Recovery and Resilience Plan (Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza, PNRR), Project: “SoBigData.it—Strengthening the Italian RI for Social Mining and Big Data Analytics”, Prot. IR0000013—Avviso n. 3264 del 28/12/2021.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sahin, E. Swarm Robotics; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; Volume 3342, pp. 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Şahin, E.; Girgin, S.; Bayindir, L.; Turgut, A.E. Swarm Robotics. In Swarm Intelligence; Natural Computing Series; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 87–100. [Google Scholar]
  3. Zedadra, O.; Guerrieri, A.; Seridi, H. LFA: A Lévy walk and firefly-based search algorithm: Application to multi-target search and multi-robot foraging. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2022, 6, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Yang, X.S. Firefly Algorithms for Multimodal Optimization. In Stochastic Algorithms: Foundations and Applications; Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; Volume 5792 LNCS, pp. 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Benavides, F.; Monzón, P.; Chanel, C.P.C.; Grampín, E. Multi-robot Cooperative Systems for Exploration: Advances in dealing with constrained communication environments. In Proceedings of the 2016 XIII Latin American Robotics Symposium and IV Brazilian Robotics Symposium (LARS/SBR), Recife, Brazil, 8–12 October 2016; pp. 181–186. [Google Scholar]
  6. Palmieri, N.; De Rango, F.; She Yang, X.; Marano, S. Multi-robot cooperative tasks using combined nature-inspired techniques. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence, IJCCI 2015, Lisbon, Portugal, 12–14 November 2015; Volume 1, pp. 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Dimidov, C.; Oriolo, G.; Trianni, V. Random walks in swarm robotics: An experiment with Kilobots. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2016, 9882, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Palmieri, N.; Marano, S. Discrete firefly algorithm for recruiting task in a swarm of robots. In Nature-Inspired Computation in Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 133–150. [Google Scholar]
  9. Katada, Y.; Nishiguchi, A.; Moriwaki, K.; Watakabe, R. Swarm robotic network using Lévy flight in target detection problem. Artif. Life Robot. 2016, 21, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Palmieri, N.; Yang, X.S.; De Rango, F.; Marano, S. Comparison of bio-inspired algorithms applied to the coordination of mobile robots considering the energy consumption. Neural Comput. Appl. 2019, 31, 263–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Palmieri, N.; Rango, F.D.; Yang, X.S.; Marano, S. Bio-inspired strategies for the coordination of a swarm of robots in an unknown area. Stud. Comput. Intell. 2017, 669, 96–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Suárez, P.; Iglesias, A. Bat algorithm for coordinated exploration in swarm robotics. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 2017, 514, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Santos, R.G.; De Freitas, E.P.; Cheng, S.; De Almeida Ribeiro, P.R.; Muniz De Oliveira, A.C. Autonomous Exploration Guided by Optimisation Metaheuristic. In Proceedings of the 2018 15th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, ICARCV 2018, Singapore, 18–21 November 2018; pp. 1759–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Abuomar, L.; Al-Aubidy, K. Cooperative search and rescue with swarm of robots using binary dragonfly algoritlnn. In Proceedings of the 2018 15th International Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals and Devices, SSD 2018, Yasmine Hammamet, Tunisia, 19–22 March 2018; pp. 653–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. De Rango, F.; Palmieri, N.; Yang, X.S.; Marano, S. Swarm robotics in wireless distributed protocol design for coordinating robots involved in cooperative tasks. Soft Comput. 2018, 22, 4251–4266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Khaluf, Y.; Van Havermaet, S.; Simoens, P. Collective lévy walk for efficient exploration in unknown environments; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 11089, pp. 260–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Huang, X.; Arvin, F.; West, C.; Watson, S.; Lennox, B. Exploration in Extreme Environments with Swarm Robotic System. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics, ICM 2019, Ilmenau, Germany, 18–20 March 2019; Volume 1, pp. 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Pang, B.; Song, Y.; Zhang, C.; Wang, H.; Yang, R. A Swarm Robotic Exploration Strategy Based on an Improved Random Walk Method. J. Robot. 2019, 2019, 6914212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Paez, D.; Romero, J.P.; Noriega, B.; Cardona, G.A.; Calderon, J.M. Distributed particle swarm optimization for multi-robot system in search and rescue operations. IFAC Pap. 2021, 54, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Garg, V.; Tiwari, R.; Shukla, A. Comparative Analysis of Fruit Fly-Inspired Multi-Robot Cooperative Algorithm for Target Search and Rescue. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE World Conference on Applied Intelligence and Computing (AIC), Sonbhadra, India, 17–19 June 2022; pp. 444–450. [Google Scholar]
  21. Yang, L.; Xing, B.; Li, C.; Wang, W. Research on Artificial Bee Colony Method Based Complete Coverage Path Planning Algorithm for Search and Rescue Robot. In Proceedings of the 2022 5th International Symposium on Autonomous Systems (ISAS), Hangzhou, China, 8–10 April 2022; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  22. Fricke, G.M.; Hecker, J.P.; Griego, A.D.; Tran, L.T.; Moses, M.E. A distributed deterministic spiral search algorithm for swarms. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 9–14 October 2016; pp. 4430–4436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Yang, X.S.; He, X. Firefly algorithm: Recent advances and applications. Int. J. Swarm Intell. 2013, 1, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Isaacs, J.T.; Dolan-Stern, N.; Getzinger, M.; Warner, E.; Venegas, A.; Sanchez, A. Central place foraging: Delivery lanes, recruitment and site fidelity. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC), Ponta Delgada, Portugal, 15–17 April 2020; pp. 319–324. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ousingsawat, J.; Earl, M.G. Modified lawn-mower search pattern for areas comprised of weighted regions. In Proceedings of the 2007 American Control Conference, New York, NY, USA, 9–13 July 2007; pp. 918–923. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pinciroli, C.; Trianni, V.; O’Grady, R.; Pini, G.; Brutschy, A.; Brambilla, M.; Mathews, N.; Ferrante, E.; Di Caro, G.; Ducatelle, F.; et al. ARGoS: A modular, parallel, multi-engine simulator for multi-robot systems. Swarm Intell. 2012, 6, 271–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.