05 book

2007/5/15
page 47

Chapter 6
Extensions to swarm-like
systems
It is important to realize that nontraditional particulate-like models are frequently used to
simulate the behavior of groups comprising individual units whose interaction is represented
by near-eld interaction forces. The basis of such interaction is not a charge.
25
As an
example, we provide an introduction to an emerging eld, closely related to dry particu-
late ows, that has relatively recently received considerable attention, namely, the analysis
of swarms. In a very general sense, the term swarm is usually meant to signify any
collection of objects (agents) that interact with one another. It has long been recognized
that interactive cooperative behavior within biological groups or swarms is advantageous
in avoiding predators or, vice versa, in capturing prey. For example, one of the primary
advantages of a swarm-like decentralized decision-making structure is that there is no leader
and thus the vulnerability of the swarm is substantially reduced. Furthermore, the decision
making is relatively simple and rapid for each individual; however, the aggregate behavior
of the swarm can be quite sophisticated. Although the modeling of swarm-like behavior
has biological research origins, dating back at least to Breder [36], it can be treated as a
purely multiparticle dynamical system, where the communication between swarmmembers
is modeled via interaction forces. It is commonly accepted that a central characteristic of
swarm-like behavior is the tradeoff between long-range interaction and short-range repul-
sion between individuals. Models describing clouds or swarms of particles, where their
interaction is constructed from attractive and repulsive forces, dependent on the relative
distance between individuals, are commonplace. For reviews, see Gazi and Passino [75],
Bender and Fenton [25], or Kennedy and Eberhart [120]. The eld is quite large and encom-
passes a wide variety of applications, for example, the behavior of ocks of birds, schools of
sh, ow of trafc, and crowds of human beings, to name a few. Loosely speaking, swarm
analyses are concerned with the complex aggregate behavior of groups of simple members,
which are frequently treated as particles (for example, in Zohdi [209]). Such a framework
makes the methods previously presented in this monograph applicable.
Remark. There exist a large number of what one can term as rule-driven swarms,
whereby interaction is not governed by the principles of mechanics but by proximal in-
25
The interaction forces can be, for example, in unmanned airborne vehicles (UAVs), motorized propulsion
arising from intervehicle communication.
47
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

1
1
/
2
2
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
0
.
1
4
4
.
1
7
1
.
7
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
I
A
M

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
i
a
m
.
o
r
g
/
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
/
o
j
s
a
.
p
h
p
05 book
2007/5/15
page 48

48 Chapter 6. Extensions to swarm-like systems

mt
mt

mm
mo
mo
SWARM
MEMBERS
TARGET
OBSTACLE
Figure 6.1. Interaction between the various components (Zohdi [209]).
structions such as, if a fellow swarm member gets close to me, attempt to retreat as far as
possible, follow the leader, stay in clusters, etc. While these rule-driven paradigms
are usually easy to construct, they are difcult to analyze mathematically. It is primarily
for this reason that a mechanical approach is adopted here. Recent broad overviews of the
eld can be found in Kennedy and Eberhart [120] and Bonabeau et al. [34]. The approach
taken is based on work found in Zohdi [209].
6.1 Basic constructions
In the analysis to follow, we treat the swarm members as point masses, i.e., we ignore their
dimensions.
26
For each swarm member (N
p
in total) the equations of motion are
m
i
r
i
=
t ot
(r
1
, r
2
, . . . , r
N
p
), (6.1)
where
t ot
represents the forces of interaction between swarm member i and the target,
obstacles, and other swarm members. We consider the decomposition (see Figure 6.1)

t ot
=
mm
+
mt
+
mo
, (6.2)
where between swarm members (member-member) we have

mm
=
N
p

j=i
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

mm
1
||r
i
r
j
||

mm
1
. ,, .
attraction

mm
2
||r
i
r
j
||

mm
2
. ,, .
repulsion
_
_
_
r
i
r
j
||r
i
r
j
||
. ,, .
unit vector
_
_
_
_
_
, (6.3)
where || || represents the Euclidean norm in R
3
, while between the swarm members and
the target (member-target) we have

mt
=
_

mt
||r

r
i
||

mt
_
r

r
i
||r

r
i
||
, (6.4)
26
The swarm member centers, which are initially nonintersecting, cannot intersect later due to the singular
repulsion terms. D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

1
1
/
2
2
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
0
.
1
4
4
.
1
7
1
.
7
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
I
A
M

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
i
a
m
.
o
r
g
/
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
/
o
j
s
a
.
p
h
p
05 book
2007/5/15
page 49

6.2. A model objective function 49

and for the repulsion between swarm members and the obstacles (member-obstacle), we
have

mo
=
q

j=1
_
_

mo
||r
oj
r
i
||

mo
_
r
oj
r
i
||r
oj
r
i
||
_
, (6.5)
where q is the number of obstacles and all of the (design) parameters, the s and s, are
nonnegative.
Remark. One can describe the relative contributions of repulsion and attraction
between members of the swarm by considering an individual pair in static equilibrium:

mm
=
_

mm
1
||r
i
r
j
||

mm
1

mm
2
||r
i
r
j
||

mm
2
_
r
i
r
j
||r
i
r
j
||
= 0. (6.6)
This characterizes a separation length scale describing the tendency to cluster or spread
apart:
||r
i
r
j
|| =
_

mm
2

mm
1
_ 1

mm
1
+
mm
2 def
=
mm
. (6.7)
We remark that one could have moving targets and obstacles as well as attractive
forces between the swarm and the obstacles and repulsive forces from the targets. Adding
attractive forces from the obstacles and repulsive forces from the targets makes sense for
some applications, for example, in trafc ow, where one does not want the vehicle to hit
the target, although we did not consider such cases in the present work.
6.2 A model objective function
As a representative of a class of model problems, we nowconsider inverse problems whereby
the coefcients in the interaction forces are sought, the s and s, that deliver desired
swarm-like behavior by minimizing a normalized cost function (normalized by the total
simulation time and the initial separation distance) representing (1) the time it takes for the
swarm members to get to the target and (2) the distance of the swarm members from the
target:
=
_
_
T
0

N
p
i=1
||r
i
r

|| dt
_
T

N
p
i=1
||r
i
(t = 0) r

||
,
(6.8)
where the total simulation time is T = 1; where, for example, for each ,

+
,
and for each ,

+
; where r

is the position of the target; and where

,
+
,

, and
+
are the lower and upper limit coefcients in the interaction forces. We wish
to enforce that, if a swarm member gets too close to an obstacle, it becomes immobilized.
Thus, as a side condition, for all t , for all r
oj
, and for < T , if
||r
i
(t = ) r
oj
|| R, (6.9)
then r
i
= r
i
(t = ) for all t , where the unilateral condition represents the effect of
being near a destructive obstacle. The swarm member is stopped in the position where it
enters the radius of destruction (R). Therefore, the swarm performance () is severely
penalized if it loses members to the obstacles. D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

1
1
/
2
2
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
0
.
1
4
4
.
1
7
1
.
7
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
I
A
M

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
i
a
m
.
o
r
g
/
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
/
o
j
s
a
.
p
h
p
05 book
2007/5/15
page 50

50 Chapter 6. Extensions to swarm-like systems

INITIAL SWARM
TARGET
LOCATION
LOCATIONS
OBSTACLE
X Y
Z
Figure 6.2. The initial setup for a swarm example (Zohdi [209]).
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
F
I
T
N
E
S
S
GENERATION
8 PARTICLES
16 PARTICLES
32 PARTICLES
64 PARTICLES
128 PARTICLES
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
A
V
E
R
A
G
E

F
I
T
N
E
S
S

O
F

T
O
P

6
GENERATION
8 PARTICLES
16 PARTICLES
32 PARTICLES
64 PARTICLES
128 PARTICLES
Figure 6.3. Generational values of (left) the best designs objective function and
(right) the average of the best six designs objective functions for various swarm member
sizes (Zohdi [209]).
6.3 Numerical simulation
We consider the situation illustrated in Figure 6.2. The components of the initial position
vectors of the nonintersecting swarm members, each assigned a mass
27
of 10 kg, were
given random values of 1 r
ix
, r
iy
, r
iz
1. The location of the target was (10, 0, 0).
The location of the center of the (rectangular) obstacle array was (5, 0, 0). Anine-obstacle
fence was set up as follows: (5, 0, 0), (5, 2, 2), (5, 2, 2), (5, 2, 0), (5, 0, 2), (5, 2, 2),
(5, 2, 2), (5, 2, 0), (5, 0, 2). The radius of destruction for the swarm member-
obstacle pair was set to R = 0.5. In order to study the effects of the swarm size on the
optimal performance, we considered swarms of successively larger sizes, containing N = 8,
16, 32, 64, and 128 members. We employed the genetic algorithm introduced in Chapter 5.
The search space was, for each , 10
6
10
6
, and, for each , 10
6
1. The
number of genetic strings was set to S = 20, for G = 20 generations, keeping the top six
offspring of the top six parents. Therefore, after each generation, eight new genetic strings
were introduced. Figure 6.3 depicts the results. The total number of function evaluations
of is S +(G1) (S Q) = 286, where G = 20 is the number of generations, S = 20
27
This is a typical mass of a UAV.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

1
1
/
2
2
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
0
.
1
4
4
.
1
7
1
.
7
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
I
A
M

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
i
a
m
.
o
r
g
/
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
/
o
j
s
a
.
p
h
p
05 book
2007/5/15
page 51

6.3. Numerical simulation 51

Table 6.1. The top tness and average of the top six tnesses for various swarm
sizes (Zohdi [209]).
Swarm Members Total Strings Tested Strings Design
1
6

6
i=1

i
8 1573 5.5000 0.2684 0.3008
16 1646 5.7552 0.3407 0.4375
32 1022 3.5734 0.4816 0.4829
64 1241 4.3391 0.5092 0.5153
128 1970 6.8881 0.6115 0.6210
Table 6.2. The optimal coefcients of attraction and repulsion for various s warm
sizes (Zohdi [209]).
Swarm Members
mm
1

mm
2

mt

mo
8 451470.44 270188.87 735534.64 141859.99
16 128497.49 279918.51 778117.81 80526.85
32 111642.28 564292.53 872627.48 7899.69
64 394344.61 625999.39 910734.12 23961.73
128 767084.35 264380.23 574909.53 159249.40
Table 6.3. The optimal exponents of attraction and repulsion for various swarm
sizes (Zohdi [209]).
Swarm Members
mm
1

mm
2

mt

mo
8 0.8555 0.2686 0.4366 0.6433
16 0.1793 0.1564 0.8101 0.8386
32 0.4101 0.0404 0.7995 0.5632
64 0.4030 0.1148 0.7422 0.4976
128 0.5913 0.0788 0.5729 0.8313
Table 6.4. The ratios of optimal repulsion and attraction for various swarm sizes
(Zohdi [209]).
Swarm Members
mm
8 0.6333
16 10.1622
32 36.4685
64 2.4407
128 0.2040
is the total number of genetic strings in the population, and Q = 6 is the number of parents
kept after each generation. The total time was set (normalized) to be one second (T = 1).
FromTables 6.16.4, there appears to be no convergence in the optima with respect to
the swarmmember number. Aclear result is that one cannot expect optima for one swarmsize
tobe optimal for another. Inother words, there is noapparent scalinglaw. InFigures 6.46.6,
frames are shownfor the 128-particle swarm. The 128-particle swarmbunches upandmoves
through the obstacle fence unharmed (centered at (5, 0, 0)) by going underneath the central D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

1
1
/
2
2
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
0
.
1
4
4
.
1
7
1
.
7
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
I
A
M

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
i
a
m
.
o
r
g
/
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
/
o
j
s
a
.
p
h
p
05 book
2007/5/15
page 52

52 Chapter 6. Extensions to swarm-like systems

0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
Figure 6.4. Top to bottom and left to right, the swarm (128 swarm members)
bunches up and moves through the obstacle fence, under the center obstacle, unharmed
(centered at (5, 0, 0)), and then unpacks itself (Zohdi [209]).
obstacle and between adjacent obstacles. The swarm then unpacks itself, overshoots the
target at (10, 0, 0), and then undershoots it slightly. The swarmstarts to home in on the target
and concentrate itself at (10, 0, 0). It is interesting to note that the ratios of optimal member-
member repulsion to attraction (
mm
) are quite small for the 128-particle swarm; however,
for other swarm sizes, such as 16 and 32, the optima are relatively large. This implies that
bunching up is not necessarily the best strategy to surround the target for every swarm size.
6.4 Discussion
In many applications, the computed positions, velocities, and accelerations of the members
of a swarm, for example, people or vehicles, must be translated into realizable movement.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

1
1
/
2
2
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
0
.
1
4
4
.
1
7
1
.
7
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
I
A
M

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
i
a
m
.
o
r
g
/
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
/
o
j
s
a
.
p
h
p
05 book
2007/5/15
page 53

6.4. Discussion 53
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
Figure 6.5. Toptobottomandleft toright, the swarmthengoes throughandslightly
overshoots the target (10, 0, 0), and then undershoots it slightly and starts to concentrate
itself (Zohdi [209]).
Furthermore, the communication latency and information exchange poses a signicant tech-
nological hurdle. In practice, further sophistication, i.e., constraints on movement and
communication, must be embedded into the computational model for the application at
hand. However, the fundamental computational philosophy and modeling strategy should
remain relatively unchanged. It is important to remark on a fundamental set of results found
in Hedrick and Swaroop [92], Hedrick et al. [93], Swaroop and Hedrick [183], [184], and
Shamma [175], namely, that if the interaction is only with the nearest neighbors, and if there
is no inertial reference point for the swarmmembers to refer to, instabilities (collisions) may
occur. In the present analysis, such inertial reference points were furnished by the fact that
the members of the swarmknewthe absolute locations of the stationary obstacles and target.
Also, because the communication for a given swarm member was with all other members, D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

1
1
/
2
2
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
0
.
1
4
4
.
1
7
1
.
7
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
I
A
M

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
i
a
m
.
o
r
g
/
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
/
o
j
s
a
.
p
h
p
05 book
2007/5/15
page 54

54 Chapter 6. Extensions to swarm-like systems

the stability was a nonissue. Furthermore, due to the presence of a
1
r
-type interaction force
between the initially nonoverlapping swarm members, the centers could not intersect (a
singular repulsion term). However, if the target and obstacles begin to move in response to
the swarm, which may be the case in certain applications, and the communication between
swarm members is only with the nearest neighbors (a possible technological restriction),
then instabilities can become a primary concern.
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
0 Z
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
X
0
Y
Figure 6.6. Top to bottom and left to right, the swarm starts to oscillate slightly
around the target and then begins to home in on the target and concentrate itself at (10, 0, 0)
(Zohdi [209]).
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

1
1
/
2
2
/
1
3

t
o

1
9
0
.
1
4
4
.
1
7
1
.
7
0
.

R
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

S
I
A
M

l
i
c
e
n
s
e

o
r

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
;

s
e
e

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
w
w
w
.
s
i
a
m
.
o
r
g
/
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
/
o
j
s
a
.
p
h
p