scholarly journals From wolf pack intelligence to UAV swarm cooperative decision-making

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haibin DUAN ◽  
Daifeng ZHANG ◽  
Yanming FAN ◽  
Yimin DENG
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Ning Wang ◽  
Zhe Li ◽  
Xiaolong Liang ◽  
Ying Li ◽  
Feihu Zhao

This paper proposes a cooperative search algorithm to enable swarms of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to capture moving targets. It is based on prior information and target probability constrained by inter-UAV distance for safety and communication. First, a rasterized environmental cognitive map is created to characterize the task area. Second, based on Bayesian theory, the posterior probability of a target’s existence is updated using UAV detection information. Third, the predicted probability distribution of the dynamic time-sensitive target is obtained by calculating the target transition probability. Fourth, a customized information interaction mechanism switches the interaction strategy and content according to the communication distance to produce cooperative decision-making in the UAV swarm. Finally, rolling-time domain optimization generates interactive information, so interactive behavior and autonomous decision-making among the swarm members are realized. Simulation results showed that the proposed algorithm can effectively complete a cooperative moving-target search when constrained by communication distance yet still cooperate effectively in unexpected situations such as a fire.


Author(s):  
Pascale Zaraté

The subject of our research aims to support in the most suitable way the collaborative decision-making process. Several scientific approaches deal with collaborative decision-making: decision analysis (Carlsson & Turban, 2002; Doyle & Thomason, 1999; Keeney & Raiffa, 1976) developing different analytical tools for optimal decision-making; in management sciences the observation of decision-making styles activity (Nuut, 2005; Fong, Wyer, & Robert 2003); decision-making as a group work (Esser, 1998; Matta & Corby, 1997); studies concerning different types of decisions focalised on number of actors: individual (Keeney & Raiffa, 1976), group (Shim, Warkentin, Courtney, Power, Sharda, & Carlsson, 2002), cooperative (Zaraté, 2005), and collaborative (Karacapilidis & Papadias, 2001). For the collaborative decision-making field, the situation is clear. In most of research studies, the concept of collaborative decision-making is used as a synonym for cooperative decision-making. Hence, the collaborative decision-making process is considered to be distributed and asynchronous (Chim, Anumba, & Carillo, 2004; Cil, Alpturk, & Yazgan, 2005). However, we can stand out several works, having different research approaches, considering collaborative decision-making process as multi-actor decision-making process, where actors have different goals. Considering (Panzarasa, Jennings, & Norman, 2002) the collaborative decision-making process is seen as “a group of logically decentralised agents that cooperate to achieve objectives that are typically beyond the capacities of an individual agent. In short, the collaborative decision-making has generally been viewed and modelled as a kind of distributed reasoning and search, whereby a collection of agents collaboratively go throughout the search space of the problem in order to find a solution.” The main interrogation of this article is to study the best way to support collaborative decision-making process.


1980 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 457-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy Lenk Krueger

This study investigates differences among four decision-making groups and describes the patterns of communication unique to two groups. In the first part of the investigation, four decision-making groups are given either competitive or cooperative inducements and are compared on two measures: competition and satisfaction. The two groups given the competitive inducement (Groups I and III) were found to have significantly higher competition and lower satisfaction than the groups given cooperative inducements (Groups II and IV). In the second part of the study a lag sequential analysis is conducted on the coded communicative sequences in the highest and lowest competition groups (I and II, respectively). This analysis yields patterns to decision-making unique to each sample group. Group I's communication is characterized by highly probable (above-chance) sequences of disagreement messages and few probable agreement messages. Group II's communication patterns consist of highly probable sequences of decision development and probable agreement/support messages throughout the group interaction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document