Swarm Synchronization Control
Douglas D. Hammer
Principal Investigator
clearlineofsight@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
In this paper we develop an algorithm for the decentralized
control and synchronization of multi-agent swarms. This work is
based on simulation research in entropy or information capacity
regulated phase difference equations. We show how there is a
direct correlation between local signaling entropy and mean
proximity phase rates, this establishes a control function to
adjust the rate of swarm synchronization.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
Decentralized Control.
General Terms
Algorithms, Measurement, Control Theory.
Keywords
Information Theory, Statistical Mechanics, Synchronization.
1.INTRODUCTION
Synchronization is a phenomenon that occurs throughout both
the natural and mechanical world. On a more prevalent level
ecosystem synchronization can be found in fireflies in the
amazon, heart cells, and sleep wake cycles in the human brain.
Some of the deeper hidden aspects of synchronization occur
inside a bee colony, where homeostasis or thermo regulation of
the hive is kept constant through the interaction of thousands of
bees. This thermo regulation is also found in warm blooded
animals, where keeping a constant body temperature is vital to
the organism's survival. On a mechanical level, specifically a
statistical mechanical level, synchronization occurs where tens
of thousands of atoms reach a state of equilibrium. These
equilibrium states can be seen as phase transitions. Such phase
transitions can be found in the function of lasers, were at
specific point in time the random interactions of electrons are
excited into a coherent state, generating beam of light. Other
more generalized examples of state coherency or
synchronization can be seen as a liquid turns into a solid. These
phase transitions are different in their mechanical organization
from living organisms, but share similar properties of global
state or phase transition between different orders of structure
and complexity.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
Copyright © 2007 Douglas D. Hammer…$24.00.
2.CURRENT RESEARCH
Much research has gone into disordered systems governed by
simple rules of interaction. As found in natural systems many of
the underlying components follow simple rules that determine
their next state based on the interactions and the forces at work
in their local environment. Many researchers in this area have
turned to cellular automata as finite state machines, in hopes of
revealing what indicators cause the formation of emergent order.
In a finite state machines hundreds of interaction components
can represent one of many finite states. Their change in state is
governed by global forces, such as gravity and local interaction
of their neighboring components. Through the study of these
finite state machines complex orders of coherent interaction
have been observed. The cellular automation approach takes a
deterministic approach to revealing how these systems are
composed and what underlying mechanisms are involved to
bring about higher orders of structure and complexity. Some
models of cellular automata have revealed the formation of
rivers, the fractal structure of plants, and the formation of
snowflakes.
3.SYNCRONIZATION MODELS
In contrast phase transitions or state transitions also follow the
statistical mechanical laws of entropy, the second law of
thermodynamics, the first being gravity. In a statistical
mechanical model more emphasis is placed on known laws of
physics that govern interaction than the random generation or
iteration rules found in cellular automata. A considerable
amount of mathematical insight has been gained over the last
thirty years to explain why synchronization occurs, specifically
in natural systems. From a statistical mechanical viewpoint
these natural ecological systems, can be compared to more
generalized models of fluid dynamic mechanical systems. One
such example is the cooling of liquid glass. When glass in its
liquid state is cooled at a fast rate the molecules that compose
its structure must anneal to a steady state independent of the
effects of their neighboring interactions. This rapid cooling
causes the final solid to exist in a more disordered final
molecular state or in other words the glass has a higher state of
entropy. Entropy is a measure of the amount of disorder in a
system, specifically in our glass model. If our liquid glass is
cooled at a much slower rate the atoms that compose the
structure have more time to settle into an ordered state, where
their orientation to their neighbors is more uniform throughout
the liquid as it cools. This slower annealing or cooling decreases
the amount of entropy and allows the glass model to react on a
local level of molecular interaction in addition to a global level
of the forces involved. When statistical mechanical interactions
are incorporated into cellular automata many new forms of
structural and functional coherence become visible. From the
statistical viewpoint emergence found in natural systems doesn't
exist, but is a product of the phase transitions governed to a
greater extent by their mechanical laws.
4.SYNCRONIZATION CONTROL
In our studies we first created random topologies on hundreds of
interacting components. Each of the components was governed
by a simple local rule, adjust its rate of firing based on the mean
or average of its neighbors' phase. Initial firing rates for each
component were regulated by sin waves where the component
would fire or signal when the wave reached passed through zero.
(1,2).
The firing of components never signaled its neighbors, and acted
as a representation of the components internal state. At each
iteration in the simulation the phases of each component's
neighborhood based on a predefined radius were summed and
averaged over this range (3).
This new phase was differenced from its own phase as an update
to each component's phase shift. After a few hundred iterations
these random networks of interacting components would all
adjust their phase output, and fire at the same time. This set the
foundation for a basic synchronization model. But the next task
was to understand what factors influenced the rate at which the
networks would synchronize? Multiple plots of phase transition
on local and global network levels were compared to time series
plots of phase rate changes, firing rates, and density levels to
reveal if any indicators that could control the rate of
synchronization. Only until a new model was devised that
calculated the component's entropy as a function of its activity
or density was the puzzle solved. Each component would fire
based on its phase, this was the result of the interaction within
its neighborhoods. The firing rate was summed over the each
iteration step within its number of iterations. This ratio formed
the basis of the probability of a component in a firing state. As
the iterations increased, the sum firing rates would also increase.
This creates a density map of probabilities that a specific
component would be in a firing state, and its entropy based in
the density of local interactions (4,5).
For example, successive iterations the ratios of firing rates over
iterations, would follow a path (0/1,1/2/,1/3,2/4,...).
4.1 Control Formulation
Using standard functions from information theory entropy
calculations were computed for each iteration or in other words
the density of interaction per iteration. When the entropy for
multiple components was plotted in the standard time series the
density or swarm activity aligned with the mean entropy rate
prior to synchronization (Fig.1). When plotted with both the
phase shift per component next to the component's internal
entropy at specific densities or levels of interaction the phase
rate reached its maximum variance near the maximum entropy
(Fig.2). Component entropy is a calculation of all the entropy
states at each iteration, this follows a smooth convex curve. In
addition the phase rate was approximately twice the entropy
near the maximum. This was convenient due to simplifying a
new synchronization model (6,7,8).
When a component's phase shift or rate would double in size
compared to its internal entropy the component would increase
the rate proportional to the difference in entropy and phase,
driving the system into a state of synchronization (9).
New simulations based on entropy calibrated phase rate
adjustments synchronized three to four times faster than our
original model. This statistical mechanical model helped
establish a new unique control functional, that the rate of the
network's synchronization was indirectly controlled by the rate
of phase change within a local proximity based on the entropy or
information capacity within each component, and this was the
result of both local and global network dynamics.
5.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our thanks to ACM SIGCHI for allowing us to modify templates
they had developed. In addition to the open source Breve Multi-
Agent Simulation Environment. (Version 2.6 Macintosh OS X)
 Figure 1: Swarm Time Series Phase Model
1.0000
0.9000

0.8000

0.7000

0.6000 Phase
0.5000 Density
Rate
0.4000 Capacity
0.3000

0.2000

0.1000

0.0000

-0.1000
0.0000 10.0000 20.0000 30.0000 40.0000 50.0000 60.0000
Time (Seconds)

The Phase model indicates the change in normalized swarm phase over time. The
maximum phase used in normalization not shown in the model is 3574.9.
Synchronization occurs near thirty seconds in the phase model simulation. Two
indicators are revealed from the phase model. The primary indicator is that
synchronization occurs as the capacity is near the density, further investigated in the
capacity model. The second indicator is the normalized rate converges to a minimum
near the minimum density, as the normalized phase increases to its maximum;
converging to a stable synchronization.

Figure 2: Swarm Information Capacity Model

1.1000
1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0.7000
0.6000
Capacity
0.5000 Rate
0.4000
0.3000
0.2000
0.1000
0.0000
0.0000 0.2000 0.4000 0.6000 0.8000 1.0000
Density
The Capacity model indicates the information capacity of the swarm density, where the
density is scaled between [0..1]. The rate measured at each of the densities over time is
near the swarm's capacity. In addition when the swarm is out of synchronization the
rate is greater than the capacity. The swarm's maximum capacity is the phase between
chaos and order ( in this case synchronization ). Synchronization is the periodic change
between maximum and minimum densities. At the maximum capacity the greatest
change in rate also occurs that drives the swarm out of synchronization.
6.REFERENCES
[1] S. H. Strogatz 2001. Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: with
Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and
Engineering. Coupled Oscillators and Quasiderpiodicity
273-278.
[2] J. Acebrón and L. Bonilla 2005. The Kuramoto model: A
simple paradigm for synchronization phenomena. Reviews
of Modern Physics, Volume 77, (Jan 2005), The American
Physical Society 137-182.
[3] J. Buchli and L. Righetti 2006. Engineering Entrainment
and Adaptation in Limit Cycle Systems. Biologically
Inspired Robotics Group. School of Computer &
Communication Sciences. Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de
Lausanne. INN, Station 14, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.
[4] J. Klein 2003-2008. Breve, A 3D Simulation Environment
for Multi-Agent Simulations and Artificial Life. v. 2.6,
http://www.spiderland.org