| Literature DB >> 31057388 |
Xiaolin Dai1,2, Shuai Long1, Zhiwen Zhang1, Dawei Gong1,2.
Abstract
This paper proposes an improved ant colony algorithm to achieve efficient searching capabilities of path planning in complicated maps for mobile robot. The improved ant colony algorithm uses the characteristics of A* algorithm and MAX-MIN Ant system. Firstly, the grid environment model is constructed. The evaluation function of A* algorithm and the bending suppression operator are introduced to improve the heuristic information of the Ant colony algorithm, which can accelerate the convergence speed and increase the smoothness of the global path. Secondly, the retraction mechanism is introduced to solve the deadlock problem. Then the MAX-MIN ant system is transformed into local diffusion pheromone and only the best solution from iteration trials can be added to pheromone update. And, strengths of the pheromone trails are effectively limited for avoiding premature convergence of search. This gives an effective improvement and high performance to ACO in complex tunnel, trough and baffle maps and gives a better result as compare to traditional versions of ACO. The simulation results show that the improved ant colony algorithm is more effective and faster.Entities:
Keywords: A* algorithm; ant colony algorithm; bending suppression; path planning; retraction mechanism
Year: 2019 PMID: 31057388 PMCID: PMC6477093 DOI: 10.3389/fnbot.2019.00015
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurorobot ISSN: 1662-5218 Impact factor: 2.650
Figure 1Environment model.
Figure 2Deadlock state diagram.
Description of ACO algorithm for solving path planning.
| create grid environment |
| initialize the ant colony system |
| |
| |
| |
| fallback |
| |
| according to formula (2) and (6) select next grid j |
| Update taboo |
| |
| Update pheromone on each iteration by improved MMAS method according to formula (7) and (8) |
Values of the main parameters in the ACO.
| 50 | 1 | 5 | 0.5 | 10 |
Figure 3The test results of three algorithms run on common map. (A) Simulation results in 20*20 grid. (B) Convergence curve.
Figure 4The test results of three algorithms run on tunnel map. (A) Simulation results in 30*30 grid. (B) Convergence curve.
Figure 5The test results of three algorithms run on trough map. (A) Simulation results in 40*40 grid. (B) Convergence curve. (Other two algorithms is failed in trough map).
Figure 6The test results of three algorithms run on baffle map. (A) Simulation results in 20*20 grid. (B) Convergence curve. (Other two algorithms is failed in trough map).
Test results for three algorithms under different maps.
| Common map | ① | 37.4143 | 38.6335 | 40 | 9.22 | 22 |
| ② | 29.2133 | 29.4506 | 33 | 7.26 | 10 | |
| ③ | 29.2133 | 29.3807 | 12 | 4.89 | 10 | |
| Tunnel map | ① | 38.2133 | 38.6325 | 47 | 26.92 | 17 |
| ② | 37.3849 | 38.4813 | 35 | 20.62 | 12 | |
| ③ | 37.3849 | 38.1262 | 16 | 17.97 | 10 | |
| Trough map | ① | – | – | – | – | – |
| ② | – | – | – | – | – | |
| ③ | 51.1128 | 51.8471 | 40 | 88.20 | 13 | |
| Baffle map | ① | – | – | – | – | – |
| ② | – | – | – | – | – | |
| ③ | 50.7280 | 51.0605 | 15 | 8.40 | 13 |
①: The traditional ant colony algorithm.
②: The algorithm [20].
③: the improved ant colony algorithm.
Figure 7The test results of two algorithms run on trough map. (A) Path planning comparison. (B) Ant retraction number curve.
Figure 8The test results of two algorithms run on baffle map. (A) Path planning comparison. (B) Ant retraction number curve.