Forming tile shapes with simple robots

Abstract

DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

Accelerating Amoebots via Reconfigurable Circuits

“…Two Θ(log n)-algorithms for parallelograms with linear and polynomial side ratio are obtained. These are discussed in Appendix D. Aside from that, shape formation problems have been considered in [22].…”

Distributed Transformations of Hamiltonian Shapes based on Line Moves

“…Another recent related set of models studied in [10,20,24] consider a single robot which moves over a static shape consisting of tiles and the goal is for the robot to transform the shape by carrying one tile at a time. In those systems, the single robot which controls and carries out the transformation is typically modelled as a finite automaton.…”

A survey of autonomous self-reconfiguration methods for robot-based programmable matter

“…While it is true that other theoretical models of Programmable Matter exist besides Self-Organizing Particle Systems as the Amoebot model, especially a number of works emerging from the DNA computing and molecular programming communities, we believe that the lack of real reconfigurability of these models implies that they are too far removed from modular robotic systems to be pertinent to this survey. This is because this models are either passive systems that cannot autonomously decide on their motion but are instead pre-set to reach a desired configuration such as for instance DNA Tile Assembly models (Doty, 2012;Patitz, 2014), Population Protocols (Angluin et al, 2006), or in the case of Hybrid Programmable Matter systems of active robots acting on passive tiles (Gmyr et al, 2017). We may nonetheless note that the NuBot active model has been used to perform simple shape formation through self-assembly by Woods et al (2013), which makes it more pertinent than the aforementioned works to the topic of this survey, and can be of interest to the reader.…”