2.7 4.

Article

Optimum k-Nearest Neighbors for

Heading Synchronization on a
Swarm of UAVs under a Time-
Evolving Communication Network

Rigoberto Martínez-Clark, Javier Pliego-Jimenez, Juan Francisco Flores-Resendiz and

David Avilés-Velázquez

Special Issue
Synchronization in Time-Evolving Complex Networks
Edited by
Prof. Dr. César Cruz-Hernández

https://doi.org/10.3390/e25060853
 entropy
Article
Optimum k-Nearest Neighbors for Heading Synchronization
on a Swarm of UAVs under a Time-Evolving
Communication Network
Rigoberto Martínez-Clark 1, * , Javier Pliego-Jimenez 2 , Juan Francisco Flores-Resendiz 1
and David Avilés-Velázquez 1

1 Faculty of Engineering, Administrative, and Social Sciences, Autonomous University of Baja California,
Tecate 21460, BC, Mexico
2 Electronics and Telecommunications Department, Applied Physics Division, CICESE-CONACYT,
Ensenada 22860, BC, Mexico
* Correspondence: rigoberto.martinez@uabc.edu.mx

Abstract: Heading synchronization is fundamental in flocking behaviors. If a swarm of unmanned

aerial vehicles (UAVs) can exhibit this behavior, the group can establish a common navigation route.
Inspired by flocks in nature, the k-nearest neighbors algorithm modifies the behavior of a group
member based on the k closest teammates. This algorithm produces a time-evolving communication
network, due to the continuous displacement of the drones. Nevertheless, this is a computationally
expensive algorithm, especially for large groups. This paper contains a statistical analysis to determine
an optimal neighborhood size for a swarm of up to 100 UAVs, that seeks heading synchronization
using a simple P-like control algorithm, in order to reduce the calculations on every UAV, this is
especially important if it is intended to be implemented in drones with limited capabilities, as in
swarm robotics. Based on the literature of bird flocks, that establishes that the neighborhood of every
bird is fixed around seven teammates, two approaches are treated in this work: (i) the analysis of
the optimum percentage of neighbors from a 100-UAV swarm, that is necessary to achieve heading
synchronization, and (ii) the analysis to determine if the problem is solved in swarms of different
Citation: Martínez-Clark, R.; sizes, up to 100 UAVs, while maintaining seven nearest neighbors among the members of the group.
Pliego-Jimenez, J.; Flores-Resendiz,
Simulation results and a statistical analysis, support the idea that the simple control algorithm
J.F.; Avilés-Velázquez, D. Optimum
behaves like a flock of starlings.
k-Nearest Neighbors for Heading
Synchronization on a Swarm of UAVs
Keywords: k-nearest neighbors; time varying network; heading synchronization; flocking
under a Time-Evolving
Communication Network. Entropy
2023, 25, 853. https://doi.org/
10.3390/e25060853
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Eduard Jorswieck
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly called drones, are versatile mobile
Received: 1 March 2023 robots that have captivated the attention of the automatic control community. UAVs have
Revised: 11 April 2023 different topologies, there exist fixed-wing ones, which resemble airplanes and, in recent
Accepted: 13 April 2023 years, multi-rotor systems have become the standard for UAV tasks. For example, UAVs
Published: 26 May 2023 have been employed for pesticide and fertilizer dissemination, seed planting, and weed
recognition, etc. [1]. Other applications include search and rescue missions, cinematogra-
phy, and photogrammetry, among others [2].
Regarding photogrammetry, UAVs can aid in the texturization of 3D buildings in the
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
creation of urban models, especially for urban planning or architectural design. In [3],
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
an algorithm for the selection of the optimal building facade texture image, obtained from
This article is an open access article
oblique images gathered with a camera array mounted on a drone, is presented. On the
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
other hand, in [4] the authors used a drone assisted camera array, along with an algo-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
rithm based on Gaussian process regression and quantization of the polynomial mutation
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
operator, to solve the many-objective optimization problem. This algorithm targets four
4.0/). optimization criteria: coverage rate, point-level clarity, uniform clarity, and utilization rate.

Entropy 2023, 25, 853. https://doi.org/10.3390/e25060853 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy

Entropy 2023, 25, 853 2 of 14

The authors relied on the high mobility and flexibility offered by the UAVs, to create the
camera array.
Using different sensors to acquire information remotely, is called remote sensing. This
activity has benefited from the characteristics of UAVs, and in the past decade, marine
research and monitoring has exploited it with myriad applications, ranging from marine
disaster and environmental monitoring, such as algal and jellyfish blooms or man-made
disasters like oil spills, to marine surveying and mapping management, such as coastline
measurement; see [5] and references therein for further applications.
A further problem to which groups of UAVs can be applied, is communication net-
works. Using these robots, in combination with 5G technology, the coverage area for
communication networks can be increased [6], and on-demand communications services
can be offered in temporary massive events or in disaster relief [7]. UAVs will play a key role
in smart cities. Traffic management and road safety could also rely on this technology [8].
Another popular future application employing UAVs, will be the delivery of goods [9].
Most of the aforementioned tasks, would benefit from a multi-agent scheme. The ad-
vantages of this scheme include robustness, expanded area coverage, simultaneous task
completion, and power management. Various control techniques for multi-agent systems
have been applied to UAV groups. In [10], the authors employed an event-triggered dis-
tributed model predictive control, in order to achieve coordination among a group of UAVs.
On the other hand, a master–slave scheme is widely employed, with fixed roles [11] or
dynamic leader changing [12]. Moreover, in [13] the authors designed a control strategy
based on a fractional-order recurrent neural network, combined with an interval-valued
intuitive fuzzy system, in order for a group of unmanned underwater vehicles to decide its
maneuvering strategy in a dynamic target scenario. This combination allowed the group to
take into account the enemy dynamic in a counter-game strategy, while dealing with the
uncertainties due to the environment, such as weak connectivity or high perturbances. Nev-
ertheless, the bulk of multi-agent systems control is based on graph theory. This generally
involves fixed communication graphs.
A current trend in multi-agent systems, is the use of swarm robotics. This is a bio-
inspired control scheme, that takes its inspiration from the self-organized behavior of social
organisms, thus, does not require a declared leader, exhibits high flexibility, including
time-evolving communication networks, and has increased robustness [14]. Some control
techniques for robotic swarms, include ant colony optimization, which is based on the
pheromone trails left by ants to reinforce a singular option of a mutual exclusive set [15–17].
On the other hand, particle swarm optimization, is an algorithm that represents interac-
tions in self-organized groups with evolution capabilities. In this case, the members of
the group share their best solution to the problem, and other members compare it with
theirs, and a cost function determines which they take forward to the next generation of
solutions [18–20].
Another technique, is the so called k-nearest neighbors (k-NN) algorithm, mainly
employed in classification problems, in which, a candidate solution is compared with a
training set, to determine the nearest possible outcome [21]. Regarding swarm robotics, this
technique was inspired by the flocking behavior of birds. In this collective behavior, birds
modify their travel orientation based on the orientation of their flockmates [22]. The main
drawback of this scheme, is that the algorithm has O(n2 ) complexity, because in every
timestep, each member of the group has to determine its neighborhood [23]. The k-NN
algorithm, is a strategy to determine a subset of the group, to apply another consensus or
synchronization strategy. This is important, because this allows the information flow on
the network to be reduced and eases the calculations on every drone. For this reason, it is
important to determine a suitable synchronization technique. Among the simplest control
strategies, the so called consensus algorithm for continuous system is employed widely in
the literature. This is a P-like algorithm frequently used in first-order dynamic systems,
and relies on graph theory to function [24].
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 3 of 14

In order for this strategy to be able to achieve a consensus, it is important that the
communication graph contains a spanning tree [25]. Consensus has successfully been
achieved when implementing this strategy in [26], for a group of micro air vehicles exhibit-
ing a formation behavior. In [27], the authors extended the same consensus protocol to a
second-order system, obtaining a control strategy for a 3D formation in a group of UAVs.
The authors claim that the quick response of the algorithm and high control precision,
make this a suitable controller for engineering applications. On the other hand, in [28] the
authors tackled the formation problem with a group of fixed-wing UAVs, employing fuzzy
model reference adaptive control, to promote self-tuning of a vector-field-based consensus
protocol. This combination allows target tracking with the group, while exhibiting an
adaptive circular motion around the objective. Furthermore, the authors of [29] combined
an improved artificial potential field strategy, with the second-order consensus protocol,
to ensure formation and obstacle avoidance in a group of double integrator model UAVs.
This enhancement in the potential field, can move attractive fields to the desired position,
create repulsive fields for static or dynamic obstacles, and take into account the effect of
other UAVs creating another potential field with them.
Another important collective behavior that is related to consensus or synchronization,
is flocking. This behavior is present in nature, and many collective organisms can exhibit it,
such as schools of fish, flocks of birds, or herds of land mammals. The flocking behavior is
employed to avoid predators, increase the efficiency of locomotion, or even as a hunting
tactic. This collective behavior is characterized by a fluid movement of the whole group,
resembling a single entity [30]. A few decades ago, Reynolds extracted the pillar behaviors
of flocking, which are now considered as Reynolds’ flocking rules [31]:
• Cohesion, which means that the members of the group should stay together. This is
achieved if the elements try to reduce the distance between them.
• Separation, the distance between elements should be enough to ensure that collisions
between flockmates do not occur.
• Alignment, the members of the group have to match their speed vectors. This, has
two requirements, they have to maintain similar linear velocity to stay in the flock,
and the elements need to synchronize their orientation, in order to follow the same
direction of the group.
In [32], the authors combined a vector field to obtain parallel formation, with an
adaptive backstepping technique, to achieve flocking in a group of fixed-wing UAVs.
The proposed strategy, allowed a leaderless convoy formation of the group. On the other
hand, the authors of [33] employed a swarm-intelligence-based multi-layer flocking algo-
rithm, to create a UAV communication network. Swarm-based strategies can optimize
different criteria, with self-organization and self-adaptation. This strategy allows the group
to fly in formation, avoiding collisions, but maintaining the quality of service of their
provided signal, while optimizing power consumption. As stated before, another swarm
inspired algorithm is particle swarm optimization (PSO). In [34], the authors proposed
a flocking algorithm based on multi-objective PSO or MOPSO, this strategy allows the
swarm to follow the Reynolds rules, nevertheless, the authors decided to train a neural
network with the output of the MOPSO strategy, in order to approximate the mathematical
relationship between the UAV flocking state and the flocking controller parameters, to re-
duce the calculation time of the former strategy. Continuing with bio-inspired techniques,
in [35] the authors emulated the hierarchical leadership structure of homing pigeon flocks,
to propose a flocking algorithm. In this scenario, multiple leader–follower relationships
emerge, but at least two spanning trees emerge on the communication graph, this ensures
that there are not isolated nodes in the group. Simulations with a swarm of fixed-wing
UAVs, demonstrated the feasibility of the proposal.
As Reynolds’ rules establish, heading synchronization is fundamental to achieve
flocking in a group of agents. One of the first models to cope with this problem, was
proposed by Vicsek and coauthors [36], in which the particles reach a self-ordered motion,
having constant velocity and changing their orientation with the average direction of
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 4 of 14

motion of the particles in a set neighborhood. Nevertheless, this strategy has two main
drawbacks: it has a singularity problem, due to the average, and it cannot guarantee global
convergence of the heading of the group. To deal with these problems, in [37] the authors
propose two different algorithms to achieve heading consensus. The first one, is a weighted
version of Vicsek’s algorithm, which, along with a perturbation scheme, can cope with
the singularity of the first algorithm. The second algorithm is based on a leader–follower
scheme, in which there exists a member of the group that does not change its direction
due to the influence of others. If the weighted algorithm is applied under this assumption,
a heading reference is always present and, considering that a spanning tree exists in the
communication graph, global convergence is achieved.
On the other hand, in [38] the authors decided to employ differential game theory to
achieve heading consensus in a group of UAVs. In this case, their algorithm is based on a
zero-sum game against a virtual target. This allows every UAV to minimize its heading
error with the average of a neighborhood, according to a directed graph, while minimizing
control efforts. The authors of [39], employed the basic consensus algorithm in a switching
scheme, to achieve formation heading consensus, while the agents avoid obstacles and
can perform in time-variant formations. this problem was solved by including a virtual
graph, which performs the consensus and formation, and physical robots try to converge
to one of the different virtual robots. Another benefit of this approach, is that the system
can perform with robots of different kinematics, in the experimental results reported, they
had a group of multiple-wheeled mobile robots combined with a UAV.
Considering a flocking scenario for a swarm of UAVs, with a simple heading syn-
chronization algorithm and fixed travel velocity, this paper presents a statistical analysis
to determine an optimum neighborhood size. As the UAVs travel around the workspace,
they continuously change their neighbors, thus, the communication network employed
to synchronize the orientation of the robots, is evolving through time. The remainder of
the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 contains the mathematical model of the UAV
and graph theory preliminaries, Section 3 presents the heading synchronization algorithm,
while Section 4 establishes the statistical analysis, in order to find the optimum size of the
neighborhood, along with the simulation results. Section 5 discusses the results, and finally,
in Section 6 some conclusions are stated.

2. Preliminaries
Consider a group of UAVs, the simplified kinematics of a single drone are represented
as [40]  
φ̇
 θ̇ ψ̇a1 + θ̇a2 Ωr + b1 U2 
 

 θ̇ 

 φ̇ψ̇a − φ̇a Ωr + b U 
 3 4 2 3 

 ψ̇ 

 θ̇ φ̇a5 + b3U4 
f ( X, U ) =  (1)
 
ż

 
 1
 g − (cos φ sin θ ) m U1 

ẋ
 
 
1
 

 u x m U1 

 ẏ 
1
uy m U1
with
a1 = ( Iyy − Izz )/Ixx b1 = ℓ/Ixx
a2 = Jr /Ixx b2 = ℓ/Iyy
a3 = ( Izz − Ixx )/Iyy b3 = 1/Izz (2)
a4 = Jr /Iyy

a5 = Ixx − Iyy Izz
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 5 of 14

u x = (cos φ sin θ cos ψ + sin φ sin ψ)

(3)
uy = (cos φ sin θ sin ψ − sin φ cos ψ)
with control inputs Ui | i = 1 . . . 4.
If the drones are commanded to hover over a plane with fixed height, as seen
in Figure 1, after some transformations, generally including backstepping control tech-
niques [41], the kinematics of a single UAV can be expressed as the agent with nonholo-
nomic constraints [42]:  
  cos (θ ) 0  
ẋ ν
= sin (θ ) 0
  (4)
θ̇ ω
0 1
where x ∈ ℜ2 represents the position on the hovering plane, θ is the heading angle, and the
inputs ν and ω correspond to the linear and angular velocities, respectively. If every UAV
flies with a fixed linear velocity, the objective is to synchronize the heading angle θ, in order
to drive a group to a common direction.

Figure 1. Kinematic representation of a UAV hovering, with fixed height.

Graph Theory
Consider a graph of the form G = {N , E }, with the set of nodes N representing the
group of UAVs and the set of edges E corresponding to the communication links between
the members of N , is employed to model the group of UAVs. Some matrices are employed
to define G .
The adjacency matrix Γ, contains the information of the communication streams, thus,
this is a 0–1 matrix, whose elements are obtained as
(
1 if {i, j} ∈ E ,
γij = with i 6= j (5)
0 otherwise

This implies that there are no weighted communications, i.e., if drones i and j are
sharing information, γij = 1.
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 6 of 14

Another important matrix to consider, is degree matrix D, which is diagonal and sums
all the elements that share information to UAV i, with regards to this, the elements of D are
obtained as
N
dii = ∑ γij (6)
j=1,j6=i

Lastly, the coupling matrix A, relates both matrices, to give a complete representation
of a graph, because, for every node it contains the number of neighbors and which one is in
the neighborhood. This matrix is obtained as follows

A = Γ−D (7)

For non-weighted communications, and considering there are not isolated elements,
i.e., those which do not receive any information from other members of the group; and
furthermore, if each UAV has exactly k-neighbors, all of the eigenvectors of A will be
non-positive.
The following examples demonstrate how these matrices are obtained.

Example 1. Consider the undirected graph of Figure 2, in this case, the information flows in both
directions of every edge in the set E . The adjacency matrix Γ corresponding to this graph, is obtained
as follows
 
0 1 0 0 1
 1 0 1 0 1 
 
Γ=  0 1 0 1 1 
 (8)
 0 0 1 0 1 
1 1 1 1 0

5 2

4 3
Figure 2. An undirected graph.

The degree matrix D is easily obtained from the sum of the elements in every row of the
adjacency matrix:
 
2 0 0 0 0
 0 3 0 0 0 
 
D=  0 0 3 0 0 
 (9)
 0 0 0 2 0 
0 0 0 0 4
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 7 of 14

Recalling that the coupling matrix A is formed by the difference of the adjacency and degree
matrices, therefore:
−2
 
1 0 0 1
 1 −3 1 0 1 
 
A=  0 1 − 3 1 1  (10)
 0 0 1 −2 1 
1 1 1 1 −4

Example 2. When information flows only in one direction through every edge, the graph is called
a directed graph, or digraph. In Figure 3, the arrows in the edges indicate the direction of the
information. For digraphs, the adjacency matrix takes into account the nodes from which node i can
retrieve information. Equation (11) describes the adjacency matrix corresponding to the digraph of
Figure 3
 
0 1 0 0 0
 0 0 1 0 0 
 
Γ=  0 0 0 0 1 
 (11)
 0 0 1 0 0 
1 1 0 1 0
The main difference between undirected graphs and digraphs, is that the adjacency, and conse-
quently coupling, matrices are not symmetrical in the former case, a situation that occurs in matrices
associated with undirected graphs. The degree matrix of the digraph in the example, takes the form
 
1 0 0 0 0

 0 1 0 0 0 

D=
 0 0 1 0 0 
 (12)
 0 0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 3

In consequence, the coupling matrix of the digraph is formed as follows,

−1
 
1 0 0 0

 0 −1 1 0 0 

A=
 0 0 −1 0 1 
 (13)
 0 0 1 −1 0 
1 1 0 1 −3

5 2

4 3
Figure 3. A directed graph, or digraph.
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 8 of 14

3. Heading Synchronization
Based on the simple control algorithm to synchronize groups of dynamical systems
proposed by Wang [43], a control law for the i-th UAV, represented by (4), with the purpose
of synchronization of the heading in a group of N UAVs, can take the form

ωi = c ∑ aij θ j (14)
j∈N

where c > 0 is a coupling gain. This corresponds to a proportional control law structure,
in such a case, the synchronization state in a group of N UAVs is achieved asymptotically, as

θ1 (t) = θ2 (t) = · · · = θ N (t), as t → ∞ (15)

Lemma 1 of [44], establishes that the coupling gain, c, can be characterized by the
largest non-zero eigenvalue of A. This implies, that synchronization can be achieved easily
for high-degree graphs.
To assess this controller, a numerical simulation was performed. To achieve this goal,
a script was developed in Matlab version R2018a, using a PC with Windows 10, 11th Gen
Intel i5 processor, and 16 GB of RAM. The simulation scenario included a group of ten UAVs
with nonholonomic constraints, described by (4), coupled with their five nearest neighbors.
The initial positions and orientations were selected randomly over the workspace, and are
depicted in Figure 4.
The experiment lasted 10 simulation seconds, with a sample period of 10 ms. The UAVs
were set to travel at a fixed linear velocity of 15 m/s, over an obstacle-free plane, and their
orientation was governed by the control law (14), with c = 1. In every time step, all
drones identified their 5-NN, in order to obtain ωi (t), as stated before, due to the constant
travel of the UAVs, the neighborhood of every UAV is constantly changing. After 1.5 s
of simulation time, the orientation of the 10 UAVs was synchronized to 173.7 degrees,
as shown in Figure 5. The RMS error of orientation between the drones, is used as a metric
to evidence synchronization, and those errors tend to 0, as shown in Figure 6. The final
positions of the UAVs are presented in Figure 7.

initial postures
5

1
[m]

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
[m]

Figure 4. Initial positions and orientations of the 10 UAVs. Each drone is depicted as a different color.
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 9 of 14

UAVs orientation
350

300

250

X: 1.852
200 Y: 173.7
[deg]

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time [s]

Figure 5. Orientations of the 10 UAVs.

RMS orientation error

18

16

14

12

10
error

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
time [s]

Figure 6. RMS orientation errors.

final postures
24

22

20

18

16
[m]

14

12

10

4
-146 -144 -142 -140 -138 -136 -134
[m]

Figure 7. Final positions and orientations of the 10 UAVs. Each drone is depicted as a different color.
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 10 of 14

4. Optimum k-NN Neighborhood Size for a Group of UAVs

Observing the results from the previous example, it is clear that considering 50% of the
group as a neighborhood is excessive, because the swarm synchronized their orientation
easily. Thus, this percentage can be reduced to ease the complexity of the algorithm,
especially if this scenario is intended to be applied to a swarm of UAVs with limited
computational power. Inspired by this problem, two evaluation scenarios are proposed.
First, a statistical evaluation of the optimal percentage of neighbors in the swarm is
conducted. The heading synchronization algorithm was repeated in a group of 100 UAVs,
changing the neighborhood size in every experiment from 2% to 20%.
Second, and encouraged by [45], who established that neighborhoods in bird flocks are
related to the density and not the spatial size of the flock. Furthermore, the entropy model
of the authors determined that the neighborhood of the different European starling (Sturnus
Vulgaris) flocks analyzed, was 6 ± 0.6 birds. Thus, in the second experiment, the same
heading synchronization algorithm was employed, but in this case, the group size was
varied from 10 to 100 members, maintaining a neighborhood of seven UAVs.
Both experiments were realized 300 times, to acquire statistical relevance, and for both
cases, the RMS heading error of the whole group was calculated and employed as the
metric to determine if synchronization occurs. The simulation parameters were selected as
the ones of the 10 UAV synchronization simulation described in the previous section. In all
cases, the initial positions of the drones were selected randomly.
To obtain the RMS error, first, every drone calculated its mean absolute heading error
θei with the other drones in the swarm, as

N
1
θ ei ( t ) =
N ∑ |θi (t) − θ j (t)| (16)
j=1,j6=i

Then, the RMS error was obtained as the Euclidean norm of θe = (θe1 , θe2 , · · · , θe N ) T .
Only the RMS error at t = 10 s was used in the statistical analysis.
The boxplot of Figure 8, shows the RMS errors obtained at t = 10 s for the 300 ex-
periments applying the first scenario. It is clear that when over 10% of the group size is
part of the neighborhood, synchronization is achieved. However, the median RMS error
of an 8-NN, is 0.69 degrees, while the corresponding value for a 10-NN, is 0.115 degrees.
In practice, we can consider a successful synchronization from 8-NN. Even more, the results
for this particular neighborhood size are more concise, because they have fewer outliers
than the 10-NN case.

100 UAV group heading synchronization

12
RMS heading error [degrees]

10

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Neighborhood [%]

Figure 8. RMS heading errors for the experiment varying the size of the neighborhood over a
100-UAV swarm.
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 11 of 14

In the second simulation environment with a fixed neighborhood size, from Figure 9 it
can be seen that the median RMS heading error of the 300 experiments is below 1 degree
for a swarm up to 80 UAVs, while for the bigger swarm, the median RMS heading error is
1.32 degrees.

Seven neighbors experiment

9

7
RMS error [degrees]

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Swarm size

Figure 9. RMS heading errors for the experiment with a fixed seven-UAV neighborhood.

5. Discussion
As observed in the heading synchronization simulation with ten UAVs and five
neighbors, the goal was achieved within a few iterations of the algorithm. In this case,
a 50% neighborhood size is excessive. With this in mind, the first analysis regarding the
search for the optimal percentage of the group was performed. This experiment ranged
from 2% to 20% neighborhood size of a 100-UAV swarm. The RMS error in the heading
of the drones at the end of the experiment, was taken as the criterion to determine if the
group achieved synchronization. For the 300 iterations run for every neighborhood size,
from 8% and above, the results were satisfactory, this leads us to conclude that, less than
10% of the group in the neighborhood is sufficient to cope with the task.
Inspired by starling flocks, which have been reported to have around seven flockmates,
a second experiment was performed. In this case, a neighborhood of seven UAVs was se-
lected to apply the heading synchronization algorithm, with a swarm from 10 to 100 drones.
In every case, the median RMS heading error of the 300 iterations per swarm size, was less
than 1 degree, which in practice can be considered a successful synchronization, taking into
account that a simple asymptotic control law was employed.
The scope of this work was the determination of an optimal neighborhood size for
the k-NN algorithm, in that sense, only ideal conditions were considered. These include a
full capacity of drones to exchange information with their swarm mates, without delay or
distance limitation. Obviously, in real-world scenarios, these criteria should be taken into
account. The k-NN algorithm does not define a sensing radius for the robots, it considers
that a robot can communicate with its k neighbors. Thus, it is important to determine a good
communication system, sensors with high capacity, if the intention is to apply the system
in open space. The main obstacle of this algorithm is its computational cost, especially
with large swarms, this highlights the importance of having an optimum neighborhood
size, combined with simple control strategies. This leaves enough computational space to
solve the flying algorithm, which can be adapted from the different options presents in
the literature.
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 12 of 14

6. Conclusions
A statistical analysis for k-nearest neighbors heading synchronization in a swarm of
UAVs, was developed in this paper. This problem is important, due to the high computa-
tional cost of the k-NN algorithm, in that sense, in order to reproduce at least 300 iterations
of every experiment to obtain statistical significance, it was not possible to analyze swarms
with more than 100 UAVs with the computational power used. Nevertheless, according to
the literature, a flock of 500 starlings can synchronize using k-NN with k = 7. Driven by this
result, simulations employing one of the simplest synchronization algorithms found in the
literature were performed. In one experiment, a 100-UAV swarm was evaluated, in which,
after 300 iterations, a neighborhood of 8 to 10 neighbors was enough to achieve heading
synchronization. On the other hand, in the experiment with a fixed 7-UAV neighborhood,
evaluated in swarms from 10 to 100 drones, satisfactory results where obtained with up
to an 80-UAV swarm. Probably, a better synchronization algorithm would ensure a full
synchronization for a larger swarm. Nevertheless, k-NN is computationally expensive,
thus, a simple control algorithm has to be employed. Future work can relate the size of the
neighborhood with the coupling gain, c, to ensure that synchronization will be achieved,
and in order to implement the solution, further analysis should be performed regarding
communication capacity. Briefly, the conclusions of this work can be summarized as:
• There exists a bulk of literature on consensus, that relies on the simple P-like consensus
algorithm, some of them combining it with another control technique to improve it
benefits. This algorithm is efficient only if the communication graph is connected,
or at least contains a spanning tree.
• A simple asymptotic P-like controller, was successfully employed to achieve heading
synchronization on a group of up to 100 UAVs.
• For the different scenarios, the statistical evidence shows that seven neighbors were
enough to cope with the problem, as observed in nature with flocks of European
starlings.
• A small neighborhood, combined with a simple heading synchronization based on
graph theory, is recommended to be employed with simple UAVs, especially for the
swarm robotics community.
• Further analysis on the communication scheme should be made to implement this
solution.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.M.-C. and J.P.-J.; methodology, D.A.-V.; software, R.M.-
C. and J.F.F.-R.; validation, J.F.F.-R.; investigation, R.M.-C. and D.A.-V.; writing—original draft
preparation, R.M.-C. and J.P.-J.; writing—review and editing, R.M.-C.; supervision, R.M.-C.; project
administration, R.M.-C.; funding acquisition, J.P.-J. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the CONACYT Research Project “Synchronization of complex
systems and its applications”, under grant number 166654 (A1-S-31628).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: To the CONACYT research projects “Synchronization of complex systems and
its applications”, grant number 166654 (A1-S-31628) and 1030 “Collective behaviors of unmanned
aerial and ground vehicles”.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kim, J.; Kim, S.; Ju, C.; Son, H.I. Unmanned aerial vehicles in agriculture: A review of perspective of platform, control, and
applications. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 105100–105115. [CrossRef]
2. Skorobogatov, G.; Barrado, C.; Salamí, E. Multiple UAV systems: A survey. Unmanned Syst. 2020, 8, 149–169. [CrossRef]
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 13 of 14

3. Zhou, G.; Bao, X.; Ye, S.; Wang, H.; Yan, H. Selection of optimal building facade texture images from UAV-based multiple oblique
image flows. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2020, 59, 1534–1552. [CrossRef]
4. Cao, B.; Li, M.; Liu, X.; Zhao, J.; Cao, W.; Lv, Z. Many-objective deployment optimization for a drone-assisted camera network.
IEEE Trans. Netw. Sci. Eng. 2021, 8, 2756–2764. [CrossRef]
5. Yang, Z.; Yu, X.; Dedman, S.; Rosso, M.; Zhu, J.; Yang, J.; Xia, Y.; Tian, Y.; Zhang, G.; Wang, J. UAV remote sensing applications in
marine monitoring: Knowledge visualization and review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 838, 155939. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Hosseini, N.; Jamal, H.; Haque, J.; Magesacher, T.; Matolak, D.W. UAV command and control, navigation and surveillance: A
review of potential 5G and satellite systems. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, 2–9
March 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–10.
7. Li, B.; Li, Q.; Zeng, Y.; Rong, Y.; Zhang, R. 3D trajectory optimization for energy-efficient UAV communication: A control design
perspective. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 2021, 21, 4579–4593. [CrossRef]
8. Outay, F.; Mengash, H.A.; Adnan, M. Applications of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in road safety, traffic and highway
infrastructure management: Recent advances and challenges. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 141, 116–129. [CrossRef]
9. Muchiri, G.; Kimathi, S. A review of applications and potential applications of UAV. In Proceedings of the Sustainable Research
and Innovation Conference, New York City, NY, USA, 21–22 September 2016; pp. 280–283.
10. Lu, S.; Wang, X.; Wang, L.; Jia, L.; Shao, M.; Yu, Y. Distributed event-trigger model predictive control for stochastic disturbance
systems. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 17th Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (ICIEA), Chengdu, China,
16–19 December 2022; pp. 138–143. [CrossRef]
11. Liang, Y.; Dong, Q.; Zhao, Y. Adaptive leader–follower formation control for swarms of unmanned aerial vehicles with motion
constraints and unknown disturbances. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2020, 33, 2972–2988. [CrossRef]
12. Misra, S.; Deb, P.K.; Saini, K. Dynamic leader selection in a master-slave architecture-based micro UAV swarm. In Proceedings of
the 2021 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Madrid, Spain, 7–11 December 2021; IEEE: New York, NY,
USA, 2021; pp. 1–6.
13. Liu, L.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, L.; Pan, G.; Yu, J. Multi-UUV Maneuvering Counter-Game for Dynamic Target Scenario Based on
Fractional-Order Recurrent Neural Network. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 2022, 1–14. [CrossRef]
14. Brambilla, M.; Ferrante, E.; Birattari, M.; Dorigo, M. Swarm robotics: A review from the swarm engineering perspective. Swarm
Intell. 2013, 7, 1–41. [CrossRef]
15. Duan, H.b.; Zhang, X.y.; Wu, J.; Ma, G.j. Max-min adaptive ant colony optimization approach to multi-UAVs coordinated
trajectory replanning in dynamic and uncertain environments. J. Bionic Eng. 2009, 6, 161–173. [CrossRef]
16. Perez-Carabaza, S.; Besada-Portas, E.; Lopez-Orozco, J.A.; Jesus, M. Ant colony optimization for multi-UAV minimum time
search in uncertain domains. Appl. Soft Comput. 2018, 62, 789–806. [CrossRef]
17. Gao, S.; Wu, J.; Ai, J. Multi-UAV reconnaissance task allocation for heterogeneous targets using grouping ant colony optimization
algorithm. Soft Comput. 2021, 25, 7155–7167. [CrossRef]
18. Duan, H.; Luo, Q.; Shi, Y.; Ma, G. ?Hybrid particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithm for multi-UAV formation
reconfiguration. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 2013, 8, 16–27. [CrossRef]
19. Ghamry, K.A.; Kamel, M.A.; Zhang, Y. Multiple UAVs in forest fire fighting mission using particle swarm optimization. In
Proceedings of the 2017 International conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS), Miami, FL USA, 13–16 June 2017; IEEE:
New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 1404–1409.
20. Shao, S.; Peng, Y.; He, C.; Du, Y. Efficient path planning for UAV formation via comprehensively improved particle swarm
optimization. ISA Trans. 2020, 97, 415–430. [CrossRef]
21. Harrou, F.; Khaldi, B.; Sun, Y.; Cherif, F. An efficient statistical strategy to monitor a robot swarm. IEEE Sens. J. 2019, 20, 2214–2223.
[CrossRef]
22. Lee, J.M.; Cho, S.H.; Calvo, R.A. A fast algorithm for simulation of flocking behavior. In Proceedings of the 2009 International
IEEE Consumer Electronics Society’s Games Innovations Conference, London, UK, 25–28 August 2009; IEEE: New York, NY,
USA, 2009; pp. 186–190.
23. Lee, J.M.; Cho, H.K. A simple heuristic to find efficiently k-nearest neighbors in flocking behaviors. In Proceedings of the
Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications, and Proceedings of the
2012 American Conference on Applied Mathematics, Harvard, MA, USA, 25–27 January 2012; pp. 60–64.
24. Lizzio, F.F.; Capello, E.; Guglieri, G. A Review of Consensus-based Multi-agent UAV Implementations. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2022,
106, 43. [CrossRef]
25. Ren, W.; Beard, R.W.; McLain, T.W. Coordination variables and consensus building in multiple vehicle systems. In Proceedings of
the Cooperative Control: A Post-Workshop Volume 2003 Block Island Workshop on Cooperative Control; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2005; pp. 171–188.
26. Ren, W. Consensus strategies for cooperative control of vehicle formations. IET Control Theory Appl. 2007, 1, 505–512. [CrossRef]
27. Yan, M.d.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, X.x.; Qu, Y.h. Consensus-based three-dimensionalmulti-UAV formation control strategy with high
precision. Front. Inf. Technol. Electron. Eng. 2017, 18, 968–977. [CrossRef]
28. Muslimov, T.Z.; Munasypov, R.A. Multi-UAV cooperative target tracking via consensus-based guidance vector fields and fuzzy
MRAC. Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol. 2021, 93, 1204–1212. [CrossRef]
Entropy 2023, 25, 853 14 of 14

29. Wang, N.; Dai, J.; Ying, J. UAV formation obstacle avoidance control algorithm based on improved artificial potential field and
consensus. Int. J. Aeronaut. Space Sci. 2021, 22, 1413–1427. [CrossRef]
30. Martínez-Clark, R.; Cruz-Hernández, C.; Pliego-Jimenez, J.; Arellano-Delgado, A. Control algorithms for the emergence of self-
organized behaviours in swarms of differential-traction wheeled mobile robots. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2018, 15, 1729881418806435.
[CrossRef]
31. Reynolds, C.W. Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on
Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Anaheim, CA, USA, 27–31 July 1987; pp. 25–34.
32. Muslimov, T.Z.; Munasypov, R.A. Consensus-based cooperative control of parallel fixed-wing UAV formations via adaptive
backstepping. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2021, 109, 106416. [CrossRef]
33. Dai, F.; Chen, M.; Wei, X.; Wang, H. Swarm intelligence-inspired autonomous flocking control in UAV networks. IEEE Access
2019, 7, 61786–61796. [CrossRef]
34. He, T.; Wang, L. Neural network-based velocity-controllable UAV flocking. Aeronaut. J. 2023, 127, 289–304. [CrossRef]
35. Luo, Q.; Duan, H. Distributed UAV flocking control based on homing pigeon hierarchical strategies. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2017,
70, 257–264. [CrossRef]
36. Vicsek, T.; Czirók, A.; Ben-Jacob, E.; Cohen, I.; Shochet, O. Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 1995, 75, 1226. [CrossRef]
37. Li, Q.; Jiang, Z.P. Two decentralized heading consensus algorithms for nonlinear multi-agent systems. Asian J. Control 2008,
10, 187–200. [CrossRef]
38. Bardhan, R.; Ghose, D. Differential games guidance for heading angle consensus among unmanned aerial vehicles. J. Guid.
Control Dyn. 2019, 42, 2568–2575. [CrossRef]
39. Jin, J.; Ramirez, J.P.; Wee, S.; Lee, D.; Kim, Y.; Gans, N. A switched-system approach to formation control and heading consensus
for multi-robot systems. Intell. Serv. Robot. 2018, 11, 207–224. [CrossRef]
40. Bouabdallah, S.; Siegwart, R. Full control of a quadrotor. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems, San Diego, CA, USA, 29 October–2 November 2007; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 153–158.
41. Azar, A.T.; Serrano, F.E.; Kamal, N.A.; Koubaa, A. Robust kinematic control of unmanned aerial vehicles with non-holonomic
constraints. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics 2020, Cairo, Egypt,
19–21 October 2020; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 839–850.
42. Hu, J.; Sun, X.; He, L. Time-varying formation tracking for multiple UAVs with nonholonomic constraints and input quantization
via adaptive backstepping control. Int. J. Aeronaut. Space Sci. 2019, 20, 710–721. [CrossRef]
43. Wang, X.F. Complex networks: Topology, dynamics and synchronization. Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos 2002, 12, 885–916. [CrossRef]
44. Wang, X.F.; Chen, G. Synchronization in small-world dynamical networks. Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos 2002, 12, 187–192. [CrossRef]
45. Bialek, W.; Cavagna, A.; Giardina, I.; Mora, T.; Silvestri, E.; Viale, M.; Walczak, A.M. Statistical mechanics for natural flocks of
birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 4786–4791. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.