1 / 61

Multi-Robot Systems, Part II

Multi-Robot Systems, Part II. April 3, 2007. “The mob has many heads but no brains”. -- English Proverb. Today. Last time. Topics we’ll look at in Multi-Robot Systems. Introduction /Overview of Field Issues in multi-robot communication

chanel
Download Presentation

Multi-Robot Systems, Part II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Multi-Robot Systems, Part II April 3, 2007 “The mob has many heads but no brains”. -- English Proverb.

  2. Today Last time Topics we’ll look at in Multi-Robot Systems • Introduction/Overview of Field • Issues in multi-robot communication • Swarm behaviors, including flocking, dispersion, aggregation, etc. • Formations • Task Allocation

  3. Motion Coordination: Formation-Keeping • Objective: • Robots maintain specific formation while collectively moving along path • Examples: • Column formation: • Line formation: L. E. Parker, “Designing Control Laws for Cooperative-Agent Teams”, Proc. of ICRA, 1993.

  4. Formations Key Issues: • What is desired formation? • How do robots determine their desired position in the formation? • How do robots determine their actual position in the formation? • How do robots move to ensure that formation is maintained? • What should robots do if there are obstacles? • How do we evaluate robot formation performance?

  5. Example Movies of Column Formation-Keeping Parker, 1995 Parker et al., 2001

  6. Issue in Formation Keeping: Local vs. Global Control • Local control laws: • No robot has all pertinent information • Appealing because of their simplicity and potential to generate globally emergent functionality • But, may be difficult to design to achieve desired group behavior • Global control laws: • Centralized controller (or all robots) possess all pertinent information • Generally allow more coherent cooperation • But, usually increases inter-agent communication

  7. Descriptions: Global Goals, Global Knowledge, Local Control • Global Goals: • Specify overall mission the team must accomplish • Typically imposed by centralized controller • May be known at compile time, or only at run-time • Global Knowledge: • Additional information needed to achieve global goals • E.g., information on capabilities of other robots, on environment, etc. • Local Control: • Based upon proximate environment of robot • Derived from sensory feedback • Enables reactive response to dynamic environmental changes

  8. Tradeoffs between Global and Local Control • Questions to be addressed: • How static is global knowledge? • How difficult is it to obtain reliable global knowledge? • How badly will performance degrade without use of global knowledge? • How difficult is it to use global knowledge? • How costly is it to violate global goals? • In general: • The more unknown the global information is, the more dependence on local control

  9. Demonstration of Tradeoffs in Formation-Keeping • Measure of performance: Cumulative formation error: • Strategies to investigate: • Local control alone • Local control + global goal • Local control + global goal + partial global knowledge • Local control + global goal + more complete global knowledge Where di(t) = distance robot i is from ideal formation position at time t

  10. Formation Keeping Objective Leader

  11. Strategy I: Local Control • Group leader knows path waypoints • Each robot assigned local leader + position offset from local leader • As group leader moves, individual robots maintain relative position to local leaders

  12. C B D A Results of Strategy I

  13. Strategy II: Local Control + Global Goal • Group leader knows path waypoints • Each robot assigned global leader + position offset from global leader • As group leader moves, individual robots maintain relative position to global leader

  14. C B D A Results of Strategy II

  15. Strategy III: Local Control + Global Goal + Partial Global Knowledge • Group leader knows path waypoints • Each robot assigned global leader + position offset from global leader • Each robot knows next waypoint • As group leader moves, individual robots maintain relative position to global leader

  16. C B D A Results of Strategy III

  17. Strategy IV: Local Control + Global Goal+ More Complete Global Knowledge • Group leader knows path waypoints • Each robot assigned global leader + position offset from global leader • Each robot knows current and next waypoints • As group leader moves, individual robots maintain relative position to global leader

  18. C B D A Results of Strategy IV

  19. Time and Cumulative Formation Error Results Time Required to Complete Mission Strategy IV * Strategy III * Strategy II ******** **** Strategy I ********* * Time 0 10 20 30 40 50 Normalized Cumulative Formation Error Strategy IV *** Strategy III *** Strategy II ******** ** Strategy I ** **** ** *** ** Error 0 50 100 150 300 200 250

  20. Summary of This Formation-Keeping Control Case Study • Important to achieve proper balance between local and global knowledge and goals • Static global knowledge ==> easy to use as global control law • Local knowledge ==> appropriate when can approximate global knowledge • Local control information should be used to ground global knowledge in the current situation.

  21. Another formation example:Let’s look at approach of Balch (1998) “Behavior-Based Formation Control for Multiagent Robot Teams”, by Tucker Balch, Ronald C. Arkin Published in: IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation December, 1998. Available online at: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~trb/papers/formjour.ps.Z

  22. Motor Schemas Used for Formation-Keeping • Move-to-goal • Avoid-static-obstacle • Avoid-robot • Maintain-formation: • Perceptual schema: detect-formation-position • Accomplished by: • Determining robot’s desired location for the formation type in use • Determining robot’s relative position in the overall formation • Determining other robots’ locations • Motor schema output vector: • Computed toward position whose magnitude is based on how far out of position the robot is

  23. Output Vector Magnitude Calculation • Dead zone: • Robot is within acceptable positional tolerance. • Output vector magnitude is always 0. • Controlled zone: • Robot is somewhat out of position. • Output vector magnitude decreases linearly from a maximum at zone’s furthest edge to 0 at the inner edge. • Directional component: points toward dead zone’s center. • Ballistic zone: • Output vector magnitude is set to its maximum • Directional component points toward the center of the computed dead zone Magnitudes: Ballistic Zone Controlled Zone Dead Zone

  24. Formation and Obstacle Avoidance • Barriers -- choices for handling include: • Move as a unit around barrier • Divide into subgroups • Choice depends upon relative strengths of behaviors

  25. 4 1 2 4 3 3 2 4 3 1 2 4 2 3 1 2 1 1 4 2 1 3 3 4 1 3 4 2 Balch’s Formation Types and Position Determination Formations: Column Line Diamond Wedge Position Determination: Unit-center Leader Neighbor

  26. Requirements of Formation Techniques • Unit-center approach: • Requires transmitter and receiver for all robots • Requires protocol for exchanging position information • Places heavy demand on passive sensor systems: each robot has to track 3 other robots that may be spread across a very large field of view • Leader-referenced approach: • Requires only one transmitter for leader and one receiver for each follower robot • Thus, has reduced communications bandwidth • Require tracking only one robot • However, leader may be too far away to sense • Local interactions among robots may make little sense, if they aren’t paying attention to each other • Neighbor-referenced approach: • Requires tracking only one other robot • However, less information on global formation requirements  could be more formation error

  27. Balch’s Formation Results • For 90 degree turns: • Diamond formation best with unit-center-reference • Wedge, line formations best with leader-reference • For obstacle-rich environments: • Column formation best with either unit-center or leader-reference • Most cases: • Unit-center better than leader-center • Except: • If using human leader, not reasonable to expect to use unit-center • Unit-center requires transmitter and receiver for all robots, whereas leader-center only requires transmitter at leader plus receivers for all robots • Passive sensors are difficult to use for unit-center

  28. 4 1 2 4 3 3 2 4 3 1 2 4 2 3 1 2 1 1 4 2 1 3 3 4 1 3 4 2 Balch’s Formation Types and Position Determination Formations: Column Line Diamond Wedge Position Determination: Unit-center Leader Neighbor

  29. Summary of Balch Formation-Keeping Control Case Study • Formations can be maintained using a motor-schema, motion vector output approach • No single type of formation-control strategy is best for all types of formations • Different strategies have different sensing requirements • Different strategies have different levels of robustness • Keeping formations while moving around obstacles can be difficult

  30. Task Allocation • Task allocation is the problem of determining which robot should perform which task(s) • Given:n robots, {r1, r2, …, rn} m tasks, {t1, t2, …, tm} • Objective: find mapping of tasks to robots, so that each task is accomplished in the best possible manner. • Challenge: This mapping has been shown to be NP-hard (I.e., possible solutions are exponential in the number of robots and tasks

  31. Gerkey’s Taxonomy for Task Allocation • Tasks: single-robot (SR) or multi-robot (MR) • Robots: single-task (ST) or multi-task (MT) • Assignments: instantaneous (IA) or time-extended (TA) Combine these 3 axes into a single descriptive, such as: • SR-ST-TA: Single-robot tasks, single-task robots, with time-extended assignment • MR-ST-IA: Multi-robot tasks, single-task robots, instantaneous assignment

  32. Most work: SR-ST-IA and SR-ST-TA • Today, we’ll give 2 examples: • ALLIANCE (Parker, 1994): Behavior-based task allocation • MURDOCH (Gerkey & Mataric, 2002): Market-based task allocation

  33. Key Features of ALLIANCE • Fully distributed • Behavior-based • Works with heterogeneous robots • Enables dynamic task-reallocation • Reduced communication overhead; no negotiations • Uses mathematical motivation models, impatience and acquiescence, towards adaptive action selection • Implemented on a team of physical robots

  34. Assumptions in ALLIANCE • Robots can detect the effects of their own actions. • Robot ri can detect the actions of other team members through explicit communication. • Robots on the team are not intentionally adversarial. • Tobots do not possess perfect sensors. • Any of the robot subsystems can fail. • The communication medium is not guaranteed to be available. • Robot failure cannot necessarily be communicated to other robots. • The robots do not have complete world knowledge. Note : The assumptions are made with respect to small to medium sized team of multi-robots.

  35. Overview of ALLIANCE • Overall mission is decomposed into a set of high level tasks. • High level tasks are achieved by means of a number of behavior sets that an individual robot is capable of executing. • Behavior sets are classified as active, if robot is executing that behavior set, or hibernating, if otherwise. • Only one behavior set is active at any point in time. • The selection of the behavior set is done by means of motivational behaviors, each of which controls the activation of one behavior set.

  36. ALLIANCE c r o s s - i n h i b i t i o n I n t e r - R o b o t M o t i v a t i o n a l M o t i v a t i o n a l M o t i v a t i o n a l C o m m u n i - B e h a v i o r B e h a v i o r B e h a v i o r c a t i o n B e h a v i o r B e h a v i o r B e h a v i o r S e t 1 S e t 0 S e t 2 L a y e r 2 A c t u a t o r s L a y e r 1 S e n s o r s L a y e r 0 ALLIANCE Architecture

  37. Motivational Behaviors • ALLIANCE uses motivation for task monitoring and dynamic task reallocation. • Each motivational behavior receives input from a number of sources including: • Sensory feedback • Inter-robot communication • Inhibitory feedback • Internal motivations. These inputs are used to generate the output at any point of time. • The output defines the activation level of each behavior. • Once the activation level exceeds the preset threshold for each behavior, the behavior is activated. • ALLIANCE uses 2 types of internal motivation: impatience and acquiescence • Impatience: enables the robot to handle situations external to itself. • Acquiescence: enables the robot to handle internal situations.

  38. Motivational Behaviors (con’t.) • A robot’s motivation value to activate a behavior is initialized to 0. • Over a period of time the robot’s motivation level increases at a rate that depends on the activities of its teammates: • If no robot is accomplishing a behavior, then the motivation level increases at a fast rate of impatience. • If another robot is working on the behavior then the motivational level increases at a slower rate of impatience. • At the same time the robot’s willingness to give up a task increases over time as long as the sensory task indicates the task is not being accomplished.

  39. ALLIANCE Formal Model n robots m independent subtasks Behavior sets of robot ri Task in T that riis working on when aik is active Threshold of activation If sensory feedback of riat time t indicates that aij is applicable Otherwise If rihas received message from rk concerning task hi(aij) in (t1,t2) Otherwise If aijis active, , on robot riat time t activity_suppression Otherwise

  40. ALLIANCE Formal Model (con’t.) otherwise otherwise

  41. ALLIANCE Formal Model (con’t.) Whenever mij(t)> q, aijis activated.

  42. Example Adaptive Box Pushing

  43. Robot Control in Box Pushing

  44. Robot Control in Box Pushing (con’t.)

  45. Typical Behavior Traces in ALLIANCE

  46. L-ALLIANCE • Dynamically updates the parameter settings based upon knowledge learned from previous experiences. • Each robot ‘observes’, evaluates and cataloges the performance of any team member whenever it performs a task of interest to that robot. • These ‘learned’ observations allow the robot to adapt their action selection over time. • The underlying algorithm is distributed across the behavior sets of ALLIANCE.

  47. More Experiments • Experiments conducted on physical robots: teams of 3 R-2 robots were used in all experiments. • Hazardous waste cleanup mission • Mission requires two artificially ‘hazardous’ waste spills in an enclosed room to be cleaned up by a team of three robots. • The robot team must locate the two waste spills, move the spills to a goal location, while also periodically reporting the team progress to humans monitoring the system.

  48. Summary of ALLIANCE Results • The cooperative team under ALLIANCE was robust • The team was able to respond autonomously to various types of unexpected events either in the environment or in the robot team without the need for external intervention. • The cooperative team need not have a priori knowledge of the abilities of the other team members to efficiently complete the task. • ALLAINCE allows the robot teams to accomplish their missions even when communication system breaks down.

  49. Summary of ALLIANCE • ALLIANCE is a fully distributed, behavior based approach for fault tolerant mobile-robot cooperation. • ALLIANCE enhances team robustness through usage of motivational behavior mechanism. • Physical redundancy can be used to enhance fault tolerance of the system. • The L-ALLIANCE enhances ALLIANCE architecture by using learning algorithm to fine tune the impatience and acquiescence parameters. • The architecture has been implemented on a team of physical robots, thereby illustrating its feasibility.

  50. Another Task Allocation Approach: MURDOCH (Gerkey ’02) • Anonymous communication via broadcast • saves bandwidth when sending messages to multiple recipients • allows robots to move in and out of range • Hierarchical task structure • each task is a tree containing other tasks • flexible enough to handle a wide variety of tasks • Auctions • scalable • cheap to broadcast and compute (only one round of bidding) • allow modularization • similar to CNP negotiation scheme, but without centralized broker

More Related