Potential scaling effects for asynchronous video in multirobot search
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 48

Potential Scaling Effects for Asynchronous Video in Multirobot Search PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 81 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Potential Scaling Effects for Asynchronous Video in Multirobot Search. Prasanna Velagapudi 1 , Huadong Wang 2 , Paul Scerri 1 , Michael Lewis 2 and Katia Sycara 1 1 Carnegie Mellon University, USA 2 University of Pittsburgh, USA. Urban Search and Rescue (USAR).

Download Presentation

Potential Scaling Effects for Asynchronous Video in Multirobot Search

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Potential scaling effects for asynchronous video in multirobot search

Potential Scaling Effects for Asynchronous Video in Multirobot Search

Prasanna Velagapudi1, Huadong Wang2, Paul Scerri1, Michael Lewis2 and Katia Sycara1

1Carnegie Mellon University, USA2University of Pittsburgh, USA


Urban search and rescue usar

Urban Search and Rescue (USAR)

  • Location and rescue of people in a structural collapse

  • Urban disasters

    • Landslides

    • Earthquakes

    • Terrorism

Credit: NIST


Usar robots

USAR Robots

  • Robots can help

    • Unstable voids

    • Mapping/clearing

  • Want them to be:

    • Small

    • Cheap

    • Plentiful

Credit: NIST


Urban search and rescue usar1

Urban Search and Rescue (USAR)

  • Now: One operator  one robot

    • Directly teleoperated

    • Victim detection through synchronous video

  • Future: One operator  many robots

    • Manufacturing robots is easy

    • Training operators is hard

  • Need to scale navigation and search


Synchronous video

Synchronous Video

  • Most common form of camera teleoperation

    • High bandwidth

    • Low latency

  • Applications

    • Surveillance

    • Bomb disposal

    • Inspection

Credit: iRobot


Synchronous video1

Synchronous Video

  • Does not scale with team size


Synchronous video2

Synchronous Video

  • Does not scale with team size


Synchronous video3

Synchronous Video

  • Does not scale with team size


Asynchronous imagery

Asynchronous Imagery

  • Inspired by planetary robotic solutions

    • Limited bandwidth

    • High latency

  • Multiple photographs from single location

    • Maximizes coverage

    • Can be mapped to virtual pan-tilt-zoom camera


Hypothesis

Hypothesis

  • Asynchronicity may improve performance

    • Helps guarantee coverage

    • Can review imagery on demand

  • Asynchronicity may reduce mental workload

    • Only navigation must be done in real-time

    • Search becomes self-paced


Usarsim

USARSim

  • Based on UnrealEngine2

  • High-fidelity physics

  • “Realistic” rendering

    • Camera

    • Laser scanner (LIDAR)

[http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/usarsim]


Mrcs m ulti r obot c ontrol s ystem

MrCSMulti-robot Control System


Mrcs m ulti r obot c ontrol s ystem1

MrCSMulti-robot Control System

Status Window

Map Overview

Video/ Image Viewer

Waypoint Navigation

Teleoperation


Pilot study

Pilot Study

  • Objective:

    • Find victims  Mark victims on map

  • Control 4 robots

    • Waypoint control (primary)

    • Direct teleoperation

  • Explore the map

    • Map generated online w/ Occupancy Grid SLAM

    • Simulated laser scanners


Experimental conditions

Experimental Conditions

Arena 2

10 Victims

Arena 1


Experimental conditions1

Streaming Mode

Panorama Mode

Panoramas stored for later viewing

Streaming live video

Experimental Conditions


Experimental conditions streaming mode

Experimental Conditions(Streaming Mode)


Experimental conditions panorama mode

Experimental Conditions(Panorama Mode)


Subjects

Subjects

  • 21 paid participants

    • 9 male, 12 female

    • No prior experience with robot control

    • Frequent computer users: 71%

    • Played computers games > 1hr/week: 28%


Method

Method

  • Written instructions

  • 20 min. training session

    • Both streaming and panoramas enabled

    • Encouraged to find and mark at least one victim

  • 20 min. testing session (Arena 1)

  • 20 min. testing session (Arena 2)


Metrics

Metrics

  • Switching times

  • Number of victims

    • Thresholded accuracy


Victims found

Panorama

6

Streaming

5

4

3

2

1

0

Within 0.75m

Within 1m

Within 1.5m

Within 2m

Accuracy Threshold

Victims Found

Average # of victims found


Trial order interaction

7

Panorama First

6

< 2m

< 1.5m

5

4

< 2m

3

< 1.5m

Streaming First

2

1

0

First Session

Second Session

Trial Order Interaction

Average # of victims found


Switching time streaming mode

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of Switches

Switching Time (Streaming Mode)

p=0.064

Average # of reported victims


Switching time panorama mode

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of Switches

Switching Time (Panorama Mode)

Average # of reported victims


Summary

Summary

  • Streaming is better than panoramic

    • Perhaps not by as much as expected

    • Conditions favorable to streaming video

  • Asynchronous performance has potential

    • May avoid forced pace switching

    • May scale with team size


Synchronous scaling

Synchronous Scaling

  • Objective:

    • Find victims  Mark victims on map

  • Control 4, 8, 12 robots

    • Waypoint control (primary)

    • Direct teleoperation

  • Explore the map

    • Map generated online w/ Occupancy Grid SLAM

    • Simulated laser scanners


Experimental conditions2

Experimental Conditions

8

4

12


Experimental conditions streaming mode1

Experimental Conditions(Streaming Mode)


Subjects1

Subjects

  • 15 paid participants

    • 8 male, 7 female

    • No prior experience with robot control

    • Most were frequent computer users


Method1

Method

  • Written instructions

  • 20 min. training session

    • Encouraged to find and mark at least one victim

  • 20 min. testing session (4 robots)

  • 20 min. testing session (8 robots)

  • 20 min. testing session (12 robots)


Metrics1

Metrics

  • Explored regions

  • Number of victims

  • Neglect tolerance

  • Switching times

  • Number of missions

  • NASA-TLX workload


Explored region

Explored Region

Area explored


Victims found1

Victims Found

Number of Victims


Victims found per robot

Victims Found per Robot

Number of Victims


Neglected robots

Neglected Robots

Totally

Number of Robots

Initial Move


Switch times

Switch Times

Number of Switches


Mission numbers

Mission Numbers

Number of Missions


Nasa tlx workload

NASA-TLX Workload

Workload


Fan out

Fan-out

(Neglect Tolerance)

(Interaction Time)


Summary1

Summary

  • Bounded number of directly controllable robots between 8 and 12

    • Diminishing returns as robots are added

    • Performance drops above 8 robots

  • Fan-out parallels the number of robots operator controls

    • Operators using satisficing strategy


Asynchronous scaling proposed

Asynchronous Scaling (Proposed)

  • Objective:

    • Find victims  Mark victims on map

  • Control 4, 8, 12 robots

    • Waypoint control (primary)

    • Direct teleoperation

  • Explore the map

    • Map generated online w/ Occupancy Grid SLAM

    • Simulated laser scanners


Experimental conditions3

Experimental Conditions

8

4

12


Experimental conditions panorama mode1

Experimental Conditions(Panorama Mode)


Method2

Method

  • Written instructions

  • 20 min. training session

    • Both streaming and panoramas enabled

    • Encouraged to find and mark at least one victim

  • 20 min. testing session (4 robots)

  • 20 min. testing session (8 robots)

  • 20 min. testing session (12 robots)


Metrics2

Metrics

  • Explored regions

  • Number of victims

  • Neglect tolerance

  • Switching times

  • Number of missions

  • NASA-TLX workload


Expected contributions

Expected Contributions

  • Determine when asynchronicity is useful

    • Advantages for larger team sizes

    • Simultaneous search is not viable

  • Establish performance baselines for asynchronous search


  • Login