1 / 42

Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm. Part 1: Overview & Managerial Architectures Part 2: State Hierarchy Architectures. Objectives. Describe the hybrid paradigm in terms of 1) SPA and 2) sensing organization

rae
Download Presentation

Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

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. Chapter 7:Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm Part 1: Overview & Managerial Architectures Part 2: State Hierarchy Architectures Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  2. Objectives • Describe the hybrid paradigm in terms of 1) SPA and 2) sensing organization • Given a list of responsibilities, be able to say whether it belongs in the deliberative layer or in the reactive layer • List the five basic components of a Hybrid architecture: sequencer agent, resource manager, cartographer, mission planner, performance monitoring and problem solving agent. • Be able to describe the difference between managerial, state hierarchy, and model-oriented styles of Hybrid architectures. • Be able to describe the use of state to define behaviors and deliberative responsibilities in state hierarchy styles of Hybrid architectures Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  3. Motivating Example for Deliberation: USAR • Worker places robot at entrance to unstable building, loads in the floor plan, contextual knowledge and tells robot to look for survivors efficiently and map out safe routes for workers to pass through • contextual knowledge includes probability of where people are more likely to be What can a reactive architecture do? What can’t it do? Path planning, handling detours due to blockage, map making, learn from past rescues Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  4. Organization: Plan, Sense-Act Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  5. Sensing Organization Deliberative functions *Can “eavesdrop” *Can have their own Sensors *Have output which Looks like a sensor Output to a behavior (virtual sensor) Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  6. Deliberation v. Reactionas a function of TIME • Past, Present, Future • Reactive • exists in the PRESENT (will a bit of duration) • Deliberative • can reason about the PAST • can project into the FUTURE Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  7. Architectures:Key Questions • How does the architecture distinguish between reaction and deliberation? • How does it organize responsibilities in the deliberative portion? • How does overall behavior emerge? Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  8. Architectures: Common Functionality • Mission planner • Cartographer • Sequencer agent • Behavioral manager • Performance monitor/problem solving agent (fairly rare) Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  9. Architectures: 3 Styles • Managerial (division of responsibilities looks like in business) • AuRA, SFX • State Hierarchies (strictly by time scope) • 3T • Model-Oriented (models serve as virtual sensors) • Saphira, TCA Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  10. Mgr Architecture 1:AuRA (Autonomous Robot Arch.) Ron Arkin, Georgia Institute of Technology Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  11. AuRA Architectural Layout deliberative reactive Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  12. Architectures: Common Functionality • Mission planner • Cartographer • Sequencer agent • Behavioral manager • Performance monitor/problem solving agent Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  13. Performance Monitoring Cartographer Mission Planner Sequencer Behavioral manager (mgr+schemas) Emergent behavior AuRA Architectural Layout Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  14. HOW WOULD THIS DO USAR TASK? Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  15. Example USAR (overlay) • Cartographer accepts the map • Navigator uses path planning algorithm to visit nodes in order of likelihood of survivors • Pilot determines the list of behaviors, Motor Schema Manager instantiates them (MS & PS) and waits for termination • Homeostatic might notice that robot is running out of power, so opportunistically picks up low probability room on way back to home Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  16. Mgr. Architecture 2:SFX (Sensor Fusion Effects) • Focus on sensing • Biomimetic organization • deliberative layer consists of managerial agents • reactive layer has tactical behaviors Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  17. SFX (Sensor Fusion Effects) Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  18. Recognition perception Cartographer (model/map making) Deliberative Layer Managers Cerebral Cortex-like functions Deliberative Layer Choice of behaviors, resource allocation, motivation, context Sensor Whiteboard Behavioral Whiteboard Parameters to behaviors, sensor failures, task progress Behaviors (using direct perception, fusion) Superior Colliculus-like functions Sense Reactive Layer Sense Sense Receptive Field actions Sense Sense Sense Muscle Sense Sense Muscle Sense Sense Muscle Focus of attention, recalibration Sensor Actuators SFX (Sensor Fusion Effects) Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  19. SFX Implementation HOW WOULD THIS DO USAR? Task Planner Sensor Mgr Cartographer Effector Mgr Information directs sensing Lisp Interface Mgr Sensors Acuators Behaviors C++ Sensors Sensors Behaviors Acuators Behaviors Use, Fuse Behaviors Sensors Sensors Acuators Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  20. Example USAR (overlay) • Cartographer accepts the map • Task Planner agent asks for path, requests behaviors, passes to managerial layer • Sensing and Effector Mgrs negotiate allocation • Behaviors run until terminate or encounter exception (either preset condition by mgrs or through monitoring) • Mgrs can see “below” but not above--cannot relax constraint of Planner/Boss Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  21. Tactical Behaviors Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  22. Summary:Managerial Architectures • How does the architecture distinguish between reaction and deliberation? • Deliberation: global knowledge or world models, projection forward or backward in time • Reaction: behaviors which have some past/persistence of perception and external state • How does it organize responsibilities in the deliberative portion? • hierarchy of managerial responsibility, managers may be peer software agents • How does overall behavior emerge? • From interactions of a set of behaviors dynamically instantiated and modified by the deliberative layer • assemblages of behaviors Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  23. Chapter 7:Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm Part 1: Overview & Managerial Architectures Part 2: State Hierarchy & Model-Based Architectures Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  24. State Hierarchy Architectures • How does the architecture distinguish between reaction and deliberation? • Deliberation: requires PAST or FUTURE knowledge • Reaction: behaviors are purely reflexive and have only local, behavior specific; require only PRESENT • How does it organize responsibilities in the deliberative portion? • By internal temporal state • PRESENT (controller) • PAST (sequencer) • FUTURE (planner) • By speed of execution • How does overall behavior emerge? • From generation and monitoring of a sequence of behaviors • assemblages of behaviors called skills • subsumption Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  25. 3T Architecture • Used extensively at NASA • Merging of subsumption variation (Gat, Bonasso), RAPs (Firby), and vision (Kortenkamp) • Has 3 layers • reactive • deliberative • in-between (reactive planning) • Arranges by time • Arranges by execution rate • ex. vision in deliberation Dave Kortenkamp, TRAC Labs (NASA JSC) Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  26. Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  27. Mission planner Performance monitor cartographer sequencer Behavior mgr Emergent behavior Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  28. 3T architecture • Skills have associated events, to verify that an action had correct effect. • Skills operate only in the Present, • components of the sequencer layer operate on state information about the Past, as well as present,planner layer works state information about the Past and Present to plan the Future, • slow algorithms are in the Planner, fast algorithms go into the Skill Manager Layer, so vision algorithms were placed in the Planner despite their low-level sensing functions. Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  29. Model-Oriented Architectures • How does the architecture distinguish between reaction and deliberation? • Deliberation: anything relating a behavior to a goal or objective • Reaction: behaviors are “small control units” operating in present, but may use global knowledge as if it were a sensor (virtual sensor) • How does it organize responsibilities in the deliberative portion? • Behavioral component • Model of the world and state of the robot • throwback to Hierarchical Paradigm with global world model but virtual sensors • Deliberative functions • How does overall behavior emerge? • From generation and monitoring of a sequence of behaviors • voting or fuzzy logic for combination Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  30. Model-Oriented Architectures • Top-down, symbolic flavor, • symbolic manipulation around a global world model, • world model supply perception with virtual sensors, • different than the hierarchical model: - model restricted to labeling objects of interest like hallway, door, et, - perceptual processing is distributed and asynchronous - sensor errors and uncertaity can be filtered using sensor fusion over time to improve performance, - increase in processor speed and optimizing compilers solved the processing bottleneck Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  31. Saphira Architecture • Developed at SRI by Konolige, Myers, Saffioti • Comes with Pioneer robots • Behaviors produce fuzzy outputs, fuzzy logic combines them • Has a global rep called a Local Perceptual Structure to filter noise • Instead of RAPs, uses PRS-Lite Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  32. Saphira and LPS Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  33. PRS - Procedural Reasoning System • Reactivity - postponement of the elaboration of plans until it is necessary, • plans are but determined continuously in reaction to the current situation, • plans in progress can be interrupted and abandoned at any time, • plans represent the robot’s desired behavior, • a symbolic plan always drives the system, Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  34. Emergent behavior Sequencer agent, Mission Planning, Performance mon. Behavior mgr Cartographer Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  35. Saphira • Three tenets of successful mobile robot architecture: - coordination of robot’s sensors, actuators and its goals over time ( not adressed by the reactive architecture), - coherence - ability of the robot to maintain global information about its world - essential for good behavioral performance and interaction with humans, - ability to community with other robots and humans • deliberation activities distributed among software agents, some of them running on a local workstation, • reactive components consists of behaviors, • behaviors extract virtual sensor inputs from the Local Perceptual Space, • behavioral output is fuzzy rules , which are fused together using fuzzy logic into a velocity and steer commands, Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  36. Task Control Architecture • Developed by Reid Simmons • Used extensively by CMU Field Robotics Projects • NASA’s Nomad, Ambler, Dante • Closest to Hierarchical in philosophy, but strong reactive theme showing up in implementation Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  37. TCA • closer to an operating system architecture, • tasks instead of behaviors, • uses dedicated sensing structures called evidence grids corresponding to a distributed global world model, • Task Scheduling Layer (using Prodigy planner) determines the task flow, interacts with the user, determines the goals and order of execution, • navigation handled by a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP), • Obstacle Avoidance Layer uses a curvature-velocity method to factor not only obstacles but how to respond with a smooth trajectory Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  38. TCA Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  39. Other Hybrid Architectures • SSS - Servo Subsumption Symbolic - 3 layers, - world models are a convenience not a necessity, - symbolic (deliberative) layer switches behaviors on and off and provides parameters - symbolic layer - where to go next (strategic) - subsumption - where to go now (tactical) • SOMASS Hybrid Assembly System - cognitive (deliberative)/subcognitive (reactive) - planner as ignorant as possible, hierarchical, - subcognitive components execute plan downloaded to the robot, - planning as configuration. Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  40. Other Hybrid Architectures • Agent Architecture - plans are descriptions of intended behaviors, - two levels: physical (perception and action), cognitive (higher level reasoning), - functional boundary is blurred - reactive components can coexist within each level. • Theo Agent - reacts when it can, plans when it must, - focusses on learning - how to become more reactive, more correct and more perceptive, - rule selection and execution, - when no rule available, new rule added by the planner Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  41. Evaluation of Hybrids • Support of Modularity: high • Niche targetability: high (ex. Lower levels of AuRA, SFX, 2 1/2 T is just reactive) • Robustness: SFX and 3T explicitly monitor performance of the reactive behaviors and either replace or adapt the configuration as needed, • better comply with the software engineering principles, • global world models used only for sumbolic functions, • frame problem reduced by the principle - “Think in closed world, act in open world” • planners produce only partial plans asynchronously with the reactos Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

  42. Hybrid Summary • P,S-A, deliberation uses global world models, reactive uses behavior-specific or virtual sensors • Architectures generally have modules for mission planner, sequencer, behavioral mgr, cartographer, and performance monitoring • Deliberative component is often divided into sub-layers (sequencer/mission planner or managers/mission planner) • Reactive component tends to use assemblages of behaviors • Roots in ethology and a framework for exploring cognitive science. Chapter 7: Hybrid Deliberative/Reactive Paradigm

More Related