Advertisement

Dynamic task allocation in an uncertain environment with heterogeneous multi-agents

  • Hebah ElGibreenEmail author
  • Kamal Youcef-Toumi
Article
  • 93 Downloads

Abstract

Dynamic task allocation (DTA) is a key feature in collaborative robotics. It affects organizations’ profits and allows agents to perform more tasks when efficiently designed. Although some work has been done on DTA, allocating tasks dynamically in an uncertain environment between heterogeneous multi-agents has rarely been investigated. The solutions proposed so far have inefficiently managed uncertainty, and none of them has utilized the semantics of heterogeneous agents’ capabilities. Studies measuring the performance of these techniques on real robots are also scarce. Therefore, this paper proposes an online DTA method, which introduces new functionalities that can be applied in a real environment. In particular, an uncertain incremental cost function is developed with a distributed semantic negotiation strategy that reflects heterogeneous capabilities without needing to communicate them. The proposed method is tested in a dynamic environment and experiments on heterogeneous real/virtual robots are conducted with different numbers of agents. Different statistical and visualization tools are used to analyze the results, including bar graphs for the waiting time metrics, histograms for the waiting time frequency, scatter plots for the result distribution and variance, and critical difference diagrams for ANOVA–Tukey results. The results indicate that the proposed DTA balances allocation quality and reliability, allowing the agents to serve targets equally without neglecting certain targets at the expense of the total performance. Evidently, updating the cost incrementally allows agents to update their allocation and choose better routes to finish the task earlier. Understanding the capability also gives priority to the capable agents that complete the task faster.

Keywords

Dynamic task allocation Heterogeneous multi-agent Ontology Uncertainty theory Robotics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Saudi Aramco for funding the research reported in this paper under the “Saudi Aramco Ibn Khaldun Fellowship for Saudi Women” in partnership with the Center for Clean Water and Clean Energy at MIT. Further thanks are given to Katy G Muhlrad for helping in implementing the ontological part of the proposed method.

References

  1. Bimba, A. T., Idris, N., Al-Hunaiyyan, A., Mahmud, R. B., Abdelaziz, A., Khan, S., et al. (2016). Towards knowledge modeling and manipulation technologies: A survey. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6, Part A), 857–871.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.05.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Choi, H. L., Brunet, L., & How, J. P. (2009). Consensus-based decentralized auctions for robust task allocation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 25(4), 912–926.  https://doi.org/10.1109/tro.2009.2022423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drenjanac, D., Tomic, S. D. K., & Kühn, E. (2015). A semantic framework for modeling adaptive autonomy in task allocation in robotic fleets. In 2015 IEEE 24th international conference on enabling technologies: Infrastructure for collaborative enterprises, 1517 June 2015 (pp. 15–20).  https://doi.org/10.1109/wetice.2015.29.
  4. Farinelli, A., Iocchi, L., & Nardi, D. (2017). Distributed on-line dynamic task assignment for multi-robot patrolling. Autonomous Robots, 41(6), 1321–1345.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-016-9579-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gao, Y. (2011). Shortest path problem with uncertain arc lengths. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 62(6), 2591–2600.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2011.07.058.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. García, P., Caamaño, P., Duro, R. J., & Bellas, F. (2013). Scalable task assignment for heterogeneous multi-robot teams. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 10(2), 105.  https://doi.org/10.5772/55489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hristoskova, A., Agüero, C. E., Veloso, M., & Turck, F. D. (2013). Heterogeneous context-aware robots providing a personalized building tour. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 10(1), 14.  https://doi.org/10.5772/54797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hsieh, C.-F., Chen, R.-C., & Huang, Y.-F. (2014). Applying an ontology to a patrol intrusion detection system for wireless sensor networks. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 10(1), 634748.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/634748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huang, H., & Zhuo, T. (2017). Multi-model cooperative task assignment and path planning of multiple UCAV formation. Multimedia Tools and Applications.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-017-4956-7.Google Scholar
  10. Iocchi, L., Nardi, D., Piaggio, M., & Sgorbissa, A. (2003). Distributed coordination in heterogeneous multi-robot systems. Autonomous Robots, 15(2), 155–168.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025589008533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Khamis, A., Hussein, A., & Elmogy, A. (2015). Multi-robot task allocation: A review of the state-of-the-art. In A. Koubâa & J. R. Martínez-de Dios (Eds.), Cooperative robots and sensor networks 2015 (pp. 31–51). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu, B. (2015). Uncertainty theory (5th ed.)., Springer Uncertainty Research Berlin: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu, L., & Shell, D. A. (2012a). Large-scale multi-robot task allocation via dynamic partitioning and distribution. Autonomous Robots, 33(3), 291–307.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-012-9303-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu, L., & Shell, D. A. (2012). Tackling task allocation uncertainty via a combinatorial method. In 2012 IEEE international symposium on safety, security, and rescue robotics (SSRR), 58 Nov. 2012 (pp. 1–6).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ssrr.2012.6523871.
  15. Liu, H., Zhang, P., Hu, B., & Moore, P. (2015). A novel approach to task assignment in a cooperative multi-agent design system. Applied Intelligence, 43(1), 162–175.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-014-0640-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lozenguez, G., Adouane, L., Beynier, A., Mouaddib, A.-I., & Martinet, P. (2016). Punctual versus continuous auction coordination for multi-robot and multi-task topological navigation. Autonomous Robots, 40(4), 599–613.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-015-9483-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Obitko, M., & Marik, V. (2002). Ontologies for multi-agent systems in manufacturing domain. In Proceedings. 13th international workshop on database and expert systems applications, 26 Sept. 2002 (pp. 597–602).  https://doi.org/10.1109/dexa.2002.1045963.
  18. Parker, J. E. (2013). Task allocation for multi-agent systems in dynamic environments. In Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, St. Paul, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Pippin, C., Christensen, H., & Weiss, L. (2013). Performance based task assignment in multi-robot patrolling. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the 28th annual ACM symposium on applied computing, Coimbra, Portugal.Google Scholar
  20. Portugal, D., & Rocha, R. P. (2016). Cooperative multi-robot patrol with Bayesian learning. Autonomous Robots, 40(5), 929–953.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-015-9503-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Research, S. C. f. B. I. (2017). A free, open-source ontology editor and framework for building intelligent systems. https://protege.stanford.edu/.
  22. Sheng, Y., & Gao, Y. (2016). Shortest path problem of uncertain random network. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 99, 97–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.07.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Su, H.-H., Su, L., Dornhaus, A., & Lynch, N. (2017). Ant-inspired dynamic task allocation via gossiping. In 5th workshop on biological distributed algorithms (BDA 2017), Washington, DC (in press).Google Scholar
  24. Tenorth, M. M. (2011). Knowledge processing for autonomous robots. Doctoral dissertation, Technische Universität München.Google Scholar
  25. UNIHB. (2016). Deliverable D5.2: Technical report/publications on knowledge-base realization. Sherpa: Smart collaboration between humans and ground-aerial robots for improving rescuing activities in Alpine environments.Google Scholar
  26. Ure, N. K., Omidshafiei, S., Lopez, B. T., Agha-Mohammadi, A. A., How, J. P., & Vian, J. (2015). Online heterogeneous multiagent learning under limited communication with applications to forest fire management. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), Sept. 28 2015Oct. 2 2015 (pp. 5181–5188).  https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.2015.7354107.
  27. Wei, C., Hindriks, K. V., & Jonker, C. M. (2016). Dynamic task allocation for multi-robot search and retrieval tasks. Applied Intelligence, 45(2), 383–401.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-016-0771-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wicke, D., Freelan, D., & Luke, S. (2015). Bounty hunters and multiagent task allocation. In Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2015 international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  29. Wurm, K. M., Dornhege, C., Nebel, B., Burgard, W., & Stachniss, C. (2013). Coordinating heterogeneous teams of robots using temporal symbolic planning. Autonomous Robots, 34(4), 277–294.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-012-9320-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang, L., Zhong, H., & Nof, S. Y. (2015). Adaptive fuzzy collaborative task assignment for heterogeneous multirobot systems. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 30(6), 731–762.  https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Technology DepartmentKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)CambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations