Advertisement

Planner-Guided Robot Swarms

  • Michael SchaderEmail author
  • Sean Luke
Conference paper
  • 54 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12092)

Abstract

Robot swarms have many virtues for large-scale task execution: this includes redundancy, a high degree of parallel task implementation, and the potential to jointly complete jobs that a single agent could not do. But because of their distributed nature, robot swarms face challenges in large-scale coordination, task serialization or ordering, and synchronization. We investigate the use of a central automated planner to guide a robot swarm to perform complicated, multistep operations normally beyond the capabilities of purely decentralized swarms. The planner orchestrates the actions of task groups of agents, while preserving swarm virtues, and can operate over a variety of swarm communication and coordination modalities. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the technique in simulation with three swarm robotics scenarios.

Keywords

Coordination and control models for multi-agent systems Knowledge representation and reasoning in robotic systems Swarm behavior 

References

  1. 1.
    Beni, G.: From swarm intelligence to swarm robotics. In: Şahin, E., Spears, W.M. (eds.) SR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3342, pp. 1–9. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30552-1_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bottone, M., Palumbo, F., Primiero, G., Raimondi, F., Stocker, R.: Implementing virtual pheromones in BDI robots using MQTT and jason (short paper). In: 2016 5th IEEE International Conference on Cloud Networking (Cloudnet), pp. 196–199. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brambilla, M., Ferrante, E., Birattari, M., Dorigo, M.: Swarm robotics: a review from the swarm engineering perspective. Swarm Intell. 7(1), 1–41 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cardoso, R.C.: A decentralised online multi-agent planning framework for multi-agent systems (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chibaya, C.: An XSet based protocol for coordinating the behaviour of stigmergic ant-like robotic devices. In: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Research Conference on South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, p. 9. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Durand, J.G.D.S.: A methodology to achieve microscopic/macroscopic configuration tradeoffs in cooperative multi-robot systems design. Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gavran, I., Majumdar, R., Saha, I.: Antlab: a multi-robot task server. ACM Trans. Embed. Comput. Syst. (TECS) 16(5s), 190 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giles, K.: Mission based architecture for swarm composability. Technical report, Naval Postgraduate School Monterey United States (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kanakia, A.P.: Response threshold based task allocation in multi-agent systems performing concurrent benefit tasks with limited information (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaszubowski Lopes, Y.: Supervisory Control Theory for Controlling Swarm Robotics Systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sheffield (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kautz, H., Selman, B.: BLACKBOX: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. In: AIPS98 Workshop on Planning as Combinatorial Search, vol. 58260, pp. 58–60 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan, M.S., HASAN, M., Ahmed, T.: A new multi-robot search algorithm using probabilistic finite state machine and Lennard-Jones potential function (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuckling, J., Ligot, A., Bozhinoski, D., Birattari, M.: Behavior trees as a control architecture in the automatic modular design of robot swarms. In: Dorigo, M., Birattari, M., Blum, C., Christensen, A.L., Reina, A., Trianni, V. (eds.) ANTS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11172, pp. 30–43. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00533-7_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, H., Zhang, P., Hu, B., Moore, P.: A novel approach to task assignment in a cooperative multi-agent design system. Appl. Intell. 43(1), 162–175 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-014-0640-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luke, S., Cioffi-Revilla, C., Panait, L., Sullivan, K.: Mason: a new multi-agent simulation toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Swarmfest Workshop, vol. 8, pp. 316–327. Michigan, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luke, S., Russell, K., Hoyle, B.: Ant geometers. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Life 13, pp. 100–107. MIT Press (2016)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McDermott, D., et al.: PDDL-the planning domain definition language (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pérez, I.F.: Distributed Embodied Evolutionary Adaptation of Behaviors in Swarms of Robotic Agents. Ph.D. thesis, Université de Lorraine (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petersen, K.H., Nagpal, R., Werfel, J.K.: Termes: an autonomous robotic system for three-dimensional collective construction. In: Robotics: Science and Systems VII (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shirazi, A.R.: Bio-Inspired Self-Organizing Swarm Robotics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Surrey, United Kingdom (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trabattoni, M., Valentini, G., Dorigo, M.: Hybrid control of swarms for resource selection. In: Dorigo, M., Birattari, M., Blum, C., Christensen, A.L., Reina, A., Trianni, V. (eds.) ANTS 2018. LNCS, vol. 11172, pp. 57–70. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00533-7_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yusuf, F.: Multi robot task allocation using market based approach. Ph.D. thesis, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations