How a Cooperative Behavior can emerge from a Robot Team
In this paper, we suggest an hybrid architecture where the deliberative part takes advantages from the reactive one and vice versa, to make a multi-robot system to exhibit some assigned cooperative task. We explain our architecture in terms of schemas and a set of firing conditions. To experiment our approach, we have realized an implementation that tries to exploit the resources of our robot team participating to Middle-size RoboCup tournaments. Each individual exhibits both reactive and deliberative behaviors which are needed to perform cooperative tasks. To this aim we have designed each robot to become aware of distinguishing configuration patterns in the environment by evaluating descriptive conditions as macroparameters. They are implemented at reactive level, whereas the deliberative level is responsible of a dynamic role assignment among teammates on the basis of the knowledge about the best behavior the team could perform. This approach was successfully tessted during the Middle-size Challenge Competition held in Padua on last RobCup2003.
KeywordsMobile Robot Multiagent System Motor Schema Hybrid Architecture Robot Behavior
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.M.A. Arbib. Schema theory. In M.A. Arbib, editor, The Handbook of Brain Theory and Neural Networks, pages 830–834. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995.Google Scholar
- 2.M.A. Arbib. Perceptual structures and distributed motor control. In Handbook of Physiology-The Nervous System II: Motor Control, pages 1449–1480. 1981.Google Scholar
- 3.R.C. Arkin. Motor schemas based navigation for a mobile robot. In IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 264–271. 1987.Google Scholar
- 4.R.C. Arkin. Modeling neural function at the schema level. In Biological Neural Networks in Inverterbrate Neuroethology and Robotics, pages 383–410. 1993.Google Scholar
- 5.R. Brooks. A robust layered control system for a mobile robot. IEEE Jour. of Robotics and Automation, 2(1):14–23, 1986.Google Scholar
- 6.A. D’Angelo, E. Pagello, F. Montesello, and C. Ferrari. Implicit coordination in a multi-agent system using a behaviour-based approach. In Distributed Autonomous Robot Systems 4 (DARS98), Karlsruhe (D), 1998.Google Scholar
- 8.M. Asada A. Birk E. Pagello M. Fujita I. Noda S. Tadokoro D. Duhaut P. Stone M. Veloso T. Balch H. Kitano and B. Thomas. Progress in robocup soccer research in 2000. In Proceedings of the 2000 International Symposium on Experimental Robotics. Honolulu, Dec 2000.Google Scholar
- 9.D. Kurabayashi. Toward realization of collective intelligence and emergent robotics. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Sys., Man and Cyb. (IEEE/SMC ), pages 748–753. Tokyo, 1999.Google Scholar
- 12.E. Pagello C. Ferrari A. D’Angelo F. Montesello. Intelligent multirobot systems performing cooperative tasks. In Special Session on Emergent Systems — Challenge for New System Paradigm, IEEE/SMC, pages 754–760. Tokyo, 1999.Google Scholar
- 13.E. Pagello, A. D’Angelo, and E. Menegatti. Artisti veneti 2002 evolving an heterogeneous robot team for the middle-size league. In A. Birke and G. Kamilka, editors, RoboCup2002, Fukuoka (J), June 2002.Google Scholar
- 15.L. Parker. From social animals to teams of cooperating robots. In IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS’97), Workshop on Multirobot cooperation: Current trends and key issues. Grenoble (France), 1997.Google Scholar
- 16.G. Adorni A. Bonarini G. Clemente D. Nardi E. Pagello M. Piaggio. Art’00 — azzurra robot team for the year 2000. In P. Stone T. Balch and G. Kraetszchmar, editors, RoboCup-2000: Robot Soccer World Cup IV, number 2019 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Berlin, 2001.Google Scholar