Advertisement

Applied Intelligence

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 383–401 | Cite as

Dynamic task allocation for multi-robot search and retrieval tasks

  • Changyun WeiEmail author
  • Koen V. Hindriks
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
Article

Abstract

Many application domains require search and retrieval, which is also known in the robotic domain as foraging. For example, in a search and rescue domain, a disaster area needs to be explored and transportation of survivors to a safe area needs to be arranged. Performing such a search and retrieval task by more than one robot increases performance if they are able to distribute their workload efficiently and evenly. In this work, we study the Multi-Robot Task Allocation (MRTA) problem in the search and retrieval domain, where a team of robots is required to cooperatively search for targets of interest in an environment and also retrieve them back to a home base. In comparison with typical foraging tasks, we look at a more general search and retrieval task in which the targets are distinguished with various types, and task allocation also requires taking into account temporal constraints on the team goal. As usual, robots have no prior knowledge about the location of targets in the environment but in addition they need to deliver targets to the home base in a specific order according to their types, which significantly increases the complexity of a foraging problem. We first use a graph-based model to analyse the search and retrieval problem and the dynamics of exploration and retrieval within a cooperative team. We then proceed to present an extended auction-based approach, as well as a prediction approach. The essential difference between these two approaches is that the task allocation and execution procedures in the auction approach are running in parallel, whereas a robot in the prediction approach only needs to choose a task to perform when it has no thing to do. The auction approach uses a winner determination mechanism to allocate tasks to each robot, whereas the robots in the prediction approach implicitly coordinate their activities by team reasoning that leads to consensuses about task allocation. We use the Blocks World for Teams (BW4T) simulator to evaluate the two approaches in our experimental study.

Keywords

Multi-robot teamwork Search and retrieval Task allocation Coordination 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2015B30114). We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for providing us with constructive comments and suggestions.

References

  1. 1.
    Bektas T (2006) The multiple traveling salesman problem: an overview of formulations and solution procedures. Omega 34:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernardine Dias M, Zinck M, Zlot R, Stentz A (2004) Robust multirobot coordination in dynamic environments. In: Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), vol 4. IEEE, pp 3435–3442Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burgard W, Moors M, Stachniss C, Schneider FE (2005) Coordinated multi-robot exploration. IEEE Trans Robot 21(3):376–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campo A, Dorigo M (2007) Efficient multi-foraging in swarm robotics. In: Advances in artificial life. Springer, pp 696–705Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cao YU, Fukunaga AS, Kahng AB (1997) Cooperative mobile robotics: antecedents and directions. Auton Robot 4:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen J, Sun D (2011) Resource constrained multirobot task allocation based on leader–follower coalition methodology. Int J Robot Res 30(12):1423–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dasgupta P (2011) Multi-robot task allocation for performing cooperative foraging tasks in an initially unknown environment. In: Innovations in defence support systems-2. Springer, pp 5–20Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davids A (2002) Urban search and rescue robots: from tragedy to technology. Intelligent Systems. IEEE 17 (2):81–83Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dias MB, Zlot R, Kalra N, Stentz A (2006) Market-based multirobot coordination: a survey and analysis. Proc IEEE 94(7):1257–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farinelli A, Iocchi L, Nardi D (2004) Multirobot systems: a classification focused on coordination. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 34(5):2015–2028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Han Y, Li D, Chen J, Yang X, Hu Y (2009) Task allocation algorithm based on robot ability and relevance with group collaboration in a robot team. In: Second international conference on intelligent networks and intelligent systems. IEEE, pp 273–277Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hindriks K (2013) The goal agent programming language. http://ii.tudelft.nl/trac/goal
  13. 13.
    Hompel MT, Schmidt T (2006) Warehouse management: automation and organisation of warehouse and order picking systems (intralogistik). Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson M, Jonker C, Riemsdijk B, Feltovich P, Bradshaw J (2009) Joint activity testbed: blocks world for teams (bw4t). In: Engineering societies in the agents world x, LNCS, vol 5881. Springer, pp 254–256Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaminka GA (2012) Autonomous agents research in robotics: a report from the trenches. In: 2012 AAAI Spring symposium seriesGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koenig S, Keskinocak P, Tovey CA (2010) Progress on agent coordination with cooperative auctions. In: AAAIGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Koenig S, Tovey C, Lagoudakis M, Markakis V, Kempe D, Keskinocak P, Kleywegt A, Meyerson A, Jain S (2006) The power of sequential single-item auctions for agent coordination. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence. Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999, vol 21, p 1625Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koenig S, Zheng X, Tovey C, Borie R, Kilby P, Markakis V, Keskinocak P (2008) Agent coordination with regret clearing. In: Proceedings of the 23rd national conference on artificial intelligence, vol 1, AAAI’08, pp 101–107. AAAI PressGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Krannich S, Maehle E (2009) Analysis of spatially limited local communication for multi-robot foraging. In: Progress in robotics, pp 322–331. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Labella TH, Dorigo M, Deneubourg JL (2007) Self-organised task allocation in a group of robots. In: Distributed autonomous robotic systems 6, pp 389–398. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lagoudakis MG, Markakis E, Kempe D, Keskinocak P, Kleywegt A, Koenig S, Tovey C, Meyerson A, Jain S (2005) Auction-based multi-robot routing. In: Proceedings of robotics: Science and systems, pp 343–350Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu W, Winfield AF, Sa J, Chen J, Dou L (2007) Towards energy optimization: emergent task allocation in a swarm of foraging robots. Adapt Behav 15(3):289–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nanjanath M, Gini M (2008) Performance evaluation of repeated auctions for robust task execution. In: Simulation, modeling, and programming for autonomous robots, pp 317–327. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parker LE (1998) Alliance: An architecture for fault tolerant multirobot cooperation. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 14(2):220–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parker LE (2008) Distributed intelligence: overview of the field and its application in multi-robot systems. J Phys Agents 2(1):5–14Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schoenig A, Pagnucco M (2011) Evaluating sequential single-item auctions for dynamic task allocation. In: AI 2010: advances in artificial intelligence, pp 506–515. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tovey C, Lagoudakis MG, Jain S, Koenig S (2005) The generation of bidding rules for auction-based robot coordination. In: Multi-robot systems. From swarms to intelligent automata, vol III, pp 3–14. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsalatsanis A, Yalcin A, Valavanis KP (2009) Optimized task allocation in cooperative robot teams. In: 17Th mediterranean conference on control and automation, pp 270–275. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wei C, Hindriks K, Jonker CM (2014) The role of communication in coordination protocols for cooperative robot teams. In: Proceedings of international conference on agents and artifical intelligence (ICAART), pp 28–39Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Winfield A (2009) Foraging robots. In: Meyers R.A. (ed) Encyclopedia of complexity and systems science. Springer, New York, pp 3682–3700Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yuh J (2000) Design and control of autonomous underwater robots: a survey. Auton Robot 8(1):7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zheng X, Koenig S (2009) K-swaps: cooperative negotiation for solving task-allocation problems. In: Proceedings of the 21st international jont conference on artifical intelligence, pp 373–378. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers IncGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zlot R, Stentz A (2005) Complex task allocation for multiple robots. In: Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 1515–1522. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zlot R, Stentz A (2006) Market-based multirobot coordination for complex tasks. Int J Robot Res 25(1): 73–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zlot R, Stentz AT, Dias MB, Thayer S (2002) Multi-robot exploration controlled by a market economy. In: IEEE International conference on robotics and automation, vol 3, pp 3016–3023. IEEEGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Changyun Wei
    • 1
    Email author
  • Koen V. Hindriks
    • 2
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Mechanical and Electrical EngineeringHohai UniversityChangzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Interactive Intelligence GroupDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations