Advertisement

Dynamic teams of robots as ad hoc distributed computers: reducing the complexity of multi-robot motion planning via subspace selection

  • Michael Otte
  • Nikolaus Correll
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue on Distributed Robotics: From Fundamentals to Applications

Abstract

We solve the multi-robot path planning problem using three complimentary techniques: (1) robots that must coordinate to avoid collisions form temporary dynamic teams. (2) Robots in each dynamic team become a distributed computer by pooling their computational resources over ad hoc wireless Ethernet. (3) The computational complexity of each team’s problem is reduced by carefully constraining the environmental subspace in which the problem is considered. An important contribution of this work is a method for quickly choosing the subspace, used for (3), to which each team’s problem is constrained. The heuristic is based on a tile-like pebble motion game, and returns true only if a subset of the environment will permit a solution to be found (otherwise it returns false). We perform experiments with teams of four and six CU Prairiedog robots (built on the iRobot Create platform) deployed in a large residence hall, as well as ten robots in random simulated environments.

Keywords

Motion planning Multi robot team Ad hoc distributed computer Any-Com Dynamic team 

References

  1. Al-Wahedi, K. (2000). A hybrid local-global motion planner for multi-agent coordination. Masters thesis, Case Western Reserve University.Google Scholar
  2. Allred, J., Hasan, A. B., Panichsakul, S., Pisano, W., Gray, P., Huang, J., et al. (2007). Sensorflock: An airborne wireless sensor network of micro-air vehicles. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on embedded networked sensor systems (pp. 117–129).Google Scholar
  3. Amstutz, P., Correll, N., & Martinoli, A. (2009). Distributed boundary coverage with a team of networked miniature robots using a robust market-based algorithm. Annals of Mathematics and Artifcial Intelligence Special Issue on Coverage, Exploration, and Search, 52(2–4), 307–333.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrichiello, F., Das, J., Heidarsson, H., Pereira, A., Chiaverini, S., & Sukhatme, G. S. (2009). Multi-robot collaboration with range-limited communication: Experiments with two underactuated ASVs. In International conference on field and service robots.Google Scholar
  5. Auletta, V., Monti, A., Parente, M., & Persiano, P. (1999). A linear-time algorithm for the feasibility of pebble motion on trees. Algorithmica, 23(3), 223–245.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Best, G., Cliff, O., Patten, T., Mettu, R., & Fitch, R. (2016). Decentralised monte carlo tree search for active perception. In: International workshop on the algorithmic foundations of robotics (WAFR), San Francisco, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, C. M., Rock, S. M., & Latombe, J. C. (2003). Motion planning for multiple mobile robots using dynamic networks. In IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2003. Proceedings. ICRA’03 (Vol. 3, pp. 4222–4227). IEEE.Google Scholar
  8. de Wilde, B., Ter Mors, A. W., & Witteveen, C. (2014). Push and rotate: A complete multi-agent pathfinding algorithm. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 51, 443–492.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Desaraju, V. R., & How, J. P. (2012). Decentralized path planning for multi-agent teams with complex constraints. Autonomous Robots, 32(4), 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dixon, C., & Frew, E. W. (2007). Maintaining optimal communication chains in robotic sensor networks using mobility control. In International conference on robot communication and coordination.Google Scholar
  11. Elston, J., Frew, E., Lawrence, D., Gray, P., & Argrow, B. (2009). Net-centric communication and control for a heterogeneous unmanned aircraft system. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 56(1–2), 199–232.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferguson, D., & Stentz, A. (2006). Anytime RRTS. In 2006 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (pp. 5369–5375). IEEE.Google Scholar
  13. Ford, K. M., Allen, J., Suri, N., Hayes, P. J., & Morris, R. (2010). PIM: A novel architecture for coordinating behavior of distributed systems. AI Magazine, 31(2), 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gammell, J. D., Srinivasa, S. S., & Barfoot, T. D. (2014). Informed RRT*: Optimal sampling-based path planning focused via direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic. In 2014 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS 2014) (pp. 2997–3004). IEEE.Google Scholar
  15. Goldreich, O. (2011). Finding the shortest move-sequence in the graph-generalized 15-puzzle is NP-hard. In O. Goldreich (Ed.), Studies in complexity and cryptography. Miscellanea on the interplay between randomness and computation. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6650). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Holland, O., Woods, J., De Nardi, R., & Clarck, A. (2005). Beyond swarm intelligence: The ultraswarm. In IEEE swarm intelligence symposium.Google Scholar
  17. Hollinger, G., Yerramalli, S., Singh, S., Mitra, U., & Sukhatme, G. (2011). Distributed coordination and data fusion for underwater search. In IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (pp. 349–355).Google Scholar
  18. Hsieh, M. A., Chaimowicz, L., Cowley, A., Grocholsky, B., Keller, J., Kumar, V., et al. (2007). Adaptive teams of autonomous aerial and ground robots for situational awareness. Journal of Field Robotics, 24(11), 991–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsu, D., Kindel, R., Latombe, J. C., & Rock, S. (2002). Randomized kinodynamic motion planning with moving obstacles. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 21(3), 233–255.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, M., Intlekofer Jr, K., Jung, H., Bradshaw, J. M., Allen, J., Suri, N., et al. (2008). Coordinated operations in mixed teams of humans and robots. In Proceedings of the first IEEE conference on distributed human-machine systems.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, W. W., Story, W. E., et al. (1879). Notes on the puzzle. American Journal of Mathematics, 2(4), 397–404.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Khoo, A., & Horswill, I. (2002). An efficient coordination architecture for autonomous robot teams. In IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2002. Proceedings. ICRA ’02 (Vol. 1, pp. 287–292).Google Scholar
  23. Kornhauser, D., Miller, G., & Spirakis, P. (1984). Coordinating pebble motion on graphs, the diameter of permutation groups, and applications. In 25th annual symposium on foundations of computer science (pp. 241–250).  https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1984.715921.
  24. Krontiris, A., Luna, R., & Bekris, K. E. (2013). From feasibility tests to path planners for multi-agent pathfinding. In Sixth annual symposium on combinatorial search.Google Scholar
  25. Loyd, S. (1959). Mathematical puzzles of Sam Loyd. New York: Dover Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Nardi, R. D., Holland, O., Woods, J., & Clark, A. (2006). Swarmav: A swarm of miniature aerial vehicles. Technical Report.Google Scholar
  27. Otte, M. (2011). Any-Com multi-robot path planning. Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
  28. Otte, M. (2016). Collective cognition & sensing in robotic swarms via an emergent group mind. In International symposium on experimental robotics (ISER), Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  29. Otte, M., & Correll, N. (2013a). Any-Com multi-robot path-planning: Maximizing collaboration for variable bandwidth (pp. 161–173). Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32723-0.Google Scholar
  30. Otte, M., & Correll, N. (2013b). C-FOREST: Parallel shortest-path planning with super linear speedup. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 29, 798–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Otte, M., & Correll, N. (2014). Any-Com multi-robot path-planning with dynamic teams: Multi-robot coordination under communication constraints (pp. 743–757). Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28572-1_51.Google Scholar
  32. Peasgood, M., McPhee, J., & Clark, C. (2006). Complete and scalable multi-robot planning in tunnel environments. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 39(20), 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ratner, D., & Warmuth, M. (1986). Finding a shortest solution for the n\(\times \)n extension of the 15-puzzle is intractable. In AAAI (pp. 168–172).Google Scholar
  34. Rutishauser, S., Correll, N., & Martinoli, A. (2009). Collaborative coverage using a swarm of networked miniature robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 57(5), 517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scerri, P., Owens, S., Yu, B., & Sycara, K. (2007). A decentralized approach to space deconfliction. In 2007 10th international conference on information fusion (pp. 1–8). IEEE.Google Scholar
  36. Sharon, G., Stern, R., Felner, A., & Sturtevant, N. R. (2012). Meta-agent conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent path finding. In SOCS.Google Scholar
  37. Sharon, G., Stern, R., Felner, A., & Sturtevant, N. R. (2015). Conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent pathfinding. Artificial Intelligence, 219, 40–66.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Solovey, K., & Halperin, D. (2014). k-color multi-robot motion planning. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 33(1), 82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Standley, T., & Korf, R. (2011). Complete algorithms for cooperative pathfinding problems. In IJCAI (pp. 668–673).Google Scholar
  40. Suri, N., & Cabri, G. (2014). Adaptive, dynamic, and resilient systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  41. Suri, N., Marcon, M., Quitadamo, R., Rebeschini, M., Arguedas, M., Stabellini, S., et al. (2008). An adaptive and efficient peer-to-peer service-oriented architecture for manet environments with agile computing. In Network operations and management symposium workshops (pp. 364–371). IEEE.Google Scholar
  42. Suri, N., Rebeschini, M., Breedy, M., Carvalho, M., & Arguedas, M. (2006). Resource and service discovery in wireless ad-hoc networks with agile computing. In Military Communications Conference, 2006. MILCOM 2006 (pp. 1–7). IEEE.Google Scholar
  43. Surynek, P. (2009). An application of pebble motion on graphs to abstract multi-robot path planning. In 21st IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (pp. 151–158). IEEE.Google Scholar
  44. Surynek, P. (2014). Solving abstract cooperative path-finding in densely populated environments. Computational Intelligence, 30(2), 402–450.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Sutton, D. J., Klein, P., Otte, M., & Correll, N. (2010). Object interaction language (oil): An intent-based language for programming self-organized sensor/actuator networks. In IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS).Google Scholar
  46. van Den Berg, J., Snoeyink, J., Lin, M. C., & Manocha, D. (2009). Centralized path planning for multiple robots: Optimal decoupling into sequential plans. In RSS.Google Scholar
  47. Voyles, R. M., Bae, J., Larson, A. C., & Ayad, M. A. (2009). Wireless video sensor networks for sparse, resource-constrained, multi-robot teams. Intelligent Service Robotics, 2(4), 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Voyles, R., Povilus, S., Mangharam, R., & Li, K. (2010). Reconode: A reconfigurable node for heterogeneous multi-robot search and rescue. In IEEE international workshop on safety, security and rescue robotics.Google Scholar
  49. Wagner, G., & Choset, H. (2015). Subdimensional expansion for multirobot path planning. Artificial Intelligence, 219, 1–24.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Wagner, G., Kang, M., & Choset, H. (2012). Probabilistic path planning for multiple robots with subdimensional expansion. In 2012 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) (pp. 2886–2892). IEEE.Google Scholar
  51. Wedge, N. A., & Branicky, M. S. (2008). On heavy-tailed runtimes and restarts in rapidly-exploring random trees. In AAAI Conference on artificial intelligence.Google Scholar
  52. Wilson, R. M. (1974). Graph puzzles, homotopy, and the alternating group. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 16(1), 86–96.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Yu, J., & Rus, D. (2015). Pebble motion on graphs with rotations: Efficient feasibility tests and planning algorithms. In H. L Akin, N. M. Amato, V. Isler, & A. F van der Stappen (Eds.), Algorithmic foundations of robotics XI (pp. 729–746). Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations