Optimal task allocation in multi-human multi-robot interaction
Multi-human multi-robot interaction is a complex system in which robots, e.g., unmanned aerial vehicles, may share information with a group of human operators to perform geographically-dispersed priority-based tasks within a specified time. In this complex system, the key is to optimally allocate tasks comprising of high-risk and low-risk information at multiple-levels in order to maximize effectiveness of the entire system given the limited resources. A multi-level programming model is developed in which an agent allocates information received from multiple robots to multiple team leaders who in turn distribute information to operators within their teams. The objective of the agent is to optimally allocate tasks to multiple team leaders to maximize the overall system performance and to minimize the processing cost and time while considering human factors. The developed model is solved using backward induction and details are presented in reverse time sequence. If human factors are included along with the productivity metrics then the performance of the multi-human multi-robot interaction systems can be improved.
KeywordsMulti-level programming Human-machine interaction Unmanned aerial vehicle Resource allocation Optimization
This research is supported in part by a grant from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR-LRIR), the AFRL Mathematical Modeling and Optimization Institute contracts #FA8651-08-D-0108/042-043, and the USDA NIFA AFRI National Robotics Initiative #2013-67021-21074. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency.
- 2.Bertuccelli, L., Beckers, N., Cummings, M.: Developing operator models for UAV search scheduling. In: AIAA Conf. on Guidance, Navigation and Control, Toronto, Canada (2010)Google Scholar
- 7.Chandler, P.R., Pachter, M., Rasmussen, S., Schumacher, C.: Multiple task assignment for a UAV team. In: AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit (2002)Google Scholar
- 8.Chappelle, W., McDonald, K., McMillan, K.: Important and critical psychological attributes of USAF MQ-1 predator and MQ-9 reaper pilots according to subject matter experts. In: Technical Report No. AFRL-SA-WP-TR-2011-0002, School Of Aerospace Medicine, Wright Patterson AFB, OH (2011)Google Scholar
- 12.Cummings, M., Mastracchio, C., Thornburg, K., Mkrtchyan, A.: Boredom and distraction in multiple unmanned vehicle supervisory control. Interact. Comput. 25(1), 34–47 (2013)Google Scholar
- 16.Ganapathy, S., Prabhala, S., Narayanan, S., Hill, R.R., Gallimore, J.J.: Interactive model-based decision making for time-critical vehicle routing. In: Human-in-the-loop Simulations, pp. 203–220. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
- 17.Mehta, S.S., Berg-Yuen, P.E.K., Pasiliao, E.L., Murphey, R.A.: A control architecture for human-machine interaction in the presence of unreliable automation and operator cognitive limitations. In: Proc. of AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control (GNC) Conf., pp. AIAA 2012–4543. Minneapolis, MN (2012)Google Scholar
- 20.Savla, K., Temple, T., Frazzoli, E.: Human-in-the-loop vehicle routing policies for dynamic environments. In: 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2008. CDC 2008, pp. 1145–1150. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
- 21.Schaefer, P., Colgren, R.D., Abbott, R.J., Park, H., Fijany, A., Fisher, F., James, M.L., Chien, S., Mackey, R., Zak, M., et al.: Technologies for reliable autonomous control (TRAC) of UAVs. In: Digital Avionics Systems Conference, 2000. Proceedings. DASC. the 19th, vol. 1, pp. 1E3-1. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
- 25.Tvaryanas, A.P., Thompson, B.T., Constable, S.H.: Us military unmanned aerial vehicle mishaps: assessment of the role of human factors using hfacs. In: 311th Performance Enhancement Directorate, US Air Force, Brooks AFB, TX (2005)Google Scholar
- 26.Williams, K.W.: A summary of unmanned aircraft accident/incident data: human factors implications. In: Technical Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-04/24, US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, Oklahoma City (2004)Google Scholar