Advertisement

Optimization Letters

, Volume 9, Issue 8, pp 1787–1803 | Cite as

Optimal task allocation in multi-human multi-robot interaction

  • Monali S. Malvankar-Mehta
  • Siddhartha S. Mehta
Original Paper

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Multi-level programming Human-machine interaction   Unmanned aerial vehicle Resource allocation Optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Bard, J.F.: An efficient point algorithm for a linear two-stage optimization problem. Oper. Res. 31(4), 670–684 (1983)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Bialas, W.F., Karwan, M.H.: On two-level optimization. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 27(1), 211–214 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bialas, W.F., Karwan, M.H.: Two-level linear programming. Manag. Sci. 30(8), 1004–1020 (1984)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Candler, W., Townsley, R.: A linear two-level programming problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 9(1), 59–76 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casbeer, D.W., Holsapple, R.W.: Column generation for a UAV assignment problem with precedence constraints. Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control 21(12), 1421–1433 (2011)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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
  9. 9.
    Chen, J.Y.: UAV-guided navigation for ground robot tele-operation in a military reconnaissance environment. Ergonomics 53(8), 940–950 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, J.Y., Barnes, M.J., Harper-Sciarini, M.: Supervisory control of multiple robots: human-performance issues and user-interface design. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C Appl. Rev. 41(4), 435–454 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, J.Y., Durlach, P.J., Sloan, J.A., Bowens, L.D.: Human-robot interaction in the context of simulated route reconnaissance missions. Mil. Psychol. 20(3), 135 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Cummings, M.L., How, J.P., Whitten, A., Toupet, O.: The impact of human-automation collaboration in decentralized multiple unmanned vehicle control. Proc. IEEE 100(3), 660–671 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dixon, S.R., Wickens, C.D., Chang, D.: Mission control of multiple unmanned aerial vehicles: a workload analysis. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 47(3), 479–487 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fortuny-Amat, J., McCarl, B.: A representation and economic interpretation of a two-level programming problem. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 32(9), 783–792 (1981)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 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
  18. 18.
    Murray, C.C., Karwan, M.H.: An extensile modeling framework for dynamic reassignment and rerouting in cooperative airborne operations. Naval Res. Logist. 57(7), 634–652 (2010)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murray, C.C., Park, W.: Incorporating human factor considerations in unmanned aerial vehicle routing. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 43(4), 860–874 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 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
  22. 22.
    Sheridan, T.B., Parasuraman, R.: Human-automation interaction. Rev. Hum. Factors Ergon. 1(1), 89–129 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shima, T., Rasmussen, S.J., Sparks, A.G., Passino, K.M.: Multiple task assignments for cooperating uninhabited aerial vehicles using genetic algorithms. Comput. Oper. Res. 33(11), 3252–3269 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shimizu, K., Aiyoshi, E.: A new computational method for stackelberg and min-max problems by use of a penalty method. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 26(2), 460–466 (1981)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monali S. Malvankar-Mehta
    • 1
  • Siddhartha S. Mehta
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of OphthalmologyWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringUniversity of FloridaShalimarUSA

Personalised recommendations