Autonomous Robots

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 155–168 | Cite as

Distributed Coordination in Heterogeneous Multi-Robot Systems

  • Luca Iocchi
  • Daniele Nardi
  • Maurizio Piaggio
  • Antonio Sgorbissa


Coordination in multi-robot systems is a very active research field in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, since through coordination one can achieve a more effective execution of the robots' tasks. In this paper we present an approach to distributed coordination of a multi-robot system that is based on dynamic role assignment. The approach relies on the broadcast communication of utility functions that define the capability for every robot to perform a task and on the execution of a coordination protocol for dynamic role assignment. The presented method is robust to communication failures and suitable for application in dynamic environments. In addition to experimental results showing the effectiveness of our approach, the method has been successfully implemented within the team of heterogeneous robots Azzurra Robot Team in a very dynamic hostile environment provided by the RoboCup robotic soccer competitions.

multi-robot systems distributed coordination dynamic task assignment communication 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acar, E., Zhang, Y., Choset, H., Schervish, M., Costa, A.G., Melamud, R., Lean, D., and Graveline, A. 2001. Path planning for robotic demining and development of a test platform, In Field and Service Robotics.Google Scholar
  2. Arkin, R., Collins, T., and Endo, T. 1999. Tactical mobile robot mission specification and execution, In Mobile Robots XIV, Boston, USA, pp. 150–163.Google Scholar
  3. Balch, T. 1999. The impact of diversity on performance in multirobot foraging, In Proc. of Agents'99.Google Scholar
  4. Balch, T. 2000. Hierarchic social entropy: An information theoretic measure of robot team diversity. Autonomous Robots, 8(3).Google Scholar
  5. Balch, T. and Arkin, R.C. 1995. Communication in reactive multiagent robotic systems. Autonomous Robots, 1(1):27–52.Google Scholar
  6. Balch, T. and Arkin, R.C. 1998. Behavior-based formation control for multi-robot teams. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 14(6).Google Scholar
  7. Balch, T. and Parker, L.E. (Eds.). 2002. Robot Teams: From Diversity to Polymorphism, A K Peters Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Blitch, J. 1999. Tactical mobile robots for complex urban environments. In Mobile Robots XIV, Boston, USA, pp. 116–128.Google Scholar
  9. Brendenfeld, A. and Kobialka, H.U. 2000. Team cooperation using dual dynamics. In Proc. of ECAI2000 Workshop on Balancing Reactivity and Social Deliberation in Multi-Agent Systems.Google Scholar
  10. Brooks, R., Maes, P., Mataric, M., and More, G. 1990. Lunar base construction robots. In IEEE International Workshop on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Tsuchiura, Japan, pp. 389–392.Google Scholar
  11. Cao, Y.U., Fukunaga, A., and Kahng, A. 1997. Cooperative mobile robotics: Antecedents and directions. Autonomous Robots, 4:1–23.Google Scholar
  12. Carpin, S., Ferrari, C., Montesello, F., Pagello, E., and Patuelli, P. 2000. Scalable deliberative procedures for efficient multi-robot coordination. In Proc. of ECAI2000 Workshop on Balancing Reactivity and Social Deliberation in Multi-Agent Systems.Google Scholar
  13. Castelpietra, C., Iocchi, L., Nardi, D., Piaggio, M., Scalzo, A., and Sgorbissa, A. 2000. Coordination among heterogenous robotic soccer players. In Proc. of International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS'2000).Google Scholar
  14. Choset, H. 2001. Coverage for robotics—A survey on recent results. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 31:113–126.Google Scholar
  15. Dudek, D., Jenkin, M., Milios, E., and Wilkes, D. 1996. A taxonomy for multi-agent robotics. Autonomous Robots, 3(4):375–397.Google Scholar
  16. Engelore, R. and T.M. (Eds.). 1988. Blackboard Systems. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, J. 1995. HelpMate: A service robot success story. ServiceRobot: An International Journal, 1(1):19–21.Google Scholar
  18. Everett, H.R. and Gage, D. 1996, A third generation security robot. In SPIE Mobile Robot and Automated Vehicle Control Systems, Boston, USA, pp. 20–21.Google Scholar
  19. Ferraresso, M., Ferrari, C., Pagello, E., Polesel, R., Rosati, R., Speranzon, A., and Zanette, W. 2000. Collaborative emergent actions between real soccer robots. In RoboCup-2000: Robot Soccer World Cup IV.Google Scholar
  20. Fontan, M. and Mataric, M. 1998. Territorial multi-robot task division. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 15(5).Google Scholar
  21. Gerkey, B.P. and Matarić, M.J. 2000. ‘Principled communication for dynamic multi-robot task allocation’. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Experimental Robotics, Waikiki, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  22. Guibas, L.J., Latombe, J., LaValle, S., and Lin, D. 1999. A visibility-based pursuit-evasion problem. International Journal of Computational Geometry and Applications, 9:471–494.Google Scholar
  23. Gutmann, J.-S., Weigel, T., and Nebel, B. 1999. Fast, accurate, and robust self-localization in the RoboCup environment. In RoboCup-99: Robot Soccer World Cup III, pp. 304–317.Google Scholar
  24. Hannebauer, M., Wendler, J., Gugenberger, P., and Burkhard, H. 1998. Emergent cooperation in a virtual soccer environment. In Proc. of DARS-98.Google Scholar
  25. Iocchi, L., Nardi, D., and Salerno, M. 2001. Reactivity and deliberation: A survey on multi-robot systems. In E.P.M. Hannebauer and J. Wendler (Ed.), Balancing Reactivity and Deliberation in Multi-Agent Systems (LNAI 2103), Springer, pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
  26. Jung, D. and Zelinsky, A. 2000. Grounded symbolic communication between heterogenoeus cooperating robots. Autonomous Robots, 8(3).Google Scholar
  27. Kitano, H., Asada, M., Kuniyoshi, Y., Noda, I., Osawa, E., and Matsubara, H. 1998. RoboCup: A challenge problem for AI and robotics. In Lecture Note in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1395, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  28. Konolige, K., Myers, K., Ruspini, E., and Saffiotti A. 1997. The saphira architecture: A design for autonomy. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 9(1):215–235.Google Scholar
  29. Lee, J., Huber, M., Durfee, E., and Kenny, P. 1994. M-PRS: An implementation of the procedural reasoning system for multirobot applications. In AIAA/NASA Conference on Intelligent Robots in Field, Factory, Service, and Space.Google Scholar
  30. Miller, D. 1990. Multiple behavior-controlled MicroRobots for planetary surface missions. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Los Angeles, USA, pp. 289–292.Google Scholar
  31. Nardi, D., Adorni, G., Bonarini, A., Chella, A., Clemente, G., Pagello, E., and Piaggio, M. 1999. ART-99: Azzurra Robot Team. In RoboCup-99: Robot Soccer World Cup III.Google Scholar
  32. Noreils, F.R. 1992. Battlefield strategies and coordination between mobile robots. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1777–1784.Google Scholar
  33. Parker, L. 1993. Adaptive action selection for cooperative agent teams. In Proc. of 2nd International Conference on the Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. Honolulu, USA, pp. 442–450.Google Scholar
  34. Parker, L.E. 1998. ALLIANCE: An architecture for fault tolerant multirobot cooperation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 14(2):220–240.Google Scholar
  35. Parker, L.E. 2000. Lifelong adaption in heterogeneous multi-robot teams: Response to continual variation in individual robot performance. Autonomous Robots, 8(3):239–267.Google Scholar
  36. Piaggio, M., Sgorbissa, A., and Zaccaria, R. 2000a. Pre-emptive versus non-pre-emptive real time scheduling in intelligent mobile robotics. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 12:235–245.Google Scholar
  37. Piaggio, M., Sgorbissa, A., and Zaccaria, R. 2000b. A programming environment for real time control of distributed multiple robotic systems. Advanced Robotics, 14(1):75–86.Google Scholar
  38. Piaggio, M., Sgorbissa, A., and Zaccaria, R. 2001. Autonomous navigation and localization in service mobile robotics. In Proc. of IROS'01.Google Scholar
  39. Piaggio, M. and Zaccaria, R. 1997. An information exchange protocol in a multi-layer distributed architecture. In IEEE Proc. Hawaii International Conference on Complex Systems.Google Scholar
  40. Shen, W.M. and Salemi, B. 2002. Distributed and dynamic task reallocation in robot organizations. In Prooceedings of the 2002 IEEE Int. Conference on Robotics and Automation. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  41. Simmons, R., Apfelbaum, D., Fox, D., Goldman, R.P., Haigh, K.Z., Musliner, D.J., Pelican, M., and Thrun, S. 2000. Coordinated deployment of multiple, heterogeneous robots. In Proc. of International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS'2000).Google Scholar
  42. Stone, P. and Veloso, M. 1999. Task decomposition, dynamic role assignment, and low-bandwidth communication for real-time strategic teamwork. Artificial Intelligence, 110(2):241–273.Google Scholar
  43. Uchibe, E., Kato, T., Asada, M., and Hosoda, K. 2001. Dynamic task assignment in a multiagent/multitask environment based on module conflict resolution. In Proced. of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
  44. Veloso, M. and Stone, P. 1998. Individual and collaborative behaviors in a team of homogeneous robotic soccer agents. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 309–316.Google Scholar
  45. Werger, B.B. and Mataric, M.J. 2000. Broadcast of local eligibility for multi-target observation. In Proc. of DARS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Iocchi
    • 1
  • Daniele Nardi
    • 1
  • Maurizio Piaggio
    • 2
  • Antonio Sgorbissa
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItaly
  2. 2.Dept. of Communication, Computer and System SciencesUniversità di GenovaGenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations