Assessment of Situational Awareness in Groups of Interacting Robots

  • Alexander Ya. Fridman
  • Boris A. KulikEmail author
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 261)


Problem statement: Groups of proactive SEMS-based robots need to be taught for cooperative functioning. Efficiency of learning and teaching algorithms has to be checked by modeling. The concept of situation awareness (SA) provides a promising tool for such checks. Purpose of research: Concretization of the concept of SA for the tasks of organizing the teamwork of interacting robots. Results: Quantitative assessment of SA and its three main aspects (perception of environmental elements, comprehending of the situation and projecting future statuses) for groups of robots. Practical significance: Objective specification of self-assessment functions for equal-ranking robots allows to prevent conflicts among them, and to ensure coordination of robots interactions within hierarchical groups.


SEMS-based robot Robots cooperation Quantitative assessment of situation awareness Coordination of robots interactions 



The authors would like to thank the Russian Foundation for Basic Researches (grants 16-29-04424, 18-29-03022, 18-07-00132, 18-01-00076, and 19-08-0079) for partial funding of this research.


  1. 1.
    Afanasyev, A.P., Baturin, Yu.M., Yeremchenko, E.N., Kirillov, I.A., Klimenko, S.V.: Information-analytical system for decision-making on the basis of a network of distributed situational centres. Inf. Technol. Comput. Syst. 2, 3–14 (2010). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldassarre, G., Nolfi, S., Parisi, D.: Evolving mobile robots able to display collective behaviors. Artif. Life 9(3), 255–267 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banbury, S., Tremblay, S.: A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness: Theory and Application, pp. 317–341. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, UK (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Endsley, M.R.: Situation awareness measurement in test and evaluation. In: O’Brien, T.G., Charlton, S.G. (eds.) Handbook of Human Factors Testing & Evaluation, pp. 159–180. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endsley, M.R.: Direct measurement of situation awareness in simulations of dynamic systems: validity and use of SAGAT. In: Garland, D.J., Endsley, M.R. (eds.) Experimental Analysis and Measurement of Situation Awareness, pp. 107–113. Embry-Riddle University, Daytona Beach, FL (2000a)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Endsley, M.R.: Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: a critical review. In: Endsley, M.R., Garland, D.J. (eds.) Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement, pp. 3–32. LEA, Mahwah, NJ (2000b)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Endsley, M.R.: Final reflections: situation awareness models and measures. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 9(1), 101–111 (2015a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Endsley, M.R.: Situation awareness misconceptions and misunderstandings. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Mak. 9(1), 4–32 (2015b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Endsley, M.R., Jones, W.M.: A model of inter- and intra team situation awareness: implications for design, training and measurement. In: McNeese, M., Salas, E., Endsley, M. (eds.) New Trends in Cooperative Activities: Understanding System Dynamics in Complex Environments, pp. 46–67. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ermolov, I.L.: Emerging issues of robots to be used in groups. In: Gorodetskiy, A.E., Kurbanov, V.G. (eds.) Smart Electromechanical Systems: Group Interaction. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol. 174, pp. 3–8. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Basel, Switzerland (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fridman, A., Fridman, O.: Gradient coordination technique for controlling hierarchical and network systems. Syst. Res. Forum 4(2), 121–136 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fridman, A.Ya.: Expert space for situational modelling of industrial-natural systems. Herald of the Moscow University Named after S.Y. Witte 1(4), 233–245 (2014). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fridman, A.Ya.: Situational Control of the Structure of Industrial-Natural Systems. Methods and Models. LAP, Saarbrucken, Germany (2015). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fridman, A.Ya.: SEMS-based control in locally organized hierarchical structures of robots collectives. In: Gorodetskiy, A.E., Kurbanov, V.G. (eds.) Smart Electromechanical Systems: The Central Nervous System. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol. 95, chap. 3, pp. 31–50. Springer, Switzerland (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fridman, A.Ya., Kurbanov, V.G.: Situational modelling of reliability and safety in industrial-natural systems. Inf. Manag. Syst. 4(71), 1–10 (2014). (in Russia)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. A Bradford Book. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lundberg, J.: Situation awareness systems, states and processes: a holistic framework. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oleynik, A., Fridman, A., Masloboev, A.: Informational and analytical support of a network of intelligent situational centers in the Russian Arctic. In: IT&MathAZ 2018 Information Technologies and Mathematical Modeling for Efficient Development of Arctic Zone. Proceedings of the International Research Workshop on Information Technologies and Mathematical Modeling for Efficient Development of Arctic Zone, pp. 57–64, Yekaterinburg, Russia, 19–21 Apr 2018Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patrick, J., Morgan, P.L.: Approaches to understanding, analysis and developing situation awareness. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 11(1–2), 41–57 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Popovich, V.V., Prokaev, A.N., Sorokin, P.P., Smirnova, O.V.: On recognizing the situation based on the technology of artificial intelligence. In: SPIIRAS Proceedings, issue 7, pp. 93–104. SPb Science (2008). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shkodyrev, V.P.: Technical systems control: from mechatronics to cyber-physical systems. In: Gorodetskiy, A.E. (ed.) Smart Electromechanical Systems. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol. 49, pp. 3–6. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sokolov, B., Ivanov, D., Fridman, A.: Situational modelling for structural dynamics control of industry-business processes and supply chains. Intelligent Systems: From Theory to Practice. Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp. 279–308. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sowa, J.F.: Conceptual Structures—Information Processing in Mind and Machines. Addison-Wesley Publ. Comp, Reading, MA (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yakovlev, S.Yu., Isakevich, N.V., Ryzhenko, A.A., Fridman, A.Ya.: Risk assessment and control: implementation of information technologies for safety of enterprises in the Murmansk region. In: Barents Newsletter on Occupational Health and Safety, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 84–86, Helsinki (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yampolsky, S.M., Kostenko, A.N.: Situational approach to management of organizational and technical systems in operations planning. Sci. Intens. Technol. Space Res. Earth 8(2), 62–69 (2016). (in Russian)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zenker, F., Gärdenfors, P.: Applications of Conceptual Spaces. The Case for Geometric Knowledge Representation. Synthese Library, vol. 359. Springer, New York (2015)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Kola Science Centre of RASApatityRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Problems in Mechanical Engineering, Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS)St. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations