Task-Based Mixed-Initiative Coordination

Chapter
Part of the Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics book series (STAR, volume 76)

Abstract

Interactive teaching is a coordinated activity in many different respects. This includes intra-personal aspects, like the joint production of speech and gestures, as well as inter-personal aspects, like the processing of verbal corrections while an action is performed. Given the experimental paradigm of human-robot interaction research, coordinated activities may be changed, added, or removed in an iterative manner. To keep the system maintainable despite coordination dependencies is an architectural challenge that is systematically analyzed in the following and supported by a toolkit. In many proposed robotic software architectures, coordination of active components that carry out tasks occurs through coupled statemachines that track the shared system state. This represents a generalizable software pattern that we have identified and analyzed in a general manner for the first time.

Furthermore, in mixed-initiative Human-Robot-Interaction, tasks can be initiated by either participant, causing the active and passive roles to change. Such changes have not been addressed before and we have generalized task coordination to encompass them. Last, but not least, distributed state tracking is complex, and previous implementations have thus often placed it entirely in a centralized coordination service that, however, increases coupling. Instead, we have developed a task service toolkit, which can be embedded in components, and demonstrated that this reduces component complexity considerably, without affecting coupling. Based on it, both centralized and de-centralized coordination services are possible.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brooks, R.: A robust layered control system for a mobile robot. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation 2(1), 14–23 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 20(6), 476–493 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gat, E.: Three-layer architectures. In: Kortenkamp, D., Bonasso, R.P., Murphy, R. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence and Mobile Robots, pp. 195–210. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanheide, M., Sagerer, G.: Active memory-based interaction strategies for learning-enabling behaviors. In: International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, RO-MAN, Munich (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kortenkamp, D., Simmons, R.: Robotic System Architectures and Programming, ch. 8, pp. 187–206. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lefebvre, D.R., Saridis, G.N.: A computer architecture for intelligent machines. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 3, pp. 2745–2750 (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lütkebohle, I.: Coordination and composition patterns in the “curious robot” scenario. PhD thesis, Bielefeld University (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lütkebohle, I., Peltason, J., Schillingmann, L., Elbrechter, C., Wrede, B., Wachsmuth, S., Haschke, R.: The Curious Robot - Structuring Interactive Robot Learning. In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lütkebohle, I., Philippsen, R., Pradeep, V., Marder-Eppstein, E., Wachsmuth, S.: Coordination and Control for Complex Robot Software Systems: The Task-State Pattern. Journal of Software Engineering for Robotics (submitted, 2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marder-Eppstein, E., Pradeep, V.: ROS actionlib package documentation (2009), http://www.ros.org/wiki/actionlib
  11. 11.
    Mataric, M.J.: Integration of representation into goal-driven behavior-based robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 8(3), 304–312 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nilsson, N.J.: Shakey the robot. Tech. rep., SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, USA (1984), collection of earlier reportsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plöger, P.G., Pervölz, K., Mies, C., Eyerich, P., Brenner, M., Nebel, B.: The desire service robotics initiative. KI Zeitschrift Künstliche Intelligenz 22(4), 29–32 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 14(2), 131–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saridis, G.: Intelligent robotic control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 28(5), 547–557 (1983)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simmons, R., Apfelbaum, D.: A task description language for robot control. In: Proc. of Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Systems (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Simmons, R.G.: Structured control for autonomous robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 10(1), 34–43 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Volpe, R., Nesnas, I., Estlin, T., Mutz, D., Petras, R., Das, H.: The claraty architecture for robotic autonomy. In: IEEE Proceedings Conference on Aerospace 2001, vol. 1, pp. 1/121–1/131 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wrede, S., Hanheide, M., Wachsmuth, S., Sagerer, G.: Integration and coordination in a cognitive vision system. In: International Conference on Computer Vision Systems (ICVS). IEEE, St. Johns University (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognitive Interaction Technology Excellence Cluster (CIT-EC)Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations