Reliable Control Architecture with PLEXIL and ROS for Autonomous Wheeled Robots

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 735)

Abstract

Today’s autonomous robots are being used for complex tasks, including space exploration, military applications, and precision agriculture. As the complexity of control architectures increases, reliability of autonomous robots becomes more challenging to guarantee. This paper presents a hybrid control architecture, based on the Plan Execution Interchange Language (\(\text {PLEXIL}\)), for autonomy of wheeled robots running the Robot Operating System (\(\text {ROS}\)). \(\text {PLEXIL}\) is a synchronous reactive language developed by NASA for mission critical robotic systems, while \(\text {ROS}\) is one of the most popular frameworks for robotic middle-ware development. Given the safety-critical nature of spacecraft operations, \(\text {PLEXIL}\) operational semantics has been mathematically defined, and formal techniques and tools have been developed to automatically analyze plans written in this language. The hybrid control architecture proposed in this paper is showcased in a path tracking scenario using the Husky robot platform via a Gazebo simulation. Thanks to the architecture presented in this paper, all formal analysis techniques and tools currently available to \(\text {PLEXIL}\) are now available to build reliable plans for \(\text {ROS}\)-enabled wheeled robots.

Keywords

Robot autonomy Plan Execution Interchange Language (\(\text {PLEXIL}\)Robot Operating System (\(\text {ROS}\)Control architectures Formal verification Rewriting logic Automatic reachability analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Andres, B., Rajaratnam, D., Sabuncu, O., Schaub, T.: Integrating ASP into ROS for reasoning in robots. In: Calimeri, F., Ianni, G., Truszczynski, M. (eds.) LPNMR 2015. LNCS, vol. 9345, pp. 69–82. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23264-5_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broenink, J., Brodskiy, Y., Dresscher, D., Stramigioli, S.: Robustness inembedded software for autonomous robots. Mikroniek 54, 38–45 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cadavid, H.F., Chaparro, J.A.: Hardware and software architecture for plexil-based, simulation supported, robot automation. In: IEEE Colombian Conference on Robotics and Automation (CCRA), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.: All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework: How to Specify, Program and Verify Systems in Rewriting Logic. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dowek, G., Muñoz, C., Rocha, C.: Rewriting logic semantics of a plan execution language. Electron. Proc. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 18, 77–91 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Estlin, T., Jonsson, A., Pasareanu, C., Simmons, R., Tso, K., Verma, V.: Plan Execution Interchange Language (PLEXIL). Technical report TM-2006-213483, NASA, April 2006Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O. S. R. Foundation. GAZEBO: A 3D dynamic simulator. http://gazebosim.org. Accessed 19 May 2017
  8. 8.
    O. S. R. Foundation. ROS: Robot operating system. http://wiki.ros.org. Accessed 19 May 2017
  9. 9.
    O. S. R. Foundation. RViz: 3D visualization tool for ROS. http://wiki.ros.org/rviz. Accessed 19 May 2017
  10. 10.
    Janssen, R., van Meijl, E., Di Marco, D., van de Molengraft, R., Steinbuch, M.: Integrating planning and execution for ros enabled service robots using hierarchical action representations. In: 2013 16th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR), pp. 1–7. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koenig, N., Howard, A.: Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Sendai, Japan, pp. 2149–2154, September 2004Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lundgren, M.: Path tracking for a miniature robot. Department of Computer Science, University of Umea, Masters (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Medeiros, A.A.: A survey of control architectures for autonomous mobile robots. J. Braz. Comput. Soc. 4(3) (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meseguer, J.: Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 96(1), 73–155 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muñoz, C.A., Dutle, A., Narkawicz, A., Upchurch, J.: Unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system: a formal methods perspective. SIGLOG News 3(3), 67–76 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Muñoz, P., R-Moreno, M.D., Castaño, B.: Integrating a PDDL-based planner and a PLEXIL-executor into the ptinto robot. In: García-Pedrajas, N., Herrera, F., Fyfe, C., Benítez, J.M., Ali, M. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2010. LNCS, vol. 6096, pp. 72–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13022-9_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakhaeinia, D., Tang, S.H., Noor, S.M., Motlagh, O.: A review of control architectures for autonomous navigation of mobile robots. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 6(2), 169–174 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Potop-Butucaru, D., de Simone, R., Talpin, J.-P.: The synchronous hypothesis and synchronous languages. In: The Embedded Systems Handbook, pp. 1–21 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Quigley, M., Conley, K., Gerkey, B., Faust, J., Foote, T., Leibs, J., Wheeler, R., Ng, A.Y.: Ros: an open-source robot operating system. In: ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software, vol. 3, p. 5 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robotics, C.: Husky-unmanned ground vehicle. Technical Specifications, Clearpath Robotics, Kitcener, Ontario, Canada (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rocha, C.: Symbolic Reachability Analysis for Rewrite Theories. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, December 2012Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rocha, C., Cadavid, H., Muñoz, C., Siminiceanu, R.: A formal interactive verification environment for the plan execution interchange language. In: Derrick, J., Gnesi, S., Latella, D., Treharne, H. (eds.) IFM 2012. LNCS, vol. 7321, pp. 343–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30729-4_24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rocha, C., Meseguer, J., Muñoz, C.: Rewriting modulo SMT and open system analysis. J. Logic. Algebr. Methods Program. 86(1), 269–297 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rocha, C., Muñoz, C., Cadavid, H.: A graphical environment for the semantic validation of a plan execution language. In: Third IEEE International Conference on Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology (SMC-IT 2009), pp. 201–207. IEEE, July 2009Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rozier, K.Y.: Specification: the biggest bottleneck in formal methods and autonomy. In: Blazy, S., Chechik, M. (eds.) VSTTE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9971, pp. 8–26. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-48869-1_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Verma, V., Jonsson, A., Pasareanu, C., Iatauro, M.: Universal-executive and PLEXIL: engine and language for robust spacecraft control and operations. In: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics SPACE Forum (Space 2006). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, September 2006Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zheltoukhov, A.A., Stankevich, L.A.: A survey of control architectures for autonomous mobile robots. In: 2017 IEEE Conference of Russian Young Researchers in Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EIConRus), pp. 1094–1099. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Héctor Cadavid
    • 1
  • Alexander Pérez
    • 1
  • Camilo Rocha
    • 2
  1. 1.Escuela Colombiana de Ingeniería Julio GaravitoBogotáColombia
  2. 2.Pontificia Universidad JaverianaSantiago de CaliColombia

Personalised recommendations