P. B. Sujit
ABSTRACT
A multiple UAV search and attack mission involves searching for targets in an unknown region, followed by attack on the detected targets. An effective mission involves assigning the tasks to UAVs efficiently. Task allocation becomes difficult when the UAVs have limited range to detect the targets and neighbouring UAVs. The UAVs are also subject to limited communication range. With these constraints, allocating tasks efficiently to UAVs become difficult. In this paper, we propose a negotiation scheme that efficiently allocates tasks for multiple UAVs. The performance of the negotiation based task allocation is studied on a battle field scenario. We study the effect of sensor ranges on the task allocation and compare the results with that of greedy strategy and a variation of the negotiation mechanism. The results show that the negotiation based task allocation mechanism performs far better than the greedy strategy. Negotiation with target information exchange between neighbours performs better than without target information exchange, when the sensor radius is low.
- K. E. Nygard, P. R. Chandler, and M. Pachter: Dynamic network flow optimization models for air vehicle resource allocation, Proc. of the the American Control Conference, Arlington, Texas, June 2001, pp. 1853--1858.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- C. Schumacher, P. Chandler, M. Pachter, and L. S. Pachter: UAV task assignment with timing constraints, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, August, Austin, Texas, 2003, AIAA 2003--5664.Google Scholar
- C. Schumacher, P. R. Chandler, S. J. Rasmussen, and D. Walker: Task allocation for wide area search munitions with variable path length, Proc. of the American Control Conference, June, Denver, Colorado, 2003, pp. 3472--3477.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Schumacher, P. Chandler, and S. J. Rasmussen: Task allocation for wide area search munitions via iterative netowrk flow, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Monterey, California, August 2002, AIAA 2002--4586.Google Scholar
- P. Chandler, M. Pachter, S. J. Rasmussen, and C. Schumacher: Distributed control for multiple UAVs with strongle coupled tasks, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas, August 2003, AIAA 2003--5799.Google Scholar
- P. Chandler, M. Pachter, S. J. Rasmussen, and C. Schumacher: Multiple task assignment for a UAV team, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Monterey, California, August 2002, AIAA 2002--4587.Google Scholar
- J. W. Mitchell, P. Chandler, M. Pachter, and S. J. Rasmussen: Communication delays in the cooperative control of wide area search munitions via iterative network flow, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas, August 2003, AIAA 2003--5665.Google Scholar
- J. W. Curtis and R. Murphey: Simultaneaous area search and task assignment for a team of cooperative agents, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Austin, Texas, August 2003, AIAA 2003--5584.Google Scholar
- D. Turra, L. Pollini, and M. Innocenti: Real-time unmanned vehicles task allocation with moving targets, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Providence, Rhode Island, August 2004, AIAA 2004--5253.Google Scholar
- Y. Jin, A. A. Minai, M. M. Polycarpou: Cooperative real-time search and task allocation in UAV teams, IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Maui, Hawaii, December 2003, Vol. 1, pp. 7--12.Google Scholar
- P. B. Sujit, A. Sinha, and D. Ghose: Multi-UAV task allocation using team theory, Proc. of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Seville, Spain, December 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. G. Rajnarayan and D. Ghose: Multiple agent team theoretic decision-making for searching unknown environments, Proc. IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Maui, Hawaii, December 2003, pp. 2543--2548.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. B. Dias and A. Stentz: A free market architecture for distributed control of a multirobot system, 6th International Conference on Intelligent Autonomous Systems (IAS-6), Venice, Italy, July 2000, pp. 115--122.Google Scholar
- M. B. Dias, R. M. Zlot, N. Kalra, and A. Stentz: Market-based multirobot coordination: A survey and analysis, Technical report CMU-RI-TR-05-13, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, April 2005.Google Scholar
- M. B. Dias and A. Stentz: Enhanced negotiation and opportunistic optimization for market-based multirobot coordination, Techical Report CMU-RI-TR-02-18, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, August, 2002.Google Scholar
- B. Gerkey, and M. J. Mataric: Sold!: Auction methods for multi-robot control, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 18, No. 5, October 2002, pp. 758--768.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Gerkey, and M. J. Mataric: A Formal Framework for the Study of Task Allocation in Multi-Robot Systems, International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 23, No.9, Sep 2004, pp. 939--954.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. J. Mataric, G. S. Sukhatme, and E. H. Stergaard: Multi-robot task allocation in uncertain environments, Autonomous Robots, Vol. 14, 2003, pp. 255263. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Gurfil: Evaluating UAV flock mission performance using Dudeks taxonomy, Proc. of the American Control Conference, Portland, Oregon, June 2005, pp. 4679--4684.Google Scholar
- M. Lagoudakis, P. Keskinocak, A. Kleywegt, and S. Koenig: Auctions with performance guarantees for multi-robot task allocation, Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Sendai, Japan, September 2004, pp. 1957--1962.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Rubinstein: Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model, Econometrica, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1982, pp. 97--109.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Kraus: Automated negotiation and decision making in multiagent environments, Multi-Agent Systems and Applications, Springer LNAI 2086, (Eds.) M. Luck, V. Marik, O. Stepankova, and R. Trappl, 2001, pp. 150--172. Google ScholarDigital Library
Recommendations
Contextual Resource Negotiation-Based Task Allocation and Load Balancing in Complex Software Systems
In the complex software systems, software agents always need to negotiate with other agents within their physical and social contexts when they execute tasks. Obviously, the capacity of a software agent to execute tasks is determined by not only itself ...
Resource Welfare Based Task Allocation for UAV Team with Resource Constraints
This paper addresses a task allocation problem for a team of UAVs that cooperatively performs a search and attack mission in an unknown region. The UAVs are heterogeneous carrying different types and amounts of munition resources, and limited in ...
'Why didn't you allocate this task to them?' Negotiation-Aware Explicable Task Allocation and Contrastive Explanation Generation
AAMAS '23: Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent SystemsIn this work, we design an Artificially Intelligent Task Allocator (AITA) that proposes a task allocation for multi-agent systems especially with humans. A key property of this allocation is that when an agent with imperfect knowledge (about their ...
Comments