skip to main content
research-article

A Flexible Framework for Diverse Multi-Robot Task Allocation Scenarios Including Multi-Tasking

Authors Info & Claims
Published:23 January 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In a multi-robot operation, multi-tasking resources are expected to simultaneously perform multiple tasks, thus, reducing the overall time/energy requirement of the operation. This paper presents a task allocation framework named Rostam that efficiently utilizes multi-tasking capable robots. Rostam uses a task clustering mechanism to form robot specific task maps. The customized maps identify tasks that can be multi-tasked by individual robots and mark them for simultaneous execution. The framework then uses an Evolutionary Algorithm along with the customized maps to make quality task allocations. The most prominent contribution of this work is Rostam's flexible design which enables it to handle a range of task allocation scenarios seamlessly. Rostam's performance is evaluated against an auction-based scheme; the results demonstrate its effective use of multi-tasking robots. The paper also demonstrates Rostam's flexibility towards a number of MRTA scenarios through a case study.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Arif Muhammad Usman. 2019. A generic evolutionary algorithm for efficient multi-robot task allocations. In Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 486491.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. [2] Muhammad Usman Arif . 2021. Robot coalition formation against time-extended multi-robot tasks. IJIUS (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIUS-12-2020-0070Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Arif Muhammad Usman and Haider Sajjad. 2017. An evolutionary traveling salesman approach for multi-robot task allocation. In 9th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence. 567574.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Usman Arif Muhammad and Haider Sajjad. 2018. A flexible evolutionary algorithm for task allocation in multi-robot team. In International Conference on Computational Collective Intelligence. Springer, 8999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Botelho Sylvia C. and Alami Rachid. 1999. M+: A scheme for multi-robot cooperation through negotiated task allocation and achievement. In Robotics and Automation, 1999. Proceedings. 1999 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 12341239.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [6] Brutschy Arne, Pini Giovanni, Pinciroli Carlo, Birattari Mauro, and Dorigo Marco. 2014. Self-organized task allocation to sequentially interdependent tasks in swarm robotics. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 28, 1 (January 2014), 101125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-012-9212-y Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. [7] Dasgupta Prithviraj. 2011. Multi-robot task allocation for performing cooperative foraging tasks in an initially unknown environment. In Innovations in Defence Support Systems -2, Lakhmi C. Jain, Eugene V. Aidman and Canicious Abeynayake (eds.). Springer Berlin, 520. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17764-4_2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. [8] Davis Lawrence. 1985. Applying adaptive algorithms to epistatic domains. In IJCAI. 162164. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. [9] Dias M. B. and Stentz A.. 2003. A comparative study between centralized, market-based, and behavioral multirobot coordination approaches. In Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No.03CH37453), vol. 3. 22792284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2003.1249210Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. [10] ElGibreen Hebah and Youcef-Toumi Kamal. 2019. Dynamic task allocation in an uncertain environment with heterogeneous multi-agents. Autonomous Robots (2019), 126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] Farinelli Alessandro, Iocchi Luca, and Nardi Daniele. 2017. Distributed on-line dynamic task assignment for multi-robot patrolling. Auton Robot 41, 6 (August 2017), 13211345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-016-9579-8Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. [12] Gerkey Brian P. and Matarić Maja J.. 2004. A formal analysis and taxonomy of task allocation in multi-robot systems. The International Journal of Robotics Research 23, 9 (September 2004), 939954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364904045564Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Guerrero José, Valero Óscar, and Oliver Gabriel. 2017. Toward a possibilistic swarm multi-robot task allocation: Theoretical and experimental results. Neural Process Lett 46, 3 (December 2017), 881897. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11063-017-9647-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. [14] Franco Guidotti Cauê, Baião Arthur Torres, Sousa Bastos Guilherme, and Henrique Rossette Leite Adriano. 2018. A Murdoch-based ROS package for multi-robot task allocation. In 2018 Latin American Robotic Symposium, 2018 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR) and 2018 Workshop on Robotics in Education (WRE). IEEE, 5157.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Gunn Tyler and Anderson John. 2015. Dynamic heterogeneous team formation for robotic urban search and rescue. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 81, 3 (2015), 553567. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. [16] Hunt John E. and Cooke Denise E.. 1996. Learning using an artificial immune system. Journal of Network and Computer Applications 19, 2 (1996), 189212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. [17] Khaluf Yara, Allwright Michael, Rausch Ilja, Simoens Pieter, and Dorigo Marco. 2020. Construction task allocation through the collective perception of a dynamic environment. In International Conference on Swarm Intelligence. Springer, 8295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. [18] Khaluf Yara, Birattari Mauro, and Hamann Heiko. 2014. A swarm robotics approach to task allocation under soft deadlines and negligible switching costs. In International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. Springer, 270279.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. [19] Khaluf Yara and Rammig Franz. 2013. Task allocation strategy for time-constrained tasks in robots swarms. In Artificial Life Conference Proceedings 13, MIT Press. 737744.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. [20] Koenig Sven, Tovey Craig, Lagoudakis M., Markakis Vangelis, Kempe David, Keskinocak Pinar, Kleywegt Anton, Meyerson Adam, and Jain Sonal. 2006. The power of sequential single-item auctions for agent coordination. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999, 1625. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [21] Ayorkor Korsah G., Stentz Anthony, and Bernardine Dias M.. 2013. A comprehensive taxonomy for multi-robot task allocation. The International Journal of Robotics Research 32, 12 (October 2013), 14951512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364913496484 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Li Jun, Meng Xianghu, and Dai Xing. 2017. Collision-free scheduling of multi-bridge machining systems: A colored traveling salesman problem-based approach. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica 5, 1 (2017), 139147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Lin Chao-Feng and Hu Shan-Li. 2007. Multi-task overlapping coalition parallel formation algorithm. In AAMAS. 12601262. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. [24] Manathara Joel G., Sujit P. B., and Beard Randal W.. 2011. Multiple UAV coalitions for a search and prosecute mission. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems 62, 1 (2011), 125158. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. [25] Michalewicz Zbigniew and Fogel David B.. 2004. How to Solve It: Modern Heuristics (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. [26] Muhuri Pranab K. and Rauniyar Amit. 2017. Immigrants based adaptive genetic algorithms for task allocation in multi-robot systems. International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications 16, 04 (2017), 1750025.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] Nanjanath Maitreyi and Gini Maria. 2010. Repeated auctions for robust task execution by a robot team. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 58, 7 (July 2010), 900909. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2010.03.011 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. [28] Oh Gyeongtaek, Kim Youdan, Ahn Jaemyung, and Choi Han-Lim. 2017. Market-based task assignment for cooperative timing missions in dynamic environments. Journal of intelligent & robotic systems 87, 1 (2017), 97123. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. [29] Sariel-Talay Sanem, Balch Tucker R., and Erdogan Nadia. 2011. A generic framework for distributed multirobot cooperation. J Intell Robot Syst 63, 2 (August 2011), 323358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-011-9558-4 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. [30] Schneider Eric, Sklar Elizabeth I., and Parsons Simon. 2017. Mechanism selection for multi-robot task allocation. In Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Springer, Cham, 421435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64107-2_33Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. [31] Schneider Eric, Sklar Elizabeth I., Parsons Simon, and Tuna Özgelen A.. 2015. Auction-based task allocation for multi-robot teams in dynamic environments. In Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Springer, Cham. 246257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22416-9_29Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. [32] Semwal Tushar, Jha Shashi Shekhar, and Nair Shivashankar B.. 2017. On ordering multi-robot task executions within a cyber physical system. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS) 12, 4 (2017), 127. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. [33] Sen Sayan D. and Adams Julie A.. 2015. An influence diagram based multi-criteria decision making framework for multirobot coalition formation. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 29, 6 (November 2015), 10611090. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9276-y Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. [34] Shenoy Meetha V. and Anupama K. R.. 2017. DTTA-distributed, time-division multiple access based task allocation framework for swarm robots. Defence Science Journal 67, 3 (2017), 316324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Shima Tal, Rasmussen Steven J., Sparks Andrew G., and Passino Kevin M.. 2006. Multiple task assignments for cooperating uninhabited aerial vehicles using genetic algorithms. Computers & Operations Research 33, 11 (2006), 32523269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. [36] Shiroma Pedro M. and Campos Mario F. M.. 2009. CoMutaR: A framework for multi-robot coordination and task allocation. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2009. IROS 2009. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, 48174824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. [37] Duk Song Byung, Kim Jonghoe, and Morrison James R.. 2016. Rolling horizon path planning of an autonomous system of UAVs for persistent cooperative service: MILP formulation and efficient heuristics. J Intell Robot Syst 84, 1–4 (December 2016), 241258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-015-0280-5 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. [38] Vig Lovekesh and Adams Julie A.. 2007. Coalition formation: From software agents to robots. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems 50, 1 (2007), 85118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Wawerla Jens and Vaughan Richard T.. 2010. A fast and frugal method for team-task allocation in a multi-robot transportation system. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2010 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 14321437.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Wei Changyun, Hindriks Koen V., and Jonker Catholijn M.. 2016. Dynamic task allocation for multi-robot search and retrieval tasks. Appl Intell 45, 2 (September 2016), 383401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-016-0771-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. [41] Woldesenbet Y. G. and Yen G. G.. 2009. Dynamic evolutionary algorithm with variable relocation. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 13, 3 (June 2009), 500513. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEVC.2008.2009031 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. [42] Zhang Guofu, Jiang Jianguo, Su Zhaopin, Qi Meibin, and Fang Hua. 2010. Searching for overlapping coalitions in multiple virtual organizations. Information Sciences 180, 17 (2010), 31403156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. [43] Zhang Kai, Collins Emmanuel G., and Shi Dongqing. 2012. Centralized and distributed task allocation in multi-robot teams via a stochastic clustering auction. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS) 7, 2 (2012), 122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. [44] Zhang Yu and Smith Winston. 2020. Achieving multi-tasking robots in multi-robot tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.00775 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. [45] Zitouni Farouq, Maamri Ramdane, and Harous Saad. 2019. FA–QABC–MRTA: A solution for solving the multi-robot task allocation problem. Intelligent Service Robotics (2019), 112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Flexible Framework for Diverse Multi-Robot Task Allocation Scenarios Including Multi-Tasking

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems
      ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems  Volume 16, Issue 1
      March 2021
      73 pages
      ISSN:1556-4665
      EISSN:1556-4703
      DOI:10.1145/3505218
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 January 2022
      • Accepted: 1 November 2021
      • Revised: 1 October 2021
      • Received: 1 February 2021
      Published in taas Volume 16, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Refereed
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)271
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format