skip to main content
10.1145/3555776.3577749acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Multi-Robot Expansive Planning and Trajectory Evaluation for Tracking and Localization of Marine Life

Published:07 June 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Traditional techniques for marine life tracking use stationary receivers that detect and obtain measurements from tagged animals. Recently, such static systems have been replaced by multiple mobile robots, e.g., autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), equipped with omni-directional hydrophones that can accurately localize marine life. In this paper, the application of homogeneous multi-AUV systems to track and localize marine life is used as a motivating example to develop new MRMP (Multi-Robot Motion Planning) algorithms. These algorithms generate trajectories that maximize a new fitness function that incorporates 1) probabilistic motion models generated from historical data of live sharks, and 2) ideal AUV formations for observing a shark from multiple sensor vantage points. The two expansive RRT variants, named Independent State Expansion (ISE) planning and Joint State Expansion (JSE) planning, differ in how new samples are randomly generated during the algorithm's random search. The fitness function was developed to quantify how accurately the positioning of AUVs would trilaterate the target animal. Through simulation, it was found that the Joint planner was 70% faster with respect to run time than Independent planner, while both could produce similar mean fitness function values. The fitness for these variants was also measured for simulations where different target motion models were used when calculating the fitness function, highlighting the improved performance when using actual target motion motion models.

References

  1. James Anderson, Emily Spurgeon, Brian Stirling, Jack May, Patrick Rex, Bobby Hyla, Steve McCullough, Marten Thompson, and Christopher Lowe. 2022. High resolution acoustic telemetry reveals swim speeds and inferred field metabolic rates in juvenile white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias). PLoS ONE 17, 6 (06 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Haluk Bayram, Nikolaos Stefa, Kazim Selim Engin, and Volkan Isler. 2017. Tracking Wildlife with Multiple UAVs: System Design, Safety and Field Experiments. In 2017 International Symposium on Multi-Robot and Multi-Agent Systems (MRS). IEEE, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 97--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Chandreyee Bhowmick and Laxmidhar Behera. 2015. Tracking of a randomly moving target by flock of multiple agents using leader-follower approach. In 2015 39th National Systems Conference (NSC)). IEEE, Greater Noida, India, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Aseem Borkar and Girish Chowdhary. 2021. Multi-agent Aerial Monitoring of Moving Convoys using Elliptical Orbits. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, Xi'an, China, 8999--9005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Christopher M. Clark, Stephen M. Rock, and Jean-Claude Latombe. 2003. Dynamic Networks for Motion Planning in Multi-Robot Space Systems. In Proceeding of the 7th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space. i-SAIRAS, NARA, Japan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. John Eiler, Thomas Grothues, Joseph Dobarro, and Michele Masuda. 2014. Comparing Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV) and Vessel-based Tracking Performance for Locating Acoustically Tagged Fish. Marine Fisheries Review 75, 6 (02 2014).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. John H. Eiler, Thomas M. Grothues, Joseph A. Dobarro, and Rahul Shome. 2019. Tracking the Movements of Juvenile Chinook Salmon using an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle under Payload Control. Applied Sciences 9, 12 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Christina Forney, Manii Esfandiar, Michael Farris, M. Moline, Lowe Christopher, and Christopher Clark. 2012. Tracking of a tagged leopard shark with an AUV: Sensor calibration and state estimation. In Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, St. Paul, MN, USA, 5315--5321.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Richard Grainger, David Rauberheimer, Victor M. Peddemors, Paul A. Butcher, and Gabriel E. Machovsky-Capuska. 2022. ntegrating Biologging and Behavioral State Modeling to Identify Cryptic Behaviors and Post-capture Recovery Processes: New Insights From a Threatened Marine Apex Predator. (Jan. 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Neil Hammerschlag, Austin J Gallagher, and D.M. Lazzarre. 2011. A review of shark satellite studies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 398, 1-2 (Feb. 2011).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Elizabeth T. Küsel, Tessa Munoz, Martin Siderius, and David Mellinger. 2017. Marine mammal tracks from two-hydrophone acoustic recordings made with a glider. Ocean Science Discussions 13, 2 (April 2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Marco Lanzagorta. 2012. Underwater Communications. U.S. Naval Research Laboratory and Morgan Claypool Publishers, Hershey, PA, USA, Synthesis lectures on communications Underwater Optical Communications: System Performance, 1--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Yukun Lin, Jerry Hsiung, Richard Piersall, Connor White, Christopher G. Lowe, and Christopher M. Clark. 2016. A Multi-Autonomous Underwater Vehicle System for Autonomous Tracking of Marine Life. Journal of Field Robotics 34, 4 (Aug. 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ryan Luna and Kostas E. Bekris. 2011. Efficient and complete centralized multi-robot path planning. In IEEE International Workshop on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, Francisco, CA, USA, 3268--3275.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hang Ma. 2022. Graph-Based Multi-Robot Path Finding and Planning. Current Robotics Reports 3 (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Lili Ma. 2018. Cooperative Target Tracking using a Fleet of UAVs with Collision and Obstacle Avoidance. In 2018 22nd International Conference on System Theory, Control and Computing (ICSTCC). IEEE, Sinaia, Romania, 652--658.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Siddharth Mayya, Ragesh K. Ramachandran, Lifeng Zhou, Gaurav S. Sukhatme, and Vijay Kumar. 2022. Adaptive and Risk-Aware Target Tracking with Heterogeneous Robot Teams. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7, 2 (April 2022).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. B. McClintock, R. Langrock, O. Gimenez, E. Cam, D. Borchers, R. Glennie, and T. Patterson. 2021. Uncovering ecological state dynamics with hidden Markov models. Ecology Letters 24, 5 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Tiago P. Nascimento, Andre G. S. Conceicao, and Ant'onio Paulo Moreira. 2014. Multi-Robot Systems Formation Control with Obstacle Avoidance. In Proceedings of the 19th World Congress The International Federation of Automatic Control. IFAC, Cape Towen, South Africa, 6648--6653. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Toby A. Patterson, J. Paige Eveson, Jason R. Hartog, Scott Cooper Karen Evans, Alistair J. Hobday Matt Lansdell, and Campbell R. Davies. 2018. Migration dynamics of juvenile southern bluefin tuna. Scientific Reports 8 (May 2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Toby A. Patterson, Alison Parton, Roland Langrock, Paul G. Blackwell, Len Thomas, and Ruth King. 2017. Statistical modelling of individual animal movement: an overview of key methods and a discussion of practical challenges. AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis 101 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Huy X. Pham, Hung La, David Feil-Seifer, and Matthew Deans. [n. d.]. A Distributed Control Framework for a Team of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Dynamic Wildfire Tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), publisher = "IEEE", address=Vancouver, BC, Canada, year=2017, month=September, pages=6648-6653, Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Anwar Quraishi and Alcherio Martinoli. 2021. Coordinated Path Planning for Surface Acoustic Beacons for Supporting Underwater Localization. In Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, Prague, Czech Republic, 4343--4349.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ragesh K. Ramachandran, Nicole Fronda, and Gaurav S. Sukhatme. 2020. Resilience in multi-robot target tracking through reconfiguration. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, Paris, France, 4551--4557.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Cyril Robin and Simon Lacroix. 2022. Multi-robot target detection and tracking: taxonomy and survey. Autonomous Robots 40, 4 (May 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Jur van den Berg, Stephen J Guy, Ming C Lin, and Dinesh Manocha. 2011. Reciprocal n-Body Collision Avoidance. ISRR, Robotics research Reciprocal n-Body Collision Avoidance, 3--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Janardan Kumar Verma and Virender Ranga. 2021. Multi-Robot Coordination Analysis, Taxonomy, Challenges and Future Scope. Journal of Intelligent Robot Systems 10 (April 2021).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Frederick A. Voegeli, Malcolm J. Smale, Dale M. Webber, and Yanko Andrade. 2001. Ultrasonic Telemetry, Tracking and Automated Monitoring Technology for Sharks. Environmental Biology of Fishes (Feb. 2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jane Wu, Russel C. Blingham, Samantha Ting, Kolton Yager, Zoe J. Wood, Timmy Gambin, and Christopher M. Clark. 2018. Multi-AUV motion planning for archeological site mapping and photogrammetric reconstruction. Journal of Field Robotics 36 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Yang Yang, Juntao Li, and Lingling Peng. 2020. Multirobot path planning based on a deep reinforcement learning DQN algorithm. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology 5, 3 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Multi-Robot Expansive Planning and Trajectory Evaluation for Tracking and Localization of Marine Life

        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
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SAC '23: Proceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing
          March 2023
          1932 pages
          ISBN:9781450395175
          DOI:10.1145/3555776

          Copyright © 2023 ACM

          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 the author(s) 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: 7 June 2023

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)61
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader