Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:32:41.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bidding coordination algorithm with CFC and an emotion switch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2018

Zhifeng Yao Open the ORCID record for Zhifeng Yao [Opens in a new window] ,
Xiufen Ye  and
Xuefeng Dai
Zhifeng Yao
Affiliation:
College of Automation, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, Heilongjiang, China. E-mail: [email protected] College of Computer and Control Engineering, Qiqihar University, Qiqihar 161006, Heilongjiang, China. E-mail: [email protected]
Xiufen Ye*
Affiliation:
College of Automation, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, Heilongjiang, China. E-mail: [email protected]
Xuefeng Dai
Affiliation:
College of Computer and Control Engineering, Qiqihar University, Qiqihar 161006, Heilongjiang, China. E-mail: [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Exploration is a fundamental problem in robotics, and multi-robot systems exploration has been extensively studied in this field. In order to overcome the problem of a non-optimal target being selected in the exploration process, a revised single linkage clustering frontier cell (CFC) algorithm is proposed to calculate the exploration benefit of all available frontier cells. Moreover, there exist unexplored islands for most of the bidding-based multi-robot coordination algorithms in the exploration of unknown environments. To deal with this problem, some rules switched by emotion states are proposed. So, the proposed bidding coordination algorithm with CFC and an emotion switch has a hierarchical architecture. The upper level is modeled as an automaton, which is used to represent emotion status, and the emotion variables decide whether a robot will participate in a bid and explore an unknown area abiding by the walking rules. In the lower level, the robots perform bidding activities with CFC and the walking rules according to the emotion variables. We tested and evaluated our approach by means of experiments both in a simulated environment and with real robots. The experiments results demonstrate that the exploration efficiency is improved, and our algorithm has a greater coverage rate than classic bidding-based coordination algorithms.

Keywords

Multi-robot systemsExplorationCoordinationBiddingEmotionCluster
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , April 2018 , pp. 607 - 623
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Juliá, M., Gil, A. and Reinoso, O., “A comparison of path planning strategies for autonomous exploration and mapping of unknown environment,” Auton. Robots 33 (3), 427–444 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Alberto, Q. L., Riccardo, C., Michele, G. and Francesco, A., “A semantically-informed multirobot system for exploration of relevant areas in search and rescue settings,” Auton. Robots 40 (4), 581–597 (2015).Google Scholar
3. Jones, E. G., Dias, M. B. and Stentz, A., “Time-extended multi-robot coordination for domains with intra-path constraints,” Auton. Robots 30 (1), 41–56 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Balaguer, B., Balakirsky, S., Carpin, S. and Visser, A., “Evaluating maps produced by urban search and rescue robots: Lessons learned from RoboCup,” Auton. Robots 27 (4), 449–464 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Nevatia, Y., Stoyanov, T., Rathnam, R., Pfingsthorn, M., Markov, S., Ambrus, R. and Birk, A., “Augmented Autonomy: Improving Human-Robot Team Performance in Urban Search and Rescue,” Proceedings of the IEEE-RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (2008) pp. 2103–2108.Google Scholar
6. Thornburg, K. and Thomas, G., “Robotic exploration utility for urban search and rescue tasks,” J. Comput. 4 (10), 975–980 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Bona, B., Carlone, L., Indri, M. and Rosa, S., “Supervision and monitoring of logistic spaces by a cooperative robot team: Methodologies, problems, and solutions,” Intell. Service Robot. 7 (4), 185–202 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Widodo, B., “Intelligent surveillance robot with obstacle avoidance capabilities using neural network,” Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2015, 1–5 (2015).Google Scholar
9. Ozog, P., Carlevaris-Bianco, N., Kim, A. and Eustice, R. M., “Long-term mapping techniques for ship hull inspection and surveillance using an autonomous underwater vehicle,” J. Field Robot. 33 (3), 265–289 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Nuske, S., Choudhury, S., Jain, S., Chambers, A., Yoder, L., Scherer, S., Chamberlain, L., Cover, H. and Singh, S., “Autonomous exploration and motion planning for an unmanned aerial vehicle navigating rivers,” J. Field Robot. 32 (8), 1141–1162 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Droeschel, D., Nieuwenhuisen, M., Beul, M., Holz, D., Stckler, J. and Behnke, S., “Multilayered mapping and navigation for autonomous micro aerial vehicles,” J. Field Robot. 33 (4), 451–475 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Yamauchi, B., “Frontier-Based Exploration Using Multiple Robots,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents (1998) pp. 47–53.Google Scholar
13. Burgard, W., Moors, M., Stachniss, C. and Schneider, F. E., “Coordinated multi-robot exploration,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 21 (3), 376–386 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Dias, M. B., Zlot, R., Kalra, N. and Stentz, A., “Market-based multirobot coordination: A survey and analysis,” Proc. IEEE 94 (7), 1257–1270 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Wang, Y. and Silva, C. W., “A machine-learning approach to multi-robot coordination,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 21 (3), 470–484 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Prieto, A., Becerra, J. A., Bellas, F. and Duro, R. J., “Open-ended evolution as a means to self-organize heterogeneous multi-robot systems in real time,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 58 (12), 1282–1291 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Banik, S. C., Watanabe, K., Habib, M. K. and Izumi, K., Affection Based Multi-Robot Team Work (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2008) pp. 355–375.Google Scholar
18. Banik, S. C., Watanabe, K., Habib, M. K. and Izumi, K., “An Emotion-Based Task Sharing Approach for a Cooperative Multiagent Robotics System,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (2008) 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Elango, M., Nachiappan, S. and Tiwari, M. K., “Balancing task allocation in multi-robot systems using K-means and auction based mechanisms,” Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (6), 6486–6491 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Ozturk, S. and Kuzucuoglu, A. E, “Optimal bid valuation using path finding for multi-robot task allocation,” J. Intell. Manuf. 26 (5), 1049–1062 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Puig, D., Garcia, M. A. and Wu, L., “A new global optimization strategy for coordinated multi-robot exploration: Development and comparative evaluation,” Robot. Autom. Syst. 59 (9), 635–653 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Lujak, M., Billhardt, H. and Ossowski, S., “Distributed coordination of emergency medical service for angioplasty patients,” Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 78 (1), 73–100 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Gu, F., He, Y. Q., Han, J. D. and Wang, Y. C., “An active cooperative observation method for multi-robots in three dimensional environments,” Acta Autom. Sin. 36 (10), 1443–1453 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Yao, Z. F., Ye, X. F. and Dai, X. F., “A bidding based coordination algorithm with emotion for multi-robot exploration,” ICIC Express Lett., Part B: Appl. 6 (8), 2087–2092 (2015).Google Scholar