Coordinating multiple rovers with interdependent science objectives

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Coordinating multiple rovers with interdependent science objectives

Full text

Pdf (418 KB)

Source

International Conference on Autonomous Agents archive
Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems table of contents

The Netherlands

SESSION: Papers: robotics table of contents

Pages: 879 - 886

Year of Publication: 2005

ISBN:1-59593-093-0

Authors

Tara Estlin	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Daniel Gaines	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Forest Fisher	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Rebecca Castano	California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 7, Downloads (12 Months): 21, Citation Count: 3

Additional Information:

abstract references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1082473.1082607 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This paper describes an integrated system for coordinating multiple rover behavior with the overall goal of collecting planetary surface data. The MISUS system combines techniques from planning and scheduling with machine learning to perform autonomous scientific exploration with cooperating rovers. A distributed planning and scheduling approach is used to generate efficient, multi-rover coordination plans, monitor plan execution, and perform re-planning when necessary. A machine learning clustering component is used to deduce geological relationships among collected data and select new science activities. A key concept promoted by this system is the use of goal interdependency information to perform plan optimization and increase the value of collected science data. We discuss how we represent and reason about goal dependency and utility information in our planning system and explain how this information can change dynamically during system use. We show through experimental results that our approach significantly increases overall plan quality versus a standard approach that treats goal utilities independently.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	C. Boutilier, T. Dean, and S. Hanks, "Decision-Theoretic Planning: Structural Assumptions and Computational Leverage," Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11: 1--94.
	2	B. Brummit and A. Stentz, "GRAMMPS: A Generalized Mission Planner for Multiple Mobile Robots in Unstructured Environments," Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Robots and Automation, Philadelphia, PA, 1988.
	3	S. Chien, R. Knight, A. Stechert, R. Sherwood, and G. Rabideau, "Using Iterative Repair to Improve the Responsiveness of Planning and Scheduling," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling, Breckenridge, CO, April 2000.
	4	Bradley J. Clement , Anthony C. Barrett, Continual coordination through shared activities, Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, July 14-18, 2003, Melbourne, Australia [doi>10.1145/860575.860585]
	5	D. Goldberg, V. Cicirello, M. Dias, R. Simmons, S. Smith, T. Smith, and A. Stentz, "A Distributed Layered Architecture for Mobile Robot Coordination: Application to Space Exploration," Proceedings of the Third International NASA Workshop on Planning and Scheduling for Space, Houston, TX, October 2002.
	6	D. Joslin and D. Clements, "Squeaky Wheel Optimization," Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 10:353--373, 1999.
	7	R. Keeney and H. Raffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1993.
	8	L. Parker, "Alliance: An Architecture for Fault Tolerant Multirobot Cooperation," IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 14(2):220--240, 1998.
	9	Maja J. Matarić , Gaurav S. Sukhatme , Esben H. Østergaard, Multi-Robot Task Allocation in Uncertain Environments, Autonomous Robots, v.14 n.2-3, p.255-263, March-May 2003 [doi>10.1023/A:1022291921717]
	10	G. Rabideau, B. Engelhardt, and S. Chien, "Using Generic Preferences to Incrementally Improve Plan Quality," Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling, Breckenridge, CO, April 2000.
	11	M. Tambe, "Towards Flexible Teamwork," Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 7, 1997.
	12	M. Williamson and S. Hanks, "Optimal Planning with a Goal-Directed Utility Model," Proceedings of the Second Int'l Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, Chicago, IL, June 1994.
	13	Monte Zweben , Mark Fox, Intelligent scheduling, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1994

CITED BY 3

	Steve Chien , Benjamin Cichy , Ashley Davies , Daniel Tran , Gregg Rabideau , Rebecca Castano , Rob Sherwood , Dan Mandl , Stuart Frye , Seth Shulman , Jeremy Jones , Sandy Grosvenor, An Autonomous Earth-Observing Sensorweb, IEEE Intelligent Systems, v.20 n.3, p.16-24, May 2005
	Roberto Micalizio , Pietro Torasso, On-line monitoring of plan execution: A distributed approach, Knowledge-Based Systems, v.20 n.2, p.134-142, March, 2007
	Fitzgerald Steele, Jr. , Geb Thomas, Directed stigmergy-based control for multi-robot systems, Proceeding of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, March 10-12, 2007, Arlington, Virginia, USA