Algorithm for robot teams handles moving obstacles

MIT researchers have developed a decentralized planning algorithm for teams of robots that factors in not only stationary obstacles, but also moving obstacles.

05/05/2016


MIT researchers will present a new, decentralized planning algorithm for teams of robots that factors in not only stationary obstacles, but moving obstacles, as well. The algorithm comes with strong mathematical guarantees that the robots will avoid colliPlanning algorithms for teams of robots fall into two categories: centralized algorithms, in which a single computer makes decisions for the whole team, and decentralized algorithms, in which each robot makes its own decisions based on local observations.

With centralized algorithms, if the central computer goes offline, the whole system falls apart. Decentralized algorithms handle erratic communication better, but they're harder to design, because each robot is essentially guessing what the others will do. Most research on decentralized algorithms has focused on making collective decision-making more reliable and has deferred the problem of avoiding obstacles in the robots' environment.

At the International Conference on Robotics and Automation, MIT researchers will present a decentralized planning algorithm for teams of robots that factors in not only stationary obstacles, but also moving obstacles. The algorithm also requires less communications bandwidth than existing decentralized algorithms, but preserves strong mathematical guarantees that the robots will avoid collisions.

In simulations involving squadrons of minihelicopters, the decentralized algorithm came up with the same flight plans that a centralized version did. The drones generally preserved an approximation of their preferred formation, a square at a fixed altitude—although to accommodate obstacles the square rotated and the distances between drones contracted. Occasionally, however, the drones would fly single file or assume a formation in which pairs of them flew at different altitudes.

"It's a really exciting result because it combines so many challenging goals," said Daniela Rus, the Andrew and Erna Viterbi Professor in MIT's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and director of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, whose group developed the new algorithm. "Your group of robots has a local goal, which is to stay in formation, and a global goal, which is where they want to go or the trajectory along which you want them to move. And you allow them to operate in a world with static obstacles but also unexpected dynamic obstacles, and you have a guarantee that they are going to retain their local and global objectives. They will have to make some deviations, but those deviations are minimal."

Rus is joined on the paper by first author Javier Alonso-Mora, a postdoc in Rus' group; Mac Schwager, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at Stanford University who worked with Rus as an MIT PhD student in mechanical engineering; and Eduardo Montijano, a professor at Centro Universitario de la Defensa in Zaragoza, Spain.

Trading regions

In a typical decentralized group planning algorithm, each robot might broadcast its observations of the environment to its teammates, and all the robots would then execute the same planning algorithm, presumably on the basis of the same information.

Rus, Alonso-Mora, and their colleagues found a way to reduce both the computational and communication burdens imposed by consensual planning. The essential idea is that each robot, on the basis of its own observations, maps out an obstacle-free region in its immediate environment and passes that map only to its nearest neighbors. When a robot receives a map from a neighbor, it calculates the intersection of that map with its own and passes that on.

This keeps down both the size of the robots' communications—describing the intersection of 100 maps requires no more data than describing the intersection of two—and their number, because each robot communicates only with its neighbors. Nonetheless, each robot ends up with a map that reflects all of the obstacles detected by all the team members.

Four dimensions

The maps have not three dimensions, however, but four—the fourth being time. This is how the algorithm accounts for moving obstacles. The four-dimensional map describes how a three-dimensional map would have to change to accommodate the obstacle's change of location, over a span of a few seconds. But it does so in a mathematically compact manner.

The algorithm does assume that moving obstacles have constant velocity, which will not always be the case in the real world. But each robot updates its map several times a second, a short enough span of time that the velocity of an accelerating object is unlikely to change dramatically.

On the basis of its latest map, each robot calculates the trajectory that will maximize both its local goal—staying in formation—and its global goal.

The researchers are also testing a version of their algorithm on wheeled robots whose goal is to collectively carry an object across a room where human beings are also moving around, as a simulation of an environment in which humans and robots work together.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

www.mit.edu 

- Edited by Chris Vavra, production editor, Control Engineering, CFE Media, cvavra@cfemedia.com. See more Control Engineering robotics stories.



No comments
The Engineers' Choice Awards highlight some of the best new control, instrumentation and automation products as chosen by...
The System Integrator Giants program lists the top 100 system integrators among companies listed in CFE Media's Global System Integrator Database.
The Engineering Leaders Under 40 program identifies and gives recognition to young engineers who...
This eGuide illustrates solutions, applications and benefits of machine vision systems.
Learn how to increase device reliability in harsh environments and decrease unplanned system downtime.
This eGuide contains a series of articles and videos that considers theoretical and practical; immediate needs and a look into the future.
Big Data and IIoT value; Monitoring Big Data; Robotics safety standards and programming; Learning about PID
Motor specification guidelines; Understanding multivariable control; Improving a safety instrumented system; 2017 Engineers' Choice Award Winners
Selecting the best controller from several viewpoints; System integrator advice for the IIoT; TSN and real-time Ethernet; Questions to ask when selecting a VFD; Action items for an aging PLC/DCS
This digital report will explore several aspects of how IIoT will transform manufacturing in the coming years.
Motion control advances and solutions can help with machine control, automated control on assembly lines, integration of robotics and automation, and machine safety.
This article collection contains several articles on the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and how it is transforming manufacturing.

Find and connect with the most suitable service provider for your unique application. Start searching the Global System Integrator Database Now!

Future of oil and gas projects; Reservoir models; The importance of SCADA to oil and gas
Big Data and bigger solutions; Tablet technologies; SCADA developments
SCADA at the junction, Managing risk through maintenance, Moving at the speed of data
Automation Engineer; Wood Group
System Integrator; Cross Integrated Systems Group
Jose S. Vasquez, Jr.
Fire & Life Safety Engineer; Technip USA Inc.
click me