skip to main content
10.1145/1329125.1329462acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Auction-based multi-robot task allocation in COMSTAR

Published:14 May 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

Over the past few years, swarm based systems have emerged as an attractive paradigm for building large scale distributed systems composed of numerous independent but coordinating units. In our previous work, we have developed a protoype system called COMSTAR (Cooperative Multi-agent Systems for automatic TArget Recognition) using a swarm of unmanned aerial vehicles(UAVs) that is capable of identifying targets in software simulations of reconnaissance operations. Experimental results from the simulations of the COMSTAR system show that task selection among the UAVs is a crucial operation that determines the overall efficiency of the system. Previously described techniques for task selection among swarm units use a centralized server such as a ground control station to coordinate the activities of the swarm units. However, such systems are not truly distributed since the behavior of the swarm units is predominantly directed by the centralized server's task allocation algorithm. In this paper we focus on the problem of distributed task selection in a swarmed system where each swarm unit decides on the tasks it will execute by sharing information and coordinating its actions with other swarm units without the intervention of a centralized ground control station supervising its activities. Specifically, we build our task selection algorithm on an auction-based algorithm for task selection in robotic swarms described by Kalra et al. We report experimental results in a simulated environment with 18 robots and 20 tasks and compare the performance of our auction-based algorithm with other heuristic-based task selection strategies in multi-agent swarms. Our simulation results show that the auction-based algorithm improves the task completion times by 30-60% and reduces the communication overhead by as much as 90% with respect to other heuristic-based strategies maintaining similar performance in load balancing.

References

  1. W. Agassounon, A. Martinoli, K. Easton, "Macroscopic Modeling of Aggregation Experiments using Embodied Agents in Teams of Constant and Time-Varying Sizes," Autonomous Robots, vol. 17, no. 2-3, 2004, pp. 163--192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. Alami, S. Fleury, M. Herrb, F. Ingrand, and F. Robert, "Multi-robot cooperation in the MARTHA project," IEEE Robotics and Automation, vol. 5, no. 1, 1998, pp. 36--47.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. O. Babaoglu, H. Meling, A. Montresor, "Anthill: A Framework for the Development of Agent-Based Peer-to-Peer Systems," Proc. of the 22th Intl. Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, July 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Beshers and J. Fewell. Models of Division of Labor in Social Insects. Annual Review of Entomology, vol. 46, 2001, pp. 413--440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. E. Bonabeau, M. Dorigo and G. Theraulaz, "Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems," Oxford University Press, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. V. A. Cicirello and S. F. Smith. Wasp-like Agents for Distributed Factory Coordination. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 8, no. 3, 2004, pp. 237--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. P. Dasgupta, S. O'Hara, P. Petrov, "A Multi-agent UAV Swarm for Automatic Target Recognition," Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3890, (Proc. of the 1st Intl. Workshop on Defense Applications of Multi-agent Systems (DAMAS)), 2005, pp. 80--91. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. B. Dias, R. M. Zlot, N. Kalra, and A. Stentz, "Market-Based Multirobot Coordination: A Survey and Analysis," Tech. report CMU-RI-TR-05-13, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. S. Edwards, "Swarming on the Battlefield: Past, present and future," RAND National Security Research Division Report, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. F. Gaudiano, E. Bonabeau, and B. Shargel, "Evolving behaviors for a swarm of unmanned air vehicles," Proc. of the 2005 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, Pasadena, CA, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. B. Gerkey, "On multi-robot task allocation," Ph.D Thesis, Univ. of Southern California, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Hoeing, P. Dasgupta, "Dynamic Pricing Algorithms for Market based Distributed Task Selection in Multi-agent Swarms," Proc. IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT'06), Hong Kong, 2006, pp. 113--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Jager and B. Nebel, "Dynamic Decentralized Area Partitioning for Cooperating Cleaning Robots," Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Washington, DC, USA, 2002, pp. 3577--3582.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. Jelasity and O. Babaoglu, "T-Man: Gossip-based overlay topology management," In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Engineering Self-Organising Applications (ESOA'05), Utrecht, July 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. N. Kalra and A. Martinoli, "A Comparative Study of Market-Based and Threshold-Based Task Allocation," Proc. 8th Intl. Symp. on Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems (DARS'06), Minneapolis, MN, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. T. Lemaire, R. Alami, and S. Lacroix, "A distributed tasks allocation scheme in multi-uav context," IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, LA (USA), April 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. L. Li, A. Martinoli, Y. Abu-Mostafa, "Learning and Measuring Specialization in Collaborative Swarm Systems," Adaptive Behavior, Adaptive Behavior, Vol. 12, No. 3--4, 2004, pp. 199--212. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. R. Mailler, V. Lesser, B. Horling, "Cooperative Negotiation for soft real-time distributed resource allocation," Proc. of 2nd Intl. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2003, pp. 576--583. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. R. Mailler, V. Lesser, "A cooperative mediation based protocol for dynamic, distributed resource allocation," IEEE Trans. on System, Man, Cybernetics, Part C. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. D. Miller, P. Dasgupta, T. Judkins, "Distributed task selection in multi-agent based swarms using heuristic strategies," Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4433, (Proc. 2nd Swarm Robotics Workshop, Rome, Italy), 2006, pp. 158--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. P. Modi, W. Shen, M. Tambe, and M. Yokoo, "Adopt: asynchronous distributed constraint optimization with quality guarantees," Artificial Intelligence, vol. 161, no. (1--2), 2005, pp. 149--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Montemanni, L. Gambardella, A. Rizzoli, A. Donati, "Ant Colony System for a Dynamic Vehicle Routing Problem," J. Combinatorial Optimization, vol. 10, no. 4, 2005, pp. 327--343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. C. Oritz, R. Vincent and B. Morriset, "Task Inference and Distributed Task Management in the Centibots Robotic System," Proc. of the 4th Joint International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2005, pp. 870--877. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. L. Parker, Distributed Algorithms for Multi-Robot Observation of Multiple Moving Targets, Autonomous Robots, vol. 12, no. 3, 2002, pp. 231--255. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. Sauter, R. Matthews, H. Parunak, and S. Brueckner, "Performance of Digital Pheromones for Swarming Vehicle Control," Proc. 4th Intl. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2005, pp. 903--910. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. O. Shehory, S. Kraus, "Methods for task allocation via agent coalition formation," Artif. Intell., vol. 101 no. 1--2, 1998, pp. 165--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. R. Smith, "The contract net protocol: High-level communication and control in a distributed problem {see pdf for details}. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Auction-based multi-robot task allocation in COMSTAR

    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 Other conferences
      AAMAS '07: Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems
      May 2007
      1585 pages
      ISBN:9788190426275
      DOI:10.1145/1329125

      Copyright © 2007 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 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: 14 May 2007

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,155of5,036submissions,23%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader