skip to main content
research-article

Centralized and distributed task allocation in multi-robot teams via a stochastic clustering auction

Authors Info & Claims
Published:30 July 2012Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article considers the problem of optimal task allocation for heterogeneous teams, for example, teams of heterogeneous robots or human-robot teams. It is well-known that this problem is NP-hard and hence computationally feasible approaches must develop an approximate solution. Here, we propose a solution via a Stochastic Clustering Auction (SCA) that uses a Markov chain search process along with simulated annealing. This is the first stochastic auction method used in conjunction with global optimization. It is based on stochastic transfer and swap moves between the clusters of tasks assigned to the various robots and considers not only downhill movements, but also uphill movements, which can avoid local minima. A novel feature of this algorithm is that, by tuning the annealing suite and turning the uphill movements on and off, the global team performance after algorithm convergence can slide in the region between the global optimal performance and the performance associated with a random allocation. Extensive numerical experiments are used to evaluate the performance of SCA in terms of costs and computational and communication requirements. For centralized auctioning, the SCA algorithm is compared to fast greedy auction algorithms. Distributed auctioning is then compared with centralized SCA.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Aarts, E. H. and Lenstra, J. K., Eds. 1997. Local Search in Combinatorial Optimization. John Wiley and Sons, London. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Albert, R. and Barabási, A. 2002. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev. Modern Phys. 74, 1, 47--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Andersson, M. and Sandholm, T. 2000. Contract type sequencing for reallocative negotiation. In Proceedings of the the 20th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems ( ICDCS'00). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 154--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Barbu, A. and Zhu, S. 2005. Generalizing swendsen-wang to sampling arbitrary posterior probabilities. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27, 8, 1239--1253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Botelho, S. S. C. and Alami, R. 1999. M+: A scheme for multi-robot cooperation through negotiated task allocation and achievement. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 1234--1239.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowling, M. and Veloso, M. 2002. Multiagent learning using a variable learning rate. Artif. Intell. 136, 215--250. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Brunet, L. 2008. Consensus-based auctions for decentralized tasks assignment. Master thesis, MIT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Chao, I.-M., Golden, B. L., and Wasil, E. 1993. A new heuristic for the multidepot vehicle routing problem that improves upon best-known solutions. Amer. J. Math. Manag. Sci. 13, 3-4, 371--406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Choi, H., Brunet, L., and How, J. P. 2008. Consensus-Based auction approaches for decentralized task asignment. In Proceedings of the AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi, H., Brunet, L., and How, J. P. 2009. Consensus-Based decentralized auctions for robust task allocation. IEEE Trans. Robot. 25, 912--926. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Clark, C. M., Morton, R., and Bekey, G. A. 2008. Altruistic relationships for optimizing task fulfillment in robot communities. In Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems 8, H. Asama, H. Kurokawa, J. Ota, and K. Sekiyama, Eds., 261--270.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Cramton, P., Shoham, Y., and Steinberg, R., Eds. 2006. Combinatorial Auctions. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. de Vries, S. and Vohra, R. V. 2003. Combinatorial auctions: A survey. INFORMS J. Comput. 15, 3, 284--309. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Dias, M. B., Jones, G., Kalra, N. R., Keskinocak, P., Koenig, S., Lagoudakis, M. G., and Zlot, R. 2006a. Tutorial on auction-based agent coordination at AAAI 2006 and AAMAS 2006. http://idm-lab.org/auction-tutorial.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Dias, M. B. and Stentz, A. 2002. Opportunistic optimization for market-based multirobot control. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS'02). Vol. 3. 2714--2720.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Dias, M. B., Zlot, R. M., Kalra, N., and Stentz, A. 2006b. Market-Based multirobot coordination: A survey and analysis. Proc. IEEE 94, 7, 1257--1270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Fredrickson, G. N., Hecht, M. S., and Kim, C. E. 1978. Approximation algorithms for some vehicle routing problems. SIAM J. Comput. 7, 2, 178--193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Gerkey, B. P. and Mataric, M. J. 2002. Sold!: Auction methods for multirobot coordination. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 18, 5, 758--768.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Gerkey, B. P. and Mataric, M. J. 2004. A formal analysis and taxonomy of task allocation in multi-robot systems. Int. J. Robot. Res. 23, 9, 939--954.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Golfarelli, M., Maio, D., and Rizzi, S. 1997. A task-swap negotiation protocol based on the contract net paradigm. Tech. rep. 005-97. CSITE (Research Centre for Informatics and Telecommunication Systems, associated with the University of Bologna, Italy).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Groth, D. and Skandier, T. 2005. Network + Study Guide 4th Ed. Sybex. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Hoos, H. and Boutilier, C. 2000. Solving combinatorial auctions using stochastic local search. In Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-00). 22--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jarnick, V. 1930. Ojistám problému minimálním. Axta Societatis Natur Moravicae 6, 57--63.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones, E., Browning, B., Dias, M. B., Argall, B., Veloso, M., and Stentz, A. 2006. Dynamically formed heterogeneous robot teams performing tightly-coordinated tasks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 570--575.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirkpatrick, S., C. D. Gelatt, J., and Vecchi, M. P. 1983. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220, 4598, 671--680.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Koenig, S., Tovey, C. A., Lagoudakis, M. G., Markakis, V., Kempe, D., Keskinocak, P., Kleywegt, A. J., Meyerson, A., and Jain, S. 2006. The power of sequential single-item auctions for agent coordination. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). AAAI Press, 1625--1629. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Koenig, S., Tovey, C. A., Zheng, X., and Sungur, I. 2007. Sequential bundle-bid single-sale auction algorithms for decentralized control. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). 1359--1365. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Koes, M., Sycara, K., and Nourbakhsh, I. 2006. A constraint optimization framework for fractured robot teams. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS). 491--493. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Köse, H., Tatlidede, U., Ç. Meriçli, Kaplan, K., and Akin, H. L. 2004. Q-learning based market-driven multi-agent collaboration in robot soccer. In Proceedings of the Turkish Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Neural Networks. 219--228.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Lumezanu, C., Bhola, S., and Astley, M. 2008. Online optimization for latency assignment in distributed real-time systems. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 752--759. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. McLurkin, J. and Yamins, D. 2005. Dynamic task assignment in robot swarms. In Robotics: Science and Systems. 129--136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Mito, M. and Fujita, S. 2004. On heuristics for solving winner determination problem in combinatorial auctions. J. Heurist. 10, 5, 507--523. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Parker, L. E. 1998. Alliance: An architecture for fault tolerant multi-robot cooperation. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 14, 2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Powers, R. and Shoham, Y. 2005. New criteria and a new algorithm for learning in multi-agent systems. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 17, L. K. Saul, Y. Weiss, and L. Bottou, Eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1089--1096.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Prim, R. C. 1957. Shortest connection networks and some generalisations. Bell Syst. Techn. J. 36, 1389--1401.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Puschini, D., Clermidy, F., Benoit, P., Sassatelli, G., and Torres, L. 2009. Dynamic and distributed frequency assignment for energy and latency constrained MP-SoC. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design Automation and Test in Europe. 1564--1567. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Robert, C. P. and Casella, G. 2005. Monte Carlo Statistical Methods (Springer Texts in Statistics). Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Sandholm, T. 1998. Contract types for satisficing task allocation: I theoretical results. In Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium: Satisficing Models.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandholm, T. 2002. Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Artif. Intell. 135, 1-2, 1--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Simmons, R., Singh, S., Heger, F., Hiatt, L. M., Koterba, S. C., Melchior, N., and Sellner, B. P. 2007. Human-Robot teams for large-scale assembly. In Proceedings of the NASA Science Technology Conference (NSTC-07).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Srivastava, A., Joshi, S. H., Mio, W., and Liu, X. 2005. Statistical shape analysis: Clustering, learning, and testing. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 27, 4, 590--602. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Stroupe, A. 2003. Collaborative execution of exploration and tracking using move value estimation for robot teams (MVERT). Ph.D. thesis, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Sutton, R. S. and Barto, A. G. 1998. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Swendsen, R. H. and Wang, J. S. 1987. Nonuniversal critical dynamics in monte carlo simulations. Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 2, 86--88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Wagner, A. and Arkin, R. C. 2004. Multi-Robot communication-sensitive reconnaissance. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 4674--4681.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang, K., Collins, E. G., Shi, D., Liu, X., and Chuy, O. 2008. A stochastic clustering auction for centralized and distributed task allocation in multi-agent teams. In Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems 8, H. Asama, H. Kurokawa, J. Ota, and K. Sekiyama, Eds., 345--354.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Zheng, X. and Koenig, s. 2009. K-swaps: Cooperative negotiation for solving task-allocation problems. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. C. Boutilier, Ed., 373--379. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Zlot, R. M. and Stentz, A. 2006. Market-Based multirobot coordination for complex tasks. Int. J. Robot. Res. 25, 1, 73--101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Centralized and distributed task allocation in multi-robot teams via a stochastic clustering auction

                                  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

                                  Full Access

                                  PDF Format

                                  View or Download as a PDF file.

                                  PDF

                                  eReader

                                  View online with eReader.

                                  eReader
                                  About Cookies On This Site

                                  We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

                                  Learn more

                                  Got it!