Resilience of a human-robot system using adjustable autonomy and human-robot collaborative control

Unmanned ground vehicles tend to be more and more autonomous. Nowadays, both complete teleoperation and full autonomy are not efficient enough to deal with all possible situations. To be efficient, the human-robot system must be able to anticipate, react, recover and even learn from errors of different kinds, i.e., to be resilient. Adjustable autonomy is a way to react to unplanned events and to optimise the task allocation between the human operator and the robot. It thus can be seen as a component of the resilience of a system which can be defined as the ability to maintain or recover a stable state when subject to disturbance. In this paper, adjustable autonomy and human-robot cooperation are considered as means to control the resilience. This paper then proposes an approach to design a resilient human-robot system through some defined criteria which aim at assessing the transitions of the modes of autonomy. Perspectives of this approach intend to provide metrics for the adjustment of autonomy in the most resilient way. First results from experiments achieved on a micro-world aim at a preliminary assessment of the different meanings of resilience of the system using the proposed metrics.

[1]  E. Reed The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1989 .

[2]  C. S. Holling,et al.  Sustainability, Stability, and Resilience , 1997 .

[3]  William W. Gaver Technology affordances , 1991, CHI.

[4]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[5]  Toshiyuki Inagaki,et al.  Adaptive Automation: Sharing and Trading of Control , 2001 .

[6]  Joseph Fiksel,et al.  Designing resilient, sustainable systems. , 2003, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  T. Stoffregen Affordances as Properties of the Animal-Environment System , 2003, How Shall Affordances be Refined? Four Perspectives.

[8]  Terrence Fong,et al.  Robot, asker of questions , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[9]  Serge Debernard,et al.  Common work space for human–machine cooperation in air traffic control , 2002 .

[10]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control , 2003 .

[11]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[12]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Experiments in adjustable autonomy , 2001, 2001 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. e-Systems and e-Man for Cybernetics in Cyberspace (Cat.No.01CH37236).

[13]  Kjeld Schmidt,et al.  Cooperative work: A conceptual framework , 1991 .

[14]  Jeffrey M. Bradshaw,et al.  Dimensions of Adjustable Autonomy and Mixed-Initiative Interaction , 2003, Agents and Computational Autonomy.

[15]  T. Smithers Autonomy in Robots and Other Agents , 1997, Brain and Cognition.

[16]  Kanichi Takagi,et al.  Human error and human reliability , 1967 .

[17]  David Kortenkamp,et al.  Adjustable Autonomy for Human-Centered Autonomous Systems on Mars , 1998 .

[18]  Maya Cakmak,et al.  To Afford or Not to Afford: A New Formalization of Affordances Toward Affordance-Based Robot Control , 2007, Adapt. Behav..

[19]  Erik Hollnagel Achieving System Safety by Resilience Engineering , 2006 .

[20]  M. Dogar,et al.  Afford or Not to Afford : A New Formalization of Affordances Toward Affordance-Based Robot , 2007 .

[21]  Jean Scholtz,et al.  Theory and evaluation of human robot interactions , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[22]  Luc Steels,et al.  When are robots intelligent autonomous agents? , 1995, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[23]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Epilogue: Resilience Engineering Precepts , 2006 .