Teams organization and performance analysis in autonomous human-robot teams

This paper proposes a theory of human control of robot teams based on considering how people coordinate across different task allocations. Our current work focuses on domains such as foraging in which robots perform largely independent tasks. The present study addresses the interaction between automation and organization of human teams in controlling large robot teams performing an Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) task. We identify three subtasks: perceptual search-visual search for victims, assistance-teleoperation to assist robot, and navigation-path planning and coordination. For the studies reported here, navigation was selected for automation because it involves weak dependencies among robots making it more complex and because it was shown in an earlier experiment to be the most difficult. This paper reports an extended analysis of the two conditions from a larger four condition study. In these two "shared pool" conditions Twenty four simulated robots were controlled by teams of 2 participants. Sixty paid participants (30 teams) were recruited to perform the shared pool tasks in which participants shared control of the 24 UGVs and viewed the same screens. Groups in the manual control condition issued waypoints to navigate their robots. In the autonomy condition robots generated their own waypoints using distributed path planning. We identify three self-organizing team strategies in the shared pool condition: joint control operators share full authority over robots, mixed control in which one operator takes primary control while the other acts as an assistant, and split control in which operators divide the robots with each controlling a sub-team. Automating path planning improved system performance. Effects of team organization favored operator teams who shared authority for the pool of robots.

[1]  S. Balakirsky,et al.  Design and validation of a Whegs robot in USARSim , 2007 .

[2]  Patrick Péruch,et al.  Acquisition of Spatial Knowledge Through Visual Exploration of Simulated Environments , 1995 .

[3]  Mary L. Cummings,et al.  Operator Performance and Intelligent Aiding in Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Scheduling , 2007, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[4]  Maja J. Matarić,et al.  A formal framework for the study of task allocation in multi-robot systems , 2003 .

[5]  Stefano Carpin,et al.  Validating USARsim for use in HRI Research , 2005 .

[6]  Andreas Birk,et al.  High Fidelity Tools for Rescue Robotics: Results and Perspectives , 2005, RoboCup.

[7]  Arnoud Visser,et al.  Towards heterogeneous robot teams for disaster mitigation: Results and performance metrics from RoboCup rescue , 2007, J. Field Robotics.

[8]  Prasanna Velagapudi,et al.  Teams for Teams Performance in Multi-Human/Multi-Robot Teams , 2010 .

[9]  Alex Fukunaga,et al.  Cooperative mobile robotics: antecedents and directions , 1995 .

[10]  Mary L. Cummings,et al.  The Impact of Intelligent Aiding for Multiple Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Schedule Management , 2007 .

[11]  Arnoud Visser,et al.  Towards heterogeneous robot teams for disaster mitigation: Results and performance metrics from RoboCup rescue: Field Reports , 2007 .

[12]  Stefano Carpin,et al.  Bridging the Gap Between Simulation and Reality in Urban Search and Rescue , 2006, RoboCup.

[13]  Nancy J. Cooke.  Human Factors of Remotely Operated Vehicles , 2006 .

[14]  Marco Fratarcangeli,et al.  A 3D Simulator of Multiple Legged Robots Based on USARSim , 2006, RoboCup.

[15]  Stefano Carpin,et al.  Quantitative Assessments of USARSim Accuracy , 2006 .

[16]  Paul Scerri,et al.  17. Scaling-up Human Control for Large UAV Teams , 2006 .

[17]  Jean-Claude Latombe,et al.  Robot motion planning , 1970, The Kluwer international series in engineering and computer science.

[18]  Cameron H. Engh,et al.  Towards Using UAVs in Wilderness Search and Rescue: Lessons from Field Trials , 2009 .

[19]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Towards using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in Wilderness Search and Rescue: Lessons from field trials , 2009 .

[20]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multitasking environments , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[21]  C. Scrapper,et al.  Robot simulation physics validation , 2007, PerMIS.

[22]  Mary L. Cummings,et al.  Modeling multiple human operators in the supervisory control of heterogeneous unmanned vehicles , 2009, PerMIS.

[23]  Mor Harchol-Balter,et al.  On Choosing a Task Assignment Policy for a Distributed Server System , 1998, J. Parallel Distributed Comput..

[24]  Prasanna Velagapudi,et al.  How search and its subtasks scale in N robots , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[25]  Sebastian Thrun,et al.  Perspectives on standardization in mobile robot programming: the Carnegie Mellon Navigation (CARMEN) Toolkit , 2003, Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No.03CH37453).

[26]  Michael Lewis,et al.  Assessing coordination overhead in control of robot teams , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.