Using minimal communication to improve decentralized conflict resolution for non-holonomic vehicles

This work considers the problem of decentralized coordination between multiple non-holonomic vehicles, each navigating to a specified goal. By augmenting the Generalized Roundabout Policy (GRP), which guarantees collision avoidance, this paper improves the performance and liveness characteristics for such problems. These gains are achieved by integrating a second hybrid policy with GRP that updates the desired direction for each vehicle based on a dynamic priority scheme. In this scheme, minimalistic communication between vehicles is employed, such that information is periodically exchanged when changes in the high-level operating mode or prioritization occur. This information exchange is taking place only locally and data are exchanged only between neighboring vehicles. Additionally, each agent selects a control using only this local information and rules established by the two underlying hybrid automata. The proposed technique scales well due to its decentralized nature and as the computational complexity depends on the maximum number of vehicles in communication range for a vehicle. This paper presents simulations which show that the proposed approach can solve problems faster than using GRP alone, as well as solve instances in which GRP fails to find a solution, with minimal communication and computational overhead.

[1]  Dinesh Manocha,et al.  Reciprocal Velocity Obstacles for real-time multi-agent navigation , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[2]  Ian M. Mitchell,et al.  Safety verification of conflict resolution manoeuvres , 2001, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst..

[3]  Dimos V. Dimarogonas,et al.  Decentralized feedback stabilization of multiple nonholonomic agents , 2004, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA '04. 2004.

[4]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  Decentralized Cooperative Policy for Conflict Resolution in Multivehicle Systems , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[5]  Vladimir J. Lumelsky,et al.  Decentralized Motion Planning for Multiple Mobile Robots: The Cocktail Party Model , 1997, Auton. Robots.

[6]  Daniel E. Koditschek,et al.  Exact robot navigation using artificial potential functions , 1992, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[7]  Wolfram Burgard,et al.  The dynamic window approach to collision avoidance , 1997, IEEE Robotics Autom. Mag..

[8]  Evangelos Markakis,et al.  Auction-Based Multi-Robot Routing , 2005, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[9]  Paolo Fiorini,et al.  Motion Planning in Dynamic Environments Using Velocity Obstacles , 1998, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[10]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Introduction: Special Issue on Distributed Constraint Satisfaction , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[11]  Raffaello D'Andrea,et al.  Iterative MILP methods for vehicle-control problems , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[12]  Wolfram Burgard,et al.  Finding and Optimizing Solvable Priority Schemes for Decoupled Path Planning Techniques for Teams of Mobile Robots , 2002, PuK.

[13]  Yi Li,et al.  Motion Planning of Multiple Agents in Virtual Environments using Coordination Graphs , 2005, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[14]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  On optimal cooperative conflict resolution for air traffic management systems , 2000, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst..

[15]  Srinivas Akella,et al.  Coordinating Multiple Robots with Kinodynamic Constraints Along Specified Paths , 2005, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[16]  Kostas E. Bekris,et al.  A decentralized planner that guarantees the safety of communicating vehicles with complex dynamics that replan online , 2007, 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[17]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  An asynchronous complete method for distributed constraint optimization , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[18]  Kristi A. Morgansen,et al.  Decentralized reactive collision avoidance for multivehicle systems , 2008, 2008 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[19]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Algorithms for Distributed Constraint Satisfaction: A Review , 2000, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[20]  Christos G. Cassandras,et al.  A Cooperative receding horizon controller for multivehicle uncertain environments , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[21]  Tomás Lozano-Pérez,et al.  On multiple moving objects , 2005, Algorithmica.

[22]  Jean-Claude Latombe,et al.  Motion planning for multiple mobile robots using dynamic networks , 2003, 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.03CH37422).

[23]  Dinesh Manocha,et al.  Generalized velocity obstacles , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[24]  Joshua A. Levine,et al.  Sampling-based planning, control and verification of hybrid systems , 2000 .

[25]  Makoto Yokoo,et al.  Adopt: asynchronous distributed constraint optimization with quality guarantees , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[26]  Rachid Alami,et al.  How to solve deadlock situations within the plan-merging paradigm for multi-robot cooperation , 1997, Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robot and Systems. Innovative Robotics for Real-World Applications. IROS '97.

[27]  Tomás Lozano-Pérez,et al.  Deadlock-free and collision-free coordination of two robot manipulators , 1989, Proceedings, 1989 International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[28]  Günther Schmidt,et al.  Conflict-free motion of multiple mobile robots based on decentralized motion planning and negotiation , 1997, Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[29]  Dimos V. Dimarogonas,et al.  3D navigation and collision avoidance for nonholonomic aircraft‐like vehicles , 2010 .