2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 2017
DOI: 10.1109/iros.2017.8206020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

RCAMP: A resilient communication-aware motion planner for mobile robots with autonomous repair of wireless connectivity

Abstract: Abstract-Mobile robots, be it autonomous or teleoperated, require stable communication with the base station to exchange valuable information. Given the stochastic elements in radio signal propagation, such as shadowing and fading, and the possibilities of unpredictable events or hardware failures, communication loss often presents a significant mission risk, both in terms of probability and impact, especially in Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) operations. Depending on the circumstances, disconnected robots are… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Update() 1 update idlenesses I (h) (t) and travel costs in G // asynchronous update through received messages and path planner feedback 2 update metric map M (h) and traversability map // asynchronous update through sensor callbacks 3 update team model T (h) // asynchronous update through received messages and path planner feedback 4 is node conf lict ← check if another robot in T (h) has the same goal node 5 is goal reached ← check if current goal has been reached by this robot 6 is goal visited ← check if current goal is visited by another robot // check by using received visited messages 7 is path planning f ailure ← check if path planner failed to compute a path to goal // check continuous replanning 8 is critical path planning f ailure ← check if path planning failure is lasting more than T pcr 9 is critical node conf lict ← check if robot is experiencing node conflicts for more than a time interval T ncr 10 is node visited ← check if a non-goal node is visited by this robot while reaching the current goal 11 if is node visited then 12 node ← get node visited along the way 13 broadcast node is visited // inform teammates about the non-goal node visit 14 end 15 broadcast idleness message with pre-fixed frequency 1/T idln On the other hand, if the robot is still reaching the current goal node, lines 11-20 are executed. If a path planner failure, a node conflict (see Section 6.2), or a node visit (see Section 6.1) occurs on the selected goal (line 11), the patrolling agent first sends a goal abort to the path planner, next broadcasts its decision and then triggers a new node selection (lines 12-16).…”
Section: Algorithm 2: Patrollingagentmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Update() 1 update idlenesses I (h) (t) and travel costs in G // asynchronous update through received messages and path planner feedback 2 update metric map M (h) and traversability map // asynchronous update through sensor callbacks 3 update team model T (h) // asynchronous update through received messages and path planner feedback 4 is node conf lict ← check if another robot in T (h) has the same goal node 5 is goal reached ← check if current goal has been reached by this robot 6 is goal visited ← check if current goal is visited by another robot // check by using received visited messages 7 is path planning f ailure ← check if path planner failed to compute a path to goal // check continuous replanning 8 is critical path planning f ailure ← check if path planning failure is lasting more than T pcr 9 is critical node conf lict ← check if robot is experiencing node conflicts for more than a time interval T ncr 10 is node visited ← check if a non-goal node is visited by this robot while reaching the current goal 11 if is node visited then 12 node ← get node visited along the way 13 broadcast node is visited // inform teammates about the non-goal node visit 14 end 15 broadcast idleness message with pre-fixed frequency 1/T idln On the other hand, if the robot is still reaching the current goal node, lines 11-20 are executed. If a path planner failure, a node conflict (see Section 6.2), or a node visit (see Section 6.1) occurs on the selected goal (line 11), the patrolling agent first sends a goal abort to the path planner, next broadcasts its decision and then triggers a new node selection (lines 12-16).…”
Section: Algorithm 2: Patrollingagentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Once an initial solution is found, the robot starts moving toward its goal (line 14) along the computed path. In this process, the path planner continuously replans a new path by using the most updated information (lines [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Since the environment is assumed to be dynamic and populated by moving robots, a path planning failure can be verified by the local path planner during its continuous replanning, even after an initial solution is found by the global path planner.…”
Section: Coordinated Path Planning and Message Protocolmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Unfortunately, due to uncertain and incomplete knowledge, the Γ i function only can either confirm the absence of connectivity or deliver an optimistic estimation of connectivity level instead. Although this model represents a valuable improvement in relation to others (e.g., the classic disk or line of sight models [20]), for the sake of simplicity other impairments also common in communication (e.g., bandwidth, information losses, fading, and multi-path propagation phenomenon [39,40]) are not considered in this work.…”
Section: Communication Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the real-world experiment and encouraging performance, this problem still turns out to be NP-Hard. In another alternative approach to a similar problem, Caccamo et al [43] proposed a communication-aware motion planner "with autonomous repair of wireless connectivity". Yet, this work relies on the existence of fixed-location access points.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%