European Control Conference (ECC), 2022
Predictive Receding-Horizon Multi-Robot Task Allocation with Moving Tasks
pp. 2030–2035.
Part of Predictive Multi-Robot Task Allocation for Radiation Monitoring
@inproceedings{martin2022predictive,
title = {Predictive receding-horizon multi-robot task allocation with moving tasks},
author = {Martin, Javier G. and Hanif, Muhammad and Hatanaka, Takeshi and Maestre, Jose M. and Camacho, Eduardo F.},
booktitle = {2022 European Control Conference (ECC)},
pages = {2030--2035},
year = {2022},
publisher = {IEEE}
}
The first version of the predictive receding-horizon task allocation method, presented on an academic case study.
The setting is a robotic sensor network measuring irradiance across a thermosolar plant, where the things being measured — cloud shadows — keep moving. That makes the assignment time-extended: you cannot allocate once, because by the time a robot arrives the task has gone somewhere else. The answer is to borrow the structure of model predictive control: predict how tasks evolve, allocate a sequence over a horizon, apply only the first step, then recompute.
What makes it scale is that the problem is transformed into a linear program. Other time-extended MRTA formulations solve a non-convex problem, which puts plant-sized instances out of reach.
What came next
This paper was extended into the Solar Energy journal version, Predictive Receding-Horizon Multi-Robot Task Allocation Applied to the Mapping of Direct Normal Irradiance in a Thermosolar Power Plant, which adds:
- a hybrid event-based/synchronous recalculation strategy, replacing the purely event-triggered version here — which matters once cloud velocity is uncertain
- a more compact formulation of the energetic constraints
- better prediction of robot-to-task distances across horizon steps
- realistic simulation in ROS and Gazebo, on a model of the La Africana plant
Compared directly on 1000 random problems, the journal version solves more of them (776 against 744) and achieves a better mean cost on those both can solve — 1384.2 against 1562.1.