Human-Robot Team Task Scheduling for Planetary Surface Missions

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/77042/1/AIAA-2007-2972-351.pd

Survey of Command Execution Systems for NASA Spacecraft and Robots

NASA spacecraft and robots operate at long distances from Earth Command sequences generated manually, or by automated planners on Earth, must eventually be executed autonomously onboard the spacecraft or robot. Software systems that execute commands onboard are known variously as execution systems, virtual machines, or sequence engines. Every robotic system requires some sort of execution system, but the level of autonomy and type of control they are designed for varies greatly. This paper presents a survey of execution systems with a focus on systems relevant to NASA missions

Commercial software tools for intelligent autonomous systems

This article identifies some of the commercial software tools that can potentially be examined, or relied upon for their techniques, within new EPSRC projects entitled "Reconfigurable Autonomy" and "Distributed Sensing and Control.." awarded and to be undertaken between Liverpool, Southampton and Surrey Universities in the next 4 years. Although such projects strive to produce new techniques of various kinds, the software reviewed here could also influence, shape and help to integrate the algorithmic outcome of all 16 projects awarded within the EPSRC Autonomous and Intelligent Systems programme early 2012. To avoid mis-representation of technololgies provided by the software producer companies listed, most of this review is based on using quotes from original product descriptions

Progress in AI Planning Research and Applications

Planning has made significant progress since its inception in the 1970s, in terms both of the efficiency and sophistication of its algorithms and representations and its potential for application to real problems. In this paper we sketch the foundations of planning as a sub-field of Artificial Intelligence and the history of its development over the past three decades. Then some of the recent achievements within the field are discussed and provided some experimental data demonstrating the progress that has been made in the application of general planners to realistic and complex problems. The paper concludes by identifying some of the open issues that remain as important challenges for future research in planning

Reactive plan execution in multi-agent environments

[ES] Uno de los desafı́os de la robótica es desarrollar sistemas de control capaces de obtener rápidamente respuestas adecuadas e inteligentes para los cambios constantes que tienen lugar en entornos dinámicos. Esta respuesta debe ofrecerse almomento con el objetivo de reanudar la ejecución del plan siempre que se produzca un fallo en el mismo.El término planificación reactiva aborda todos los mecanismos que, directa o indirectamente, promueven la resolución de fallos durante la ejecución del plan. Los sistemas de planificación reactiva funcionan bajo un enfoque de planificación y ejecución continua, es decir, se intercala planificación y ejecución en entornos dinámicos. Muchas de las investigaciones actuales se centran en desarrollar planificadores reactivos que trabajan en escenarios de un único agente para recuperarse rápidamente de los fallos producidos durante la ejecución del plan, pero, si esto no es posible, pueden requerirse arquitecturas de múltiples agentes y métodos de recuperación más complejos donde varios agentes puedan participar para solucionar el fallo. Por lo tanto, los sistemas de planificación y ejecución continua generalmente generan soluciones para un solo agente. La complejidad de establecer comunicaciones entre los agentes en entornos dinámicos y con restricciones de tiempo ha desanimado a los investigadores a implementar soluciones reactivas donde colaboren varios agentes. En línea con esta investigación, la presente tesis doctoral intenta superar esta brecha y presenta un modelo de ejecución y planificación reactiva multiagente que realiza un seguimiento de la ejecución de un agente para reparar los fallos con ayuda de otros agentes. En primer lugar, proponemos una arquitectura que comprende un modelo general reactivo de planificación y ejecución que otorga a un agente capacidades de monitorización y ejecución. El modelo también incorpora un planificador reactivo que proporciona al agente respuestas rápidas para recuperarse de los fallos que se pueden producir durante la ejecución del plan. Por lo tanto, la misión de un agente de ejecución es monitorizar, ejecutar y reparar un plan, si ocurre un fallo durante su ejecución. El planificador reactivo está construido sobre un proceso de busqueda limitada en el tiempo que busca soluciones de recuperación para posibles fallos que pueden ocurrir. El agente genera los espacios de búsqueda en tiempo de ejecución con una construcción iterativa limitada en el tiempo que garantiza que el modelo siempre tendrá un espacio de búsqueda disponible para atender un fallo inmediato del plan. Por lo tanto, la única operación que debe hacerse es buscar en el espacio de búsqueda hasta que se encuentre una solución de recuperación. Evaluamos el rendimiento y la reactividad de nuestro planificador reactivo mediante la realización de dos experimentos. Evaluamos la reactividad del planificador para construir espacios de búsqueda dentro de un tiempo disponible dado, asi como támbien, evaluamos el rendimiento y calidad de encontrar soluciones con otros dos métodos deliberativos de planificación. Luego de las investigaciones de un solo agente, propusimos extender el modelo a un contexto de múltiples agentes para la reparación colaborativa donde al menos dos agentes participan en la solución final. El objetivo era idear un modelo de ejecución y planificación reactiva multiagente que garantice el flujo continuo e ininterrumpido de los agentes de ejecución. El modelo reactivo multiagente proporciona un mecanismo de colaboración para reparar una tarea cuando un agente no puede reparar la falla por sí mismo. Para evaluar nuestro sistema, diseñamos diferentes situaciones en tres dominios de planificación del mundo real. Finalmente, el documento presenta algunas conclusiones y también propone futuras lı́neas de investigación posibles.[CA] Un dels desafiaments de la robòtica és desenvolupar sistemes de control capaços d'obtindre ràpidament respostes adequades i intel·ligents per als canvis constants que tenen lloc en entorns dinàmics. Aquesta resposta ha d'oferir-se al moment amb l'objectiu de reprendre l'execució del pla sempre que es produı̈sca una fallada en aquest. El terme planificació reactiva aborda tots els mecanismes que, directa o indirectament, promouen la resolució de fallades durant l'execució del pla. Els sistemes de planificació reactiva funcionen sota un enfocament de planificació i execució contı́nua, és a dir, s'intercala planificació i execució en entorns dinàmics. Moltes de les investigacions actuals se centren en desenvolupar planificadors reactius que treballen en escenaris d'un únic agent per a recuperar-se ràpidament de les fallades produı̈des durant l'execució del pla, però, si això no és possible, poden requerir-se arquitectures de múltiples agents i mètodes de recuperació més complexos on diversos agents puguen participar per a solucionar la fallada. Per tant, els sistemes de planificació i execució contı́nua generalment generen solucions per a un sol agent. La complexitat d'establir comunicacions entre els agents en entorns dinàmics i amb restriccions de temps ha desanimat als investigadors a implementar solucions reactives on col·laboren diversos agents. En lı́nia amb aquesta investigació, la present tesi doctoral intenta superar aquesta bretxa i presenta un model d'execució i planificació reactiva multiagent que realitza un seguiment de l'execució d'un agent per a reparar les fallades amb ajuda d'altres agents. En primer lloc, proposem una arquitectura que comprén un model general reactiu de planificació i execució que atorga a un agent capacitats de monitoratge i execució. El model també incorpora un planificador reactiu que proporciona a l'agent respostes ràpides per a recuperar-se de les fallades que es poden produir durant l'execució del pla. Per tant, la missió d'un agent d'execució és monitorar, executar i reparar un pla, si ocorre una fallada durant la seua execució. El planificador reactiu està construı̈t sobre un procés de cerca limitada en el temps que busca solucions de recuperació per a possibles fallades que poden ocórrer. L'agent genera els espais de cerca en temps d'execució amb una construcció iterativa limitada en el temps que garanteix que el model sempre tindrà un espai de cerca disponible per a atendre una fallada immediata del pla. Per tant, l'única operació que ha de fer-se és buscar en l'espai de cerca fins que es trobe una solució de recuperació. Avaluem el rendiment i la reactivitat del nostre planificador reactiu mitjançant la realització de dos experiments. Avaluem la reactivitat del planificador per a construir espais de cerca dins d'un temps disponible donat, aixı́ com també, avaluem el rendiment i qualitat de trobar solucions amb altres dos mètodes deliberatius de planificació. Després de les investigacions d'un sol agent, vam proposar estendre el model a un context de múltiples agents per a la reparació col·laborativa on almenys dos agents participen en la solució final. L'objectiu era idear un model d'execució i planificació reactiva multiagent que garantisca el flux continu i ininterromput dels agents d'execució. El model reactiu multiagent proporciona un mecanisme de col·laboració per a reparar una tasca quan un agent no pot reparar la falla per si mateix. Explota les capacitats de planificació reactiva dels agents en temps d'execució per a trobar una solució en la qual dos agents participen junts, evitant aixı́ que els agents hagen de recórrer a mecanismes deliberatius. Per a avaluar el nostre sistema, dissenyem diferents situacions en tres dominis de planificació del món real. Finalment, el document presenta algunes conclusions i tam[EN] One of the challenges of robotics is to develop control systems capable of quickly obtaining intelligent, suitable responses for the regularly changing that take place in dynamic environments. This response should be offered at runtime with the aim of resume the plan execution whenever a failure occurs. The term reactive planning addresses all the mechanisms that, directly or indirectly, promote the resolution of failures during the plan execution. Reactive planning systems work under a continual planning and execution approach, i.e., interleaving planning and execution in dynamic environments. Most of the current research puts the focus on developing reactive planning system that works on single-agent scenarios to recover quickly plan failures, but, if this is not possible, we may require more complex multi-agent architectures where several agents may participate to solve the failures. Therefore, continual planning and execution systems have usually conceived solutions for individual agents. The complexity of establishing agent communications in dynamic and time-restricted environments has discouraged researchers from implementing multi-agent collaborative reactive solutions. In line with this research, this Ph.D. dissertation attempts to overcome this gap and presents a multi-agent reactive planning and execution model that keeps track of the execution of an agent to recover from incoming failures. Firstly, we propose an architecture that comprises a general reactive planning and execution model that endows a single-agent with monitoring and execution capabilities. The model also comprises a reactive planner module that provides the agent with fast responsiveness to recover from plan failures. Thus, the mission of an execution agent is to monitor, execute and repair a plan, if a failure occurs during the plan execution. The reactive planner builds on a time-bounded search process that seeks a recovery plan in a solution space that encodes potential fixes for a failure. The agent generates the search space at runtime with an iterative time-bounded construction that guarantees that a solution space will always be available for attending an immediate plan failure. Thus, the only operation that needs to be done when a failure occurs is to search over the solution space until a recovery path is found. We evaluated theperformance and reactiveness of our single-agent reactive planner by conducting two experiments. We have evaluated the reactiveness of the single-agent reactive planner when building solution spaces within a given time limit as well as the performance and quality of the found solutions when compared with two deliberative planning methods. Following the investigations for the single-agent scenario, our proposal is to extend the single model to a multi-agent context for collaborative repair where at least two agents participate in the final solution. The aim is to come up with a multi-agent reactive planning and execution model that ensures the continuous and uninterruptedly flow of the execution agents. The multi-agent reactive model provides a collaborative mechanism for repairing a task when an agent is not able to repair the failure by itself. It exploits the reactive planning capabilities of the agents at runtime to come up with a solution in which two agents participate together, thus preventing agents from having to resort to a deliberative solution. Throughout the thesis document, we motivate the application of the proposed model to the control of autonomous space vehicles in a Planetary Mars scenario. To evaluate our system, we designed different problem situations from three real-world planning domains. Finally, the document presents some conclusions and also outlines future research directions.Gúzman Álvarez, CA. (2019). Reactive plan execution in multi-agent environments [Tesis doctoral no publicada]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/12045

Automated Hierarchical, Forward-Chaining Temporal Planner for Planetary Robots Exploring Unknown Environments

The transition of mobile robots from a controlled environment towards the real-world represents a major leap in terms of complexity coming primarily from three different factors: partial observability, nondeterminism and dynamic events. To cope with them, robots must achieve some intelligence behaviours to be cost and operationally effective. Two particularly interesting examples of highly complex robotic scenarios are Mars rover missions and the Darpa Robotic Challenge (DRC). In spite of the important differences they present in terms of constraints and requirements, they both have adopted certain level of autonomy to overcome some specific problems. For instance, Mars rovers have been endowed with multiple systems to enable autonomous payload operations and consequently increase science return. In the case of DRC, most teams have autonomous footstep planning or arm trajectory calculation. Even though some specific problems can be addressed with dedicated tools, the general problem remains unsolved: to deploy on-board a reliable reasoning system able to operate robots without human intervention even in complex environments. This is precisely the goal of an automated mission planner. The scientific community has provided plenty of planners able to provide very fast solutions for classical problems, typically characterized by the lack of time and resources representation. Moreover, there are also a handful of applied planners with higher levels of expressiveness at the price of lowest performance. However, a fast, expressive and robust planner has never been used in complex robotic missions. These three properties represent the main drivers for the outcomes of the thesis. To bridge the gap between classical and applied planning, a novel formalism named Hierarchical TimeLine Networks (HTLN) combining Timeline and HTN planning has been proposed. HTLN has been implemented on a mission planner named QuijoteExpress, the first forward-chaining timeline planner to the best of our knowledge. The main idea is to benefit from the great performance of forward-chaining search to resolve temporal problems on the state-space. In addition, QuijoteExpress includes search enhancements such as parallel planning by division of the problem in sub-problems or advanced heuristics management. Regarding expressiveness, the planner incorporates HTN techniques that allow to define hierarchical models and solutions. Finally, plan robustness in uncertain scenarios has been addressed by means of sufficient plans that allow to leave parts of valid plans undefined. To test the planner, a novel lightweight, timeline and ROS-based executive named SanchoExpress has been designed to translate the plans into actions understandable by the different robot subsystems. The entire approach has been tested in two realistic and complementary domains. A cooperative multirover Mars mission and an urban search and rescue mission. The results were extremely positive and opens new promising ways in the field of automated planning applied to robotics

Toward a Test Environment for Autonomous Controllers

In the last two decades, an increasing attention has been dedicated on the use of high level task planning in robotic control, aiming to deploy advanced robotics systems in challenging scenarios where a high autonomy degree is required. Nevertheless, an interesting open problem in the literature is the lack of a well defined methodology for approaching the design of deliberative systems and for fairly comparing different approaches to deliberation. This paper presents the general idea of an environment for facilitating knowledge engineering for autonomy and in particular to facilitate accurate experiments on planning and execution systems for robotics. It discusses features of the On-Ground Autonomy Test Environment (OGATE), a general testbench for interfacing deliberative modules. In particular we present features of an initial instance of such system built to support the GOAC robotic software

Un module de gestion de mission autonome pour des satellites d'observation de la Terre

International audienceThis paper presents an autonomous controller developed for managing the activities of a new generation of Earth Observing Satellites (EOSs). This controller uses a hierarchy of reactors as in previously existing architectures, and it exploits specific r easoning p rocedures a t t he l evel o f e ach r eactor to get fast deliberations on-board. It is able to take into account the arrival of urgent acquisition requests, late cloud predictions , and information about the real volume of data, while meeting several operational requirements from the end-users

Engineering Resilient Space Systems

Several distinct trends will influence space exploration missions in the next decade. Destinations are becoming more remote and mysterious, science questions more sophisticated, and, as mission experience accumulates, the most accessible targets are visited, advancing the knowledge frontier to more difficult, harsh, and inaccessible environments. This leads to new challenges including: hazardous conditions that limit mission lifetime, such as high radiation levels surrounding interesting destinations like Europa or toxic atmospheres of planetary bodies like Venus; unconstrained environments with navigation hazards, such as free-floating active small bodies; multielement missions required to answer more sophisticated questions, such as Mars Sample Return (MSR); and long-range missions, such as Kuiper belt exploration, that must survive equipment failures over the span of decades. These missions will need to be successful without a priori knowledge of the most efficient data collection techniques for optimum science return. Science objectives will have to be revised ‘on the fly’, with new data collection and navigation decisions on short timescales. Yet, even as science objectives are becoming more ambitious, several critical resources remain unchanged. Since physics imposes insurmountable light-time delays, anticipated improvements to the Deep Space Network (DSN) will only marginally improve the bandwidth and communications cadence to remote spacecraft. Fiscal resources are increasingly limited, resulting in fewer flagship missions, smaller spacecraft, and less subsystem redundancy. As missions visit more distant and formidable locations, the job of the operations team becomes more challenging, seemingly inconsistent with the trend of shrinking mission budgets for operations support. How can we continue to explore challenging new locations without increasing risk or system complexity? These challenges are present, to some degree, for the entire Decadal Survey mission portfolio, as documented in Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013–2022 (National Research Council, 2011), but are especially acute for the following mission examples, identified in our recently completed KISS Engineering Resilient Space Systems (ERSS) study: 1. A Venus lander, designed to sample the atmosphere and surface of Venus, would have to perform science operations as components and subsystems degrade and fail; 2. A Trojan asteroid tour spacecraft would spend significant time cruising to its ultimate destination (essentially hibernating to save on operations costs), then upon arrival, would have to act as its own surveyor, finding new objects and targets of opportunity as it approaches each asteroid, requiring response on short notice; and 3. A MSR campaign would not only be required to perform fast reconnaissance over long distances on the surface of Mars, interact with an unknown physical surface, and handle degradations and faults, but would also contain multiple components (launch vehicle, cruise stage, entry and landing vehicle, surface rover, ascent vehicle, orbiting cache, and Earth return vehicle) that dramatically increase the need for resilience to failure across the complex system. The concept of resilience and its relevance and application in various domains was a focus during the study, with several definitions of resilience proposed and discussed. While there was substantial variation in the specifics, there was a common conceptual core that emerged—adaptation in the presence of changing circumstances. These changes were couched in various ways—anomalies, disruptions, discoveries—but they all ultimately had to do with changes in underlying assumptions. Invalid assumptions, whether due to unexpected changes in the environment, or an inadequate understanding of interactions within the system, may cause unexpected or unintended system behavior. A system is resilient if it continues to perform the intended functions in the presence of invalid assumptions. Our study focused on areas of resilience that we felt needed additional exploration and integration, namely system and software architectures and capabilities, and autonomy technologies. (While also an important consideration, resilience in hardware is being addressed in multiple other venues, including 2 other KISS studies.) The study consisted of two workshops, separated by a seven-month focused study period. The first workshop (Workshop #1) explored the ‘problem space’ as an organizing theme, and the second workshop (Workshop #2) explored the ‘solution space’. In each workshop, focused discussions and exercises were interspersed with presentations from participants and invited speakers. The study period between the two workshops was organized as part of the synthesis activity during the first workshop. The study participants, after spending the initial days of the first workshop discussing the nature of resilience and its impact on future science missions, decided to split into three focus groups, each with a particular thrust, to explore specific ideas further and develop material needed for the second workshop. The three focus groups and areas of exploration were: 1. Reference missions: address/refine the resilience needs by exploring a set of reference missions 2. Capability survey: collect, document, and assess current efforts to develop capabilities and technology that could be used to address the documented needs, both inside and outside NASA 3. Architecture: analyze the impact of architecture on system resilience, and provide principles and guidance for architecting greater resilience in our future systems The key product of the second workshop was a set of capability roadmaps pertaining to the three reference missions selected for their representative coverage of the types of space missions envisioned for the future. From these three roadmaps, we have extracted several common capability patterns that would be appropriate targets for near-term technical development: one focused on graceful degradation of system functionality, a second focused on data understanding for science and engineering applications, and a third focused on hazard avoidance and environmental uncertainty. Continuing work is extending these roadmaps to identify candidate enablers of the capabilities from the following three categories: architecture solutions, technology solutions, and process solutions. The KISS study allowed a collection of diverse and engaged engineers, researchers, and scientists to think deeply about the theory, approaches, and technical issues involved in developing and applying resilience capabilities. The conclusions summarize the varied and disparate discussions that occurred during the study, and include new insights about the nature of the challenge and potential solutions: 1. There is a clear and definitive need for more resilient space systems. During our study period, the key scientists/engineers we engaged to understand potential future missions confirmed the scientific and risk reduction value of greater resilience in the systems used to perform these missions. 2. Resilience can be quantified in measurable terms—project cost, mission risk, and quality of science return. In order to consider resilience properly in the set of engineering trades performed during the design, integration, and operation of space systems, the benefits and costs of resilience need to be quantified. We believe, based on the work done during the study, that appropriate metrics to measure resilience must relate to risk, cost, and science quality/opportunity. Additional work is required to explicitly tie design decisions to these first-order concerns. 3. There are many existing basic technologies that can be applied to engineering resilient space systems. Through the discussions during the study, we found many varied approaches and research that address the various facets of resilience, some within NASA, and many more beyond. Examples from civil architecture, Department of Defense (DoD) / Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiatives, ‘smart’ power grid control, cyber-physical systems, software architecture, and application of formal verification methods for software were identified and discussed. The variety and scope of related efforts is encouraging and presents many opportunities for collaboration and development, and we expect many collaborative proposals and joint research as a result of the study. 4. Use of principled architectural approaches is key to managing complexity and integrating disparate technologies. The main challenge inherent in considering highly resilient space systems is that the increase in capability can result in an increase in complexity with all of the 3 risks and costs associated with more complex systems. What is needed is a better way of conceiving space systems that enables incorporation of capabilities without increasing complexity. We believe principled architecting approaches provide the needed means to convey a unified understanding of the system to primary stakeholders, thereby controlling complexity in the conception and development of resilient systems, and enabling the integration of disparate approaches and technologies. A representative architectural example is included in Appendix F. 5. Developing trusted resilience capabilities will require a diverse yet strategically directed research program. Despite the interest in, and benefits of, deploying resilience space systems, to date, there has been a notable lack of meaningful demonstrated progress in systems capable of working in hazardous uncertain situations. The roadmaps completed during the study, and documented in this report, provide the basis for a real funded plan that considers the required fundamental work and evolution of needed capabilities. Exploring space is a challenging and difficult endeavor. Future space missions will require more resilience in order to perform the desired science in new environments under constraints of development and operations cost, acceptable risk, and communications delays. Development of space systems with resilient capabilities has the potential to expand the limits of possibility, revolutionizing space science by enabling as yet unforeseen missions and breakthrough science observations. Our KISS study provided an essential venue for the consideration of these challenges and goals. Additional work and future steps are needed to realize the potential of resilient systems—this study provided the necessary catalyst to begin this process