4.6 Article

Enhanced Decentralized Autonomous Aerial Robot Teams With Group Planning

Journal

IEEE ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION LETTERS
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 9240-9247

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LRA.2022.3191037

Keywords

Swarm robotics; path planning for multiple mobile robots or agents; multi-robot systems

Categories

Funding

  1. Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project [2021SHZDZX0103]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [62003299]
  3. Shanghai Engineering Research Center of AI& Robotics, Fudan University, China
  4. Engineering Research Center of AI & Robotics, Ministry of Education, China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Designing autonomous aerial robot team systems is a significant challenge in robotics. This paper proposes an enhanced decentralized system with group planning, improving planning quality through efficient multi-agent pathfinding and trajectory optimization.
Designing autonomous aerial robot team systems remains a grand challenge in robotics. Existing works in this field can be categorized as centralized and decentralized. Centralized methods suffer from scale dilemmas, while decentralized ones often lead to poor planning quality. In this paper, we propose an enhanced decentralized autonomous aerial robot team system with group planning. According to the spatial distribution of agents, the system dynamically divides the team into several groups and isolated agents. For conflicts within each group, we propose a novel coordination mechanism named group planning. The group planning consists of efficient multi-agent pathfinding (MAPF) and trajectory joint optimization, which can significantly improve planning quality and success rate. We demonstrate through simulations and real-world experiments that our method not only has applicability for a large-scale team but also has top-level planning quality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available