Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06553 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866911128550899712 |
|---|---|
| author | Jamshidpey, Aryo Wahby, Mostafa Allwright, Michael Zhu, Weixu Dorigo, Marco Heinrich, Mary Katherine |
| author_facet | Jamshidpey, Aryo Wahby, Mostafa Allwright, Michael Zhu, Weixu Dorigo, Marco Heinrich, Mary Katherine |
| contents | In swarm robotics, decentralized control is often proposed as a more scalable and fault-tolerant alternative to centralized control. However, centralized behaviors are often faster and more efficient than their decentralized counterparts. In any given application, the goals and constraints of the task being solved should guide the choice to use centralized control, decentralized control, or a combination of the two. Currently, the exact trade-offs that exist between centralization and decentralization are not well defined. In this paper, we compare the performance of centralization and decentralization in the example task of sweep coverage, across five different types of multi-robot control structures: random walk, decentralized with beacons, hybrid formation control using self-organizing hierarchy, centralized formation control, and predetermined. In all five approaches, the coverage task is completed by a group of ground robots. In each approach, except for the random walk, the ground robots are assisted by UAVs, acting as supervisors or beacons. We compare the approaches in terms of three performance metrics for which centralized approaches are expected to have an advantage -- coverage completeness, coverage uniformity, and sweep completion time -- and two metrics for which decentralized approaches are expected to have an advantage -- scalability (4, 8, or 16 ground robots) and fault tolerance (0%, 25%, 50%, or 75% ground robot failure). |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2408_06553 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Centralization vs. decentralization in multi-robot sweep coverage with ground robots and UAVs Jamshidpey, Aryo Wahby, Mostafa Allwright, Michael Zhu, Weixu Dorigo, Marco Heinrich, Mary Katherine Robotics In swarm robotics, decentralized control is often proposed as a more scalable and fault-tolerant alternative to centralized control. However, centralized behaviors are often faster and more efficient than their decentralized counterparts. In any given application, the goals and constraints of the task being solved should guide the choice to use centralized control, decentralized control, or a combination of the two. Currently, the exact trade-offs that exist between centralization and decentralization are not well defined. In this paper, we compare the performance of centralization and decentralization in the example task of sweep coverage, across five different types of multi-robot control structures: random walk, decentralized with beacons, hybrid formation control using self-organizing hierarchy, centralized formation control, and predetermined. In all five approaches, the coverage task is completed by a group of ground robots. In each approach, except for the random walk, the ground robots are assisted by UAVs, acting as supervisors or beacons. We compare the approaches in terms of three performance metrics for which centralized approaches are expected to have an advantage -- coverage completeness, coverage uniformity, and sweep completion time -- and two metrics for which decentralized approaches are expected to have an advantage -- scalability (4, 8, or 16 ground robots) and fault tolerance (0%, 25%, 50%, or 75% ground robot failure). |
| title | Centralization vs. decentralization in multi-robot sweep coverage with ground robots and UAVs |
| topic | Robotics |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06553 |