Research Papers

A Noise Based Distributed Optimization Method for Multirobot Task Allocation With Multimodal Utility

[+] Author and Article Information
Baisravan HomChaudhuri

Department of Mechanical, Industrial
and Manufacturing Engineering,
University of Toledo,
Toledo, OH 43606
e-mail: baisravan.hc@gmail.com

Manish Kumar

Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical, Industrial
and Manufacturing Engineering,
University of Toledo,
Toledo, OH 43606
e-mail: manish.kumar2@utoledo.edu

Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript received January 30, 2014; final manuscript received June 12, 2014; published online October 21, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Dejan Milutinovic.

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 137(3), 031010 (Oct 21, 2014) (8 pages) Paper No: DS-14-1047; doi: 10.1115/1.4028553 History: Received January 30, 2014; Revised June 12, 2014

Distributed optimization methods have been used extensively in multirobot task allocation (MRTA) problems. In distributed optimization domain, most of the algorithms are developed for solving convex optimization problems. However, for complex MRTA problems, the cost function can be nonconvex and multimodal in nature with more than one minimum or maximum points. In this paper, an effort has been made to address these complex MRTA problems with multimodal cost functions in a distributed manner. The approach used in this paper is a distributed primal–dual interior point method where noise is added in the search direction as a mechanism to allow the algorithm to escape from suboptimal solutions. The search direction from the distributed primal–dual interior point method and the weighted variable updates help in the generation of feasible primal and dual solutions and in faster convergence while the noise added in the search direction helps in avoiding local optima. The optimality and the computation time of this proposed method are compared with that of the genetic algorithm (GA) and the numerical results are provided in this paper.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Gerkey, B. P., and Matarić, M. J., 2004, “A Formal Analysis and Taxonomy of Task Allocation in Multi-Robot Systems,” Int. J. Rob. Res., 23(9), pp. 939–954. [CrossRef]
Dias, M. B., Zlot, R., Kalra, N., and Stentz, A., 2006, “Market-Based Multirobot Coordination: A Survey and Analysis,” Proc. IEEE, 94(7), pp. 1257–1270. [CrossRef]
Chen, J., and Sun, D., 2012, “Coalition-Based Approach to Task Allocation of Multiple Robots With Resource Constraints,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., 9(3), pp. 516–528. [CrossRef]
Andersson, M., and Sandholm, T., 2000, “Contract Type Sequencing for Reallocative Negotiation,” IEEE 20th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, Taipei, Taiwan, Apr. 10–13, pp. 154–160.
Luo, L., Chakraborty, N., and Sycara, K., “A Distributed Algorithm for Constrained Multi-Robot Task Assignment for Grouped Tasks,” Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, Technical Report No. CMU-RI-TR-12-35.
Dahl, T. S., Matarić, M., and Sukhatme, G. S., 2009, “Multi-Robot Task Allocation Through Vacancy Chain Scheduling,” Rob. Autonom. Syst., 57(6), pp. 674–687. [CrossRef]
Mosteo, A. R., and Montano, L., 2010, “A Survey of Multi-Robot Task Allocation,” Instituto de Investigación en Ingeniería de Aragón, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain, Technical Report No. AMI-009-10-TEC.
Bertsekas, D., and Tsitsiklis, J., 1989, Parallel and Distributed Computation, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kelly, F. P., Maulloo, A. K., and Tan, D. K., 1998, “Rate Control for Communication Networks: Shadow Prices, Proportional Fairness and Stability,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., 49(3), pp. 237–252. [CrossRef]
Boyd, S., Ghosh, A., Prabhakar, B., and Shah, D., 2006, “Randomized Gossip Algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 52(6), pp. 2508–2530. [CrossRef]
Karlsson, M., Ygge, F., and Andersson, A., 2007, “Market-Based Approaches to Optimization,” Comput. Intell., 23(1), pp. 92–109. [CrossRef]
Wellman, M., 1993, “A Market-Oriented Programming Environment and Its Application to Distributed Multicommodity Flow Problems,” J. Artif. Intell. Res., 1(1), pp. 1–23.
Clearwater, S., 1996, Market-Based Control: A Paradigm for Distributed Resource Allocation, World Scientific, Singapore.
Dias, M., and Stentz, A., 2002, “Opportunistic Optimization for Market-Based Multirobot Control,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Lausanne, Switzerland, Sept. 30–Oct. 4, Vol. 3, pp. 2714–2720. [CrossRef]
Zlot, R., and Stentz, A., 2006, “Market-Based Multirobot Coordination for Complex Tasks,” Int. J. Rob. Res., 25(1), pp. 73–101. [CrossRef]
Tan, C., Palomar, D., and Chiang, M., 2006, “Distributed Optimization of Coupled Systems With Applications to Network Utility Maximization,” IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Toulouse, France, May 14–19, Vol. 5, pp. 981–984.
HomChaudhuri, B., Kumar, M., and Devabhaktuni, V., 2012, “Market Based Approach for Solving Optimal Power Flow Problem in Smart Grid,” American Control Conference (ACC), Montreal, QC, Canada, June 27–29, pp. 3095–3100.
HomChaudhuri, B., and Kumar, M., 2011, “Market Based Allocation of Power in Smart Grid,” American Control Conference (ACC), San Francisco, CA, June 29–July 1, pp. 3251–3256.
HomChaudhuri, B., and Kumar, M., 2012, “Market-Based Distributed Optimization Approaches for Three Classes of Resource Allocation Problems,” Parallel Distrib. Comput. Networks, 1(1), pp. 1–12.
HomChaudhuri, B., Kumar, M., and Devabhaktuni, V., 2011, “A Market Based Distributed Optimization for Power Allocation in Smart Grid,” ASME Paper No. DSCC2011-6140. [CrossRef]
Nedic, A., and Ozdaglar, A., 2009, “Distributed Subgradient Methods for Multi-Agent Optimization,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 54(1), pp. 48–61. [CrossRef]
Jadbabaie, A., Ozdaglar, A., and Zargham, M., 2009, “A Distributed Newton Method for Network Optimization,” Proceedings of the 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, held jointly with the 28th Chinese Control Conference. CDC/CCC, Shanghai, China, Dec. 15–18, pp. 2736–2741.
Jadbabaie, A., Lin, J., and Morse, A., 2003, “Coordination of Groups of Mobile Autonomous Agents Using Nearest Neighbor Rules,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 48(6), pp. 988–1001. [CrossRef]
Blondel, V., Hendrickx, J., Olshevsky, A., and Tsitsiklis, J., 2005, “Convergence in Multiagent Coordination, Consensus, and Flocking,” 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, and 2005 European Control Conference, Seville, Spain, Dec. 12–15, pp. 2996–3000.
Nedic, A., and Bertsekas, D., 2001, “Incremental Subgradient Methods for Nondifferentiable Optimization,” SIAM J. Optim., 12(1), pp. 109–138. [CrossRef]
Johansson, B., Rabi, M., and Johansson, M., 2009, “A Randomized Incremental Subgradient Method for Distributed Optimization in Networked Systems,” SIAM J. Optim., 20(3), pp. 1157–1170. [CrossRef]
Talebi, M. S., Khonsari, A., Hajiesmaili, M. H., and Jafarpour, S., 2009, “A Suboptimal Network Utility Maximization Approach for Scalable Multimedia Applications,” IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, Honolulu, HI, Nov. 30–Dec. 4, pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
Crutchley, D., and Zwolinski, M., 2002, “Using Evolutionary and Hybrid Algorithms for DC Operating Point Analysis of Nonlinear Circuits,” Proceedings of the 2002 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 1, Honolulu, HI, May 12–17, pp. 753–758. [CrossRef]
Dong, Z., Lu, M., Lu, Z., and Wong, K., 2006, “A Differential Evolution Based Method for Power System Planning,” IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 16–21, pp. 2699–2706. [CrossRef]
Soterroni, A. C., Galski, R. L., and Ramos, F. M., 2011, “The q-Gradient Vector for Unconstrained Continuous Optimization Problems,” Operations Research Proceedings, Springer Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
Pessin, G., Osório, F., Hata, A. Y., and Wolf, D. F., 2010, “Intelligent Control and Evolutionary Strategies Applied to Multirobotic Systems,” IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), Viña del Mar, Chile, Mar. 14–17, pp. 1427–1432. [CrossRef]
Casbeer, D. W., Beard, R., McLain, T., Li, S.-M., and Mehra, R. K., 2005, “Forest Fire Monitoring With Multiple Small UAVs,” Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Portland, OR, June 8–10, pp. 3530–3535.
Gorte, R., and Economics, H., 2013, The Rising Cost of Wildfire Protection, Headwaters Economics, Bozeman MT.
Palomar, D. P., and Chiang, M., 2006, “A Tutorial on Decomposition Methods for Network Utility Maximization,” IEEE J. Selected Areas Commun., 24(8), pp. 1439–1451. [CrossRef]
Boyd, S., and Vandenberghe, L., 2004, Convex Optimization, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
HomChaudhuri, B., 2013, “Price-Based Distributed Optimization in Large-Scale Networked Systems,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
HomChaudhuri, B., and Kumar, M., 2014, “A Newton Based Distributed Optimization Method With Local Interactions for Large-Scale Networked Optimization Problems,” American Control Conference, Portland, OR, June 4–6, pp. 4336–4341.
Stanley, H. E., 1987, “Introduction to Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena,” Introduction to Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, Oxford University, Oxford, UK, p. 336.
Vicsek, T., Czirók, A., Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I., and Shochet, O., 1995, “Novel Type of Phase Transition in a System of Self-Driven Particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 75(6), pp. 1226–1229. [CrossRef] [PubMed]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Multimodal cost function

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Geometric interpretation of the approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Evolution of system utility with the number of iterations for Case 2 using the proposed distributed approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Case 2: comparison of utility for 50 different runs for 200 tasks and 500 robots

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Evolution of system utility with the number of iterations for Case 3 using the proposed distributed approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Total utility versus σ

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Evolution of system utility with the number of iterations for Case 1 using the proposed distributed approach

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Case 1: comparison of utility for 50 different runs for 50 tasks and 80 robots



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In