2000 character limit reached
Behavior Trees in Industrial Applications: A Case Study in Underground Explosive Charging (2403.19602v1)
Published 28 Mar 2024 in cs.RO
Abstract: In industrial applications Finite State Machines (FSMs) are often used to implement decision making policies for autonomous systems. In recent years, the use of Behavior Trees (BT) as an alternative policy representation has gained considerable attention. The benefits of using BTs over FSMs are modularity and reusability, enabling a system that is easy to extend and modify. However, there exists few published studies on successful implementations of BTs for industrial applications. This paper contributes with the lessons learned from implementing BTs in a complex industrial use case, where a robotic system assembles explosive charges and places them in holes on the rock face. The main result of the paper is that even if it is possible to model the entire system as a BT, combining BTs with FSMs can increase the readability and maintainability of the system. The benefit of such combination is remarked especially in the use case studied in this paper, where the full system cannot run autonomously but human supervision and feedback are needed.
- M. Iovino, E. Scukins, J. Styrud, P. Ögren, and C. Smith, “A survey of Behavior Trees in robotics and AI,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 154, p. 104096, Aug. 2022.
- M. Iovino, J. Förster, P. Falco, J. J. Chung, R. Siegwart, and C. Smith, “On the programming effort required to generate Behavior Trees and Finite State Machines for robotic applications,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2023.
- M. Colledanchise and P. Ögren, “How Behavior Trees Modularize Hybrid Control Systems and Generalize Sequential Behavior Compositions, the Subsumption Architecture, and Decision Trees,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 372–389, Apr. 2017.
- O. Biggar, M. Zamani, and I. Shames, “On Modularity in Reactive Control Architectures, with an Application to Formal Verification,” ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 19:1–19:36, Apr. 2022.
- R. Balogh and D. Obdržálek, “Using Finite State Machines in Introductory Robotics,” in Robotics in Education, W. Lepuschitz, M. Merdan, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, and D. Obdržálek, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, vol. 829, pp. 85–91, series Title: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing.
- O. Biggar, M. Zamani, and I. Shames, “An Expressiveness Hierarchy of Behavior Trees and Related Architectures,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 5397–5404, Jul. 2021.
- A. Marzinotto, M. Colledanchise, C. Smith, and P. Ögren, “Towards a unified behavior trees framework for robot control,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2014, pp. 5420–5427.
- M. Iovino, J. Styrud, P. Falco, and C. Smith, “A framework for learning behavior trees in collaborative robotic applications,” in 2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), 2023, pp. 1–8.
- J. Styrud, M. Mayr, E. Hellsten, V. Krueger, and C. Smith, “Bebop–combining reactive planning and bayesian optimization to solve robotic manipulation tasks,” in 2023 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023.
- S. Kohlbrecher, A. Stumpf, A. Romay, P. Schillinger, O. von Stryk, and D. C. Conner, “A comprehensive software framework for complex locomotion and manipulation tasks applicable to different types of humanoid robots,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 3, 2016.
- P. Schillinger, S. Kohlbrecher, and O. von Stryk, “Human-robot collaborative high-level control with application to rescue robotics,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016, pp. 2796–2802.
- A. Romay, S. Kohlbrecher, A. Stumpf, O. von Stryk, S. Maniatopoulos, H. Kress-Gazit, P. Schillinger, and D. C. Conner, “Collaborative autonomy between high-level behaviors and human operators for remote manipulation tasks using different humanoid robots,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 333–358, 2017.
- D. Wuthier, F. Rovida, M. Fumagalli, and V. Krüger, “Productive multitasking for industrial robots,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2021, pp. 12 654–12 661.
- J. M. Zutell, D. C. Conner, and P. Schillinger, “Flexible Behavior Trees: In search of the mythical HFSMBTH for Collaborative Autonomy in Robotics,” arXiv:2203.05389 [cs], Mar. 2022.
- ——, “Ros 2-based flexible behavior engine for flexible navigation,” in SoutheastCon 2022, 2022, pp. 674–681.
- E. Coronado, D. Deuff, P. Carreno-Medrano, L. Tian, D. Kulić, S. Sumartojo, F. Mastrogiovanni, and G. Venture, “Towards a Modular and Distributed End-User Development Framework for Human-Robot Interaction,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 12 675–12 692, 2021.
- D. Faconti, “Mood2be: Models and tools to design robotic behaviors,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/BehaviorTree/BehaviorTree.CPP/master/MOOD2Be_final_report.pdf
- S. Macenski, T. Foote, B. Gerkey, C. Lalancette, and W. Woodall, “Robot operating system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild,” Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabm6074, 2022.
- M. Colledanchise, D. Almeida, and P. Ögren, “Towards Blended Reactive Planning and Acting using Behavior Trees,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2019, pp. 8839–8845.
- O. Gustavsson, M. Iovino, J. Styrud, and C. Smith, “Combining Context Awareness and Planning to Learn Behavior Trees from Demonstration,” in 2022 31st IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Aug. 2022, pp. 1153–1160.
- Mattias Hallen (1 paper)
- Matteo Iovino (13 papers)
- Shiva Sander-Tavallaey (2 papers)
- Christian Smith (27 papers)