Towards the use of control systems with variable autonomy levels in tasks of extreme robotics

Towards the use of control systems with variable autonomy levels in tasks of extreme robotics

Boris A. Spassky
PhD in Technical Sciences, Russian State Scientific Center for Robotics and Technical
Cybernetics (RTC), Head of Section, 21, Tikhoretsky pr., Saint Petersburg, 194064, Russia, tel.: +7(812)552-13-25, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., ORCID: 0000-0002-5210-5408

Alexander V. Popov
PhD in Technical Sciences, RTC, Deputy Director for Science, 21, Tikhoretsky pr., Saint Petersburg, 194064, Russia, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., ORCID: 0000-0001-6484-4411

Received December 23, 2023

Abstract
Increasing the level of robot autonomy in scenarios of extreme robotics allows, on the one hand, to reduce the load on the operator due to the sharing of labor between man and machine, and on the other, to increase the safety and efficiency of performing complex and critical tasks, such as search and rescue operations, monitoring of hazardous environments, disposal or neutralization of dangerous objects and many others. Such robots are characterized by the predominant use of teleoperation. However, recently there appeared a trend towards increasing of robot’s autonomy levels even for those types of robots that worked exclusively in direct teleoperation mode of control [1]. This article focuses on the consideration of control strategies for ground-based mobile robots with variable levels of autonomy when performing various types of work in extreme situations.

Key words
Extreme robotics, unmanned ground vehicle, variable levels of autonomy, teleoperation, supervisory control, mixed-initiative control, blended human-robot control.

Acknowledgements
This work was carried out within the framework of the state assignment of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia «Development of proposals for the formation of priority areas of exploratory and applied scientific research, taking into account the analysis of the dynamics of robotics markets development in Russia and abroad», no 075-00697-24-02.

DOI
10.31776/RTCJ.12203

 

Bibliographic description
Spassky, B.A. and Popov, A.V. (2024), "Towards the use of control systems with variable autonomy levels in tasks of extreme robotics", Robotics and Technical Cybernetics, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 99-108, DOI: 10.31776/RTCJ.12203. (in Russian).

UDC identifier
004.896:007.5:62-5

References

  1. Spassky, B.A. (2020), “Teleoperation in extreme robotics”, Robotics and Technical Cybernetics, 8(2), pp. 101-111, DOI: 10.31776/RTCJ.8202 (in Russian).
  2. Yurevich, E.I. (2017), Osnovy robototehniki: ucheb. Posobie [Fundamentals of robotics: textbook], 4th, BHV-Peterburg, Saint-Petersburg, Russia. (in Russian).
  3. Lebedev, V.I. (2001), Jekstremal'naja psihologija. Psihologija dejatel'nosti v tehnicheski i jekologicheski zamknutyh sistemah [Extreme psychology. Psychology of activity in technically and environmentally closed systems], Moscow, Russia. (in Russian).
  4. Ilyina, V.V. (2015), “The concept of extreme conditions in psychological science and practice”, Psihopedagogika v pravoohranitel'nyh organah, 1(60), available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ponyatie-ekstremalnyh-usloviy-v-psihologicheskoy-nauke-i-praktike (Accessed 28 march 2023).
  5. Federal Technical Regulation and Metrology Agency, (2016), GOST R 60.2.2.1-2016/ ISO 13482: 2014: Robots and robotic devices. Safety requirements for personal care robots, Standartinform, Moscow, Russia. (in Russian).
  6. Federal Technical Regulation and Metrology Agency, (2016), GOST R 60.1.2.2-2016/ISO 10218-2:2011: Robots and robotic devices. Safety requirements for industrial robots, Standartinform, Moscow, Russia. (in Russian).
  7. Tikhanychev, O.V. (2019), “On the legal and ethical aspects of the autonomous use of robotic systems in the field of armed confrontation”, Voprosy bezopasnosti, no. 3, DOI: 10.25136/2409- 7543.2019.3.28960.
  8. Federal Technical Regulation and Metrology Agency, (2021), GOST R 60.6.0.1-2021: Robots and robotic devices. Service mobile robots. Autonomy levels. Terms and definitions, Standartinform, Moscow, Russia. (in Russian).
  9. Federal Technical Regulation and Metrology Agency, (2023), GOST R 60.0.0.4-2023/ISO 8373:2021: Robots and robotic devices. Terms and definitions, Federal Technical Regulation and Metrology Agency, Moscow, Russia. (in Russian).
  10. Federal Technical Regulation and Metrology Agency, (2019), GOST R 60.0.0.4–2019/ISO 8373:2012: Robots and robotic devices. Terms and definitions, Standartinform, Moscow, Russia. (in Russian).
  11. Sheridan, T.B. and Verplank, W.L. (1978), “Human and computer control of undersea teleoperators”, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Man-Machine Systems Laboratory, Cambridge, Mass.
  12. Endsley, M.R. and Kaber, D.B. (1999), “Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task”, Ergonomics, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 462–492, DOI: 10.1080/001401399185595.
  13. Beer, J.M., Fisk, A.D. and Rogers W.A. (2014), “Toward a framework for levels of robot autonomy in human-robot interaction”, J Hum Robot Interact, 3(2), pp. 74-99.
  14. International Organization for Standardization, (2021), ISO 8373:2021 - Robotics – Vocabulary, Third edition 2021-11, Switzerland.
  15. Sheridan, T.B. (1992), Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control, MIT Press.
  16. W. et al. (2017), “Robust shared autonomy for mobile manipulation with continuous scene monitoring”, In 2017 13th IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pp. 130-137, DOI: 10.1109/COASE.2017.8256092.
  17. Malte et al. (2016), “Towards A Multidimensional Perspective on Shared Autonomy”, Papers from the 2016 AAAI Fall Symposium, No. 5: Shared Autonomy in Research and Practice, pp. 338-344.
  18. Bozorgi, H. and Ngo, T.D. (2023), “Beyond Shared Autonomy: Joint Perception and Action for Human-In-The-Loop Mobile Robot Navigation Systems”, Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 109, art. no. 20,
    DOI: 10.1007/s10846-023-01942-y.
  19. Abbink, D.A. et al. (2018), “A Topology of Shared Control Systems – Finding Common Ground in Diversity”, IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 48, pp. 509–525.
  20. Gopinath, D., Jain, S. and Argall, B.D. (2017), “Human in-the-loop optimization of shared autonomy in assistive robotics”, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(1), pp. 247–254, DOI: 10.1109/LRA.2016.2593928.
  21. Selvaggio, M. et al. (2021), “Autonomy in Physical Human-Robot Interaction: A Brief Survey”, in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7989-7996, DOI: 10.1109/LRA.2021.3100603.
  22. Jiang, S. and Arkin, R.C. (2015), “Mixed-Initiative Human-Robot Interaction: Definition, Taxonomy, and Survey”, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Hong Kong, China, pp. 954-961, DOI: 10.1109/SMC.2015.174.
  23.  Song, K. -T., Jiang, S. -Y. and Lin, M. -H. (2016), “Interactive Teleoperation of a Mobile Manipulator Using a Shared-Control Approach”, in IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 834-845, DOI: 10.1109/THMS.2016.2586760.