Human-swarm interaction

A. Kolling, K. Sycara, S. Nunnally, M. Lewis
{"title":"Human-swarm interaction","authors":"A. Kolling, K. Sycara, S. Nunnally, M. Lewis","doi":"10.5898/JHRI.2.2.Kolling","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we present the first study of human-swarm interaction comparing two fundamental types of interaction, coined intermittent and environmental. These types are exemplified by two control methods, selection and beacon control, made available to a human operator to control a foraging swarm of robots. Selection and beacon control differ with respect to their temporal and spatial influence on the swarm and enable an operator to generate different strategies from the basic behaviors of the swarm. Selection control requires an active selection of groups of robots while beacon control exerts an influence on nearby robots within a set range. Both control methods are implemented in a testbed in which operators solve an information foraging problem by utilizing a set of swarm behaviors. The robotic swarm has only local communication and sensing capabilities. The number of robots in the swarm range from 50 to 200. Operator performance for each control method is compared in a series of missions in different environments with no obstacles up to cluttered and structured obstacles. In addition, performance is compared to simple and advanced autonomous swarms. Thirty-two participants were recruited for participation in the study. Autonomous swarm algorithms were tested in repeated simulations. Our results showed that selection control scales better to larger swarms and generally outperforms beacon control. Operators utilized different swarm behaviors with different frequency across control methods, suggesting an adaptation to different strategies induced by choice of control method. Simple autonomous swarms outperformed human operators in open environments, but operators adapted better to complex environments with obstacles. Human controlled swarms fell short of task-specific benchmarks under all conditions. Our results reinforce the importance of understanding and choosing appropriate types of human-swarm interaction when designing swarm systems, in addition to choosing appropriate swarm behaviors.","PeriodicalId":92076,"journal":{"name":"Journal of human-robot interaction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"52","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of human-robot interaction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5898/JHRI.2.2.Kolling","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 52

Abstract

In this paper we present the first study of human-swarm interaction comparing two fundamental types of interaction, coined intermittent and environmental. These types are exemplified by two control methods, selection and beacon control, made available to a human operator to control a foraging swarm of robots. Selection and beacon control differ with respect to their temporal and spatial influence on the swarm and enable an operator to generate different strategies from the basic behaviors of the swarm. Selection control requires an active selection of groups of robots while beacon control exerts an influence on nearby robots within a set range. Both control methods are implemented in a testbed in which operators solve an information foraging problem by utilizing a set of swarm behaviors. The robotic swarm has only local communication and sensing capabilities. The number of robots in the swarm range from 50 to 200. Operator performance for each control method is compared in a series of missions in different environments with no obstacles up to cluttered and structured obstacles. In addition, performance is compared to simple and advanced autonomous swarms. Thirty-two participants were recruited for participation in the study. Autonomous swarm algorithms were tested in repeated simulations. Our results showed that selection control scales better to larger swarms and generally outperforms beacon control. Operators utilized different swarm behaviors with different frequency across control methods, suggesting an adaptation to different strategies induced by choice of control method. Simple autonomous swarms outperformed human operators in open environments, but operators adapted better to complex environments with obstacles. Human controlled swarms fell short of task-specific benchmarks under all conditions. Our results reinforce the importance of understanding and choosing appropriate types of human-swarm interaction when designing swarm systems, in addition to choosing appropriate swarm behaviors.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Human-swarm交互
在本文中,我们提出了人类群体相互作用的第一个研究,比较了两种基本的相互作用类型,即间歇性和环境。这些类型的例子是两种控制方法,选择和信标控制,使人类操作员可以控制一群觅食的机器人。选择和信标控制在时间和空间上对群体的影响是不同的,这使得操作员能够根据群体的基本行为产生不同的策略。选择控制要求主动选择一组机器人,信标控制在一定范围内对附近的机器人施加影响。这两种控制方法都是在一个试验台中实现的,在试验台中,操作者利用一组群体行为来解决信息觅食问题。机器人群只有局部通信和感知能力。蜂群中的机器人数量从50到200不等。在无障碍物、杂乱障碍物和结构化障碍物等不同环境下的一系列任务中,比较了操作员对每种控制方法的性能。此外,还将性能与简单和高级自治群进行了比较。该研究招募了32名参与者。在重复仿真中对自主群算法进行了测试。我们的研究结果表明,选择控制可以更好地扩展到更大的群体,并且通常优于信标控制。不同控制方式下,操作者使用不同频率的群体行为,表明不同控制方式对不同策略的适应性。在开放环境中,简单的自治群体的表现优于人类操作员,但操作员更能适应有障碍物的复杂环境。在所有条件下,人类控制的蜂群都达不到特定任务的基准。我们的研究结果强调了在设计群体系统时,除了选择适当的群体行为外,理解和选择适当的人群交互类型的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Are You Reviewer 2: Three Ideas for Better Reviewing Understanding agency in interactions between children with autism and socially assistive robots Touching a mechanical body How should a robot approach two people? Supporting situation awareness through robot-to-human information exchanges under conditions of visuospatial perspective taking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1