Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Robotics
Volume 2018, Article ID 1408796, 18 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1408796
Research Article

Allocating Multiple Types of Tasks to Heterogeneous Agents Based on the Theory of Comparative Advantage

Department of Mechanical Systems Engineering, Tokyo University of Agriculture & Technology, 2-24-16 Nakacho, Koganei, Tokyo 184-8588, Japan

Correspondence should be addressed to Kotaro Hayashi; pj.ca.taut.cc@kihsayah

Received 10 November 2017; Revised 13 February 2018; Accepted 2 April 2018; Published 22 May 2018

Academic Editor: Yunyi Jia

Copyright © 2018 Toma Morisawa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. D. Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, John Murray, 1817.
  2. A. Farinelli, L. Iocchi, and D. Nardi, “Multirobot systems: A classification focused on coordination,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 2015–2028, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. Z. Yan, N. Jouandeau, and A. A. Cherif, “A survey and analysis of multi-robot coordination,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 10, article no. A399, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. B. Scassellati and B. Hayes, “Human-robot collaboration,” AI Matters, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 22-23, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  5. B. P. Gerkey and M. J. Matarić, “A formal analysis and taxonomy of task allocation in multi-robot systems,” International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 939–954, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. R. L. Graham, “Bounds for certain multiprocessing anomalies,” Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 1563–1581, 1966. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. S. R. Lawrence and E. C. Sewell, “Heuristic, optimal, static, and dynamic schedules when processing times are uncertain,” Journal of Operations Management, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 71–82, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. D. Gale, The Theory of Linear Economic Models, McGraw-Hill Book Co, New York, NY, USA, 1960. View at MathSciNet
  9. B. P. Gerkey and M. J. Matarić, “Sold!: auction methods for multirobot coordination,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 758–768, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. F. von Wieser and A. Ford Hinrichs, Social Economics, Adelphi, New York, NY, USA, 1927.
  11. L. E. Parker, “The effect of heterogeneity in teams of 100+ mobile robots,” in MultiRobot Systems Volume II: From Swarms to Intelligent Automata, pp. 205–215, Kluwer, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  12. B. P. Gerkey, Gerkey. on multi-robot task allocation [Ph.D. thesis], University of Southern California, 2003.
  13. A. Khamis, A. Hussein, and A. Elmogy, “Multi-robot task allocation: A review of the state-of-the-art,” Cooperative Robots and Sensor Networks, vol. 604, Springer International Publishing, pp. 31–51, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. S. Liemhetcharat and M. Veloso, “Weighted synergy graphs for effective team formation with heterogeneous ad hoc agents,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 208, pp. 41–65, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  15. M. Scheutz, P. Schermerhorn, and P. Bauer, “The utility of heterogeneous swarms of simple UAVS with limited sensory capacity in detection and tracking tasks,” in Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, SIS 2005, pp. 265–272, USA, June 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. E. King, Y. Kuwata, M. Alighanbari, L. Bertuccelli, and J. How, “Coordination and control experiments on a multi-vehicle testbed,” in Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference (AAC), pp. 5315–5320, usa, July 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. L. Zhang, H. Zhong, and S. Y. Nof, “Adaptive fuzzy collaborative task assignment for heterogeneous multirobot systems,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 731–762, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. P. Brucker, Scheduling Algorithms, Springer, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  19. B. Gerkey and M. Mataric, “A framework for studying multi-robot task allocation,” in Proceedings of the In Proceedings of the Second International Naval Research Laboratory Workshop on Multi-Robot Systems, 2003.
  20. R. T. Nelson, C. A. Holloway, and R. Mei-Lun Wong, “Centralized scheduling and priority implementation heuristics for a dynamic job shop model,” IIE Transactions, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 95–102, 1977. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. X. Zhang, Y. Deng, F. T. S. Chan, P. Xu, S. Mahadevan, and Y. Hu, “IFSJSP: a novel methodology for the Job-Shop Scheduling Problem based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 51, no. 17, pp. 5100–5119, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. A. J. Davenport, G. Christophe, and J. Christopher Beck, “Slack-based Techniques for Robust Scheduling,” in Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Planning ECP-01, pp. 181–192, Toledo, Spain, 2001.
  23. J. Błażewicz, K. H. Ecker, E. Pesch, G. Schmidt, and J. Węglarz, Scheduling Computer and Manufacturing Processes, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2nd edition, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. A. Edward, F. Silver David, and R. Peterson, Inventory Management and Production Planning and Scheduling, Wiley, 1998.
  25. B. B. Werger and M. J. Mataric', “Broadcast of local eligibility for multi-target observation,” in Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems, pp. 347–356, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  26. L. Vig and J. A. Adams, “Multi-robot coalition formation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 637–649, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. L. E. Parker and F. Tang, “Building multirobot coalitions through automated task solution synthesis,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 1289–1304, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. L. Fanelli, A. Farinelli, L. Iocchi, D. Nardi, and G. P. Settembre, “Ontology-based coalition formation in heterogeneous MRS,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Practical Cognitive Agents and Robots, PCAR 2006, pp. 105–116, Australia, November 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. Y. Zhang and L. E. Parker, “Considering inter-task resource constraints in task allocation,” Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 389–419, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. C.-H. Fua and S. S. Ge, “COBOS: Cooperative backoff adaptive scheme for multirobot task allocation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 1168–1178, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. R. Zlot, An auction-based approach to complex task allocation for multirobot teams [PhD. thesis], Carnegie Mellon University, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  32. A. Gautam, J. K. Murthy, G. Kumar, S. P. A. Ram, B. Jha, and S. Mohan, “Cluster, Allocate, Cover: An Efficient Approach for Multi-robot Coverage,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC 2015, pp. 197–203, Hong Kong, October 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. D. Wu, G. Zeng, L. Meng, W. Zhou, and L. Li, “Gini coefficient-based task allocation for multi-robot systems with limited energy resources,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 155–168, 2018. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. R. Dornbusch, S. Fischer, and P. A. Samuelson, “Comparative advantage, trade, and payments in a Ricardian model with a continuum of goods,” American Economic Review, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 823–839, 1977. View at Google Scholar
  35. L. W. McKenzie, “Specialisation and efficiency in world production,” The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 165–180, 1954. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. R. W. Jones, “Comparative advantage and the theory of tariffs: A multi-country, multi-commodity model,” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 161–175, 1961. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. Y. Tian, “A New Idea about Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage Theory on Condition of Multi-Commodity and Multi-Country,” International Journal of Business and Management, vol. 3, no. 12, pp. 155–160, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  38. H. W. Kuhn, “The Hungarian method for the assignment problem,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, vol. 2, pp. 83–97, 1955. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  39. M. M. Flood, “The traveling-salesman problem,” Operations Research, vol. 4, pp. 61–75, 1956. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  40. T. Bektas, “The multiple traveling salesman problem: an overview of formulations and solution procedures,” Omega , vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 209–219, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. G. B. Dantzig and J. H. Ramser, “The truck dispatching problem,” Management Science, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 80–91, 1959. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  42. C. H. Papadimitriou, Computational Complexity, Addison-Wesley, 1994. View at MathSciNet
  43. J. K. Lenstra and A. H. G. R. Kan, “Complexity of vehicle routing and scheduling problems,” Networks, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 221–227, 1981. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. M. R. Garey, D. S. Johnson, and R. Sethi, “The complexity of flowshop and jobshop scheduling,” Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 117–129, 1976. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  45. A. H. Land and A. G. Doig, “An automatic method of solving discrete programming problems,” Econometrica, vol. 28, pp. 497–520, 1960. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  46. D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, “Learning representations by back-propagating errors,” Nature, vol. 323, no. 6088, pp. 533–536, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. M. Dorigo, Optimization, learning and natural algorithms [Ph.D. thesis], Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy, 1992.
  48. M. Dorigo and L. M. Gambardella, “Ant colony system: a cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 53–66, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. J. Bramel and D. Simchi-Levi, “A location based heuristic for general routing problems,” Operations Research, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 649–660, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  50. G. Clarke and J. W. Wright, “Scheduling of vehicles from a central depot to a number of delivery points,” Operations Research, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 568–581, 1964. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  51. G. A. Croes, “A method for solving traveling-salesman problems,” Operations Research, vol. 6, pp. 791–812, 1958. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  52. T. Van Der Zant and L. Iocchi, “Robocup@home: Adaptive benchmarking of robot bodies and minds,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Simulation Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots, vol. 7072, pp. 171–182, 2010.
  53. S. Tadokoro, H. Kitano, T. Takahashi et al., “RoboCup-Rescue project: a robotic approach to the disaster mitigation problem,” in Proceedings of the ICRA 2000: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 4089–4094, April 2000. View at Scopus
  54. Y. Shiozawa, “Final resolution of the ricardian problem on international values,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Structural Economic Dynamics, 2012.
  55. R. Zlot, A. T. Stentz, M. B. Dias, and S. Thayer, “Multi-robot exploration controlled by a market economy,” in Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics adn Automation, pp. 3016–3023, usa, May 2002. View at Scopus
  56. R. Zlot and A. Stentz, “Market-based multirobot coordination for complex tasks,” International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 73–101, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  57. N. Kalra, D. Ferguson, and A. Stentz, “Hoplites: A market-based framework for planned tight coordination in multirobot teams,” in Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1170–1177, Spain, April 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. T. Morisawa and I. Mizuuchi, “2P1-V06 Allocating Multiple Tasks to Heterogeneous Robots Based on the Theory of Comparative Advantage,” The Proceedings of JSME annual Conference on Robotics and Mechatronics (Robomec), vol. 2015, no. 0, pp. _2P1-V06_1–_2P1-V06_4, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar