1 / 19

Motivating Example 1: Omniscient Beings Going Places

Specifying Globally, Controlling Locally E RIC K LAVINS Department of Computer Science California Institute of Technology. Motivating Example 1: Omniscient Beings Going Places. Problem Description: Get each robot to its goal with no collisions. With global knowledge it’s easy.

shae
Télécharger la présentation

Motivating Example 1: Omniscient Beings Going Places

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Specifying Globally, Controlling LocallyERICKLAVINSDepartment of Computer ScienceCalifornia Institute of Technology

  2. Motivating Example 1:Omniscient Beings Going Places • Problem Description: Get each robot to its goal with no collisions. • With global knowledge it’s easy. • But it doesn’t scale: • n2 communications • Many solutions (like optimal control) become computationally infeasible as n goes up. Cn(R 2) is connected.

  3. Motivating Example 2:Solipsists Going Places(or “The LA Freeway Model”) So what if the robots just treat others like (moving) obstacles? Communication and computation go down. But you can get especially poor performance. A happy medium uses uses just enough communication, sensing and computation to perform the task. But how much is just enough?

  4. Decentralized Control • Given that: • There is no leader. • Global state or consensus with more than a constant number of other entities is impractical. • Communication complexity should be linear or better. • What is the right formalism for designing and reasoning about decentralized systems? • Approach: Synthesize local controllers from a global specification.

  5. Compiler uses a formal composition to build up factory programs. Example: The Minifactory Product description Theorem 1: The compiler produces live (deadlock free), cyclic distributed programs that respect product flow. Observation: Communication goes up linearly. Throughput is constant. [Klavins, HSCC 2000; Klavins and Koditschek, ICRA 2000] Compiler GOAL: Automated factory assembles copies of product (Pictured is the CMU Minifactory [Hollis, Rizzi, Gowdy ICRA ’97-’99]).

  6. Example: Self Assembly Given: A (graph) specification of an assembly. Neighbors should be distance dnbr apart. Non-neighbors should be farther away. Synthesize: Local controllers for each part that have the “emergent” effect of assembling the product. In a simplified model Theorem 1: Only specified product is assembled. Theorem 2: A maximal number of parts are assembled. Observation: Communication is linear since sensing is bounded. Time to p% assembled is independent of n. [Klavins, CCC 2002; Klavins ICRA 2002]

  7. 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Example: Oscillator Networks Equation for Individual Oscillator What graphs are valid specifications? [Klavins, Ghrist and Koditschek, WAFR2000; Klavins, Thesis 2001; Klavins and Koditschek, IJRR 2002,...] Simple locomotion model for stick insect analysis: [Klavins, Komsuoglu, Koditschek & Full, NBR 2000] The system corresponding to this connection graph meets the specification: it has a single, global attracting behavior. Observation: Communication complexity depends on the degree of the connection graph. The same analysis on this system gives multiple stable orbits. The system does not perform the task specified.

  8. Toward a Systematic ApproachBased on UNITY [Klavins&Hickey, Submitted to CDC2002] • IDEA: Take a processor view: Specify a decentralized dynamical system as a parallel program. • Each processor (vehicle) owns a set of instructions describing its behavior. • The dynamics of the environment is just another processor (a computationally powerful one!). • As a result, we get: • No continuous/discrete duality. • A formal object amenable to automated reasoning. • No specification/implementation duality.

  9. A Sample SpecificationIn which the features of “DRL” are highlighted rule guard dynamics controller spec

  10. Non-deterministic Execution Model how g:r transforms the state the kth epoch

  11. Specifying Dynamics and Controllers controller specification  is the “eventually” temporal logic relation new temporal logic relation

  12. Refinement The road from specification to implementation is paved with refinements. PLAN: Build a toolbox of specification transformations that can be used to systematically refine (global) specifications into (local) implementations.

  13. Continuous Communication Refinement means: for some zBk(x). Theorem: Given a partition of the clauses of  that respects variable assignments, CCR() .

  14. A Multi-Vehicle Example • Problem: Each vehicle should maintain an estimate of the position of every other vehicle. • Requirement: Nearby vehicles should have better estimates of each other’s position. • What is the least amount of communication necessary to implement com ?

  15. f e t time to send time to recv Maintaining Estimates

  16. The Refinement Theorem: ’ .

  17. Area of nth annulus is 2(2n-1) Choosing the Bound Function Recall that we want to have What is a good ? Assume an infinite number of robots, with density . And suppose that a vehicle communicates with vehicles at distance d every r(d) seconds. Then the total rate for all robots at distance m is Conjecture: Any choice of  results in r(d)=O(d).

  18. Charts and Graphs • Choose (d) = kd + 2com • Communication rate goes up as density of vehicles goes up. • Message rate divided by worst case rate stays low as n goes up.

  19. The Road Ahead Proof automation Proof of concept with MVWT More natural expression of delays (SWCR doesn’t work) Planning as refinement Communication complexity of tasks

More Related