Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70

www.elsevier.com/locate/aei

Multi-agent robot systems as distributed autonomous systems

Jun Ota*
Department of Precision Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 1138656, Japan
Received 25 March 2005; revised 17 June 2005; accepted 24 June 2005

Abstract
In the numerous existing studies dealing with multi-agent robot systems, the systems are positioned on the crossover area of robotics and
distributed autonomous systems. Multi-agent robots perform many tasks, which are classified into six types according to the dimension of the
goal state and the number of iterations of the tasks. This paper surveys earlier studies on multi-agent robots for each type, such as multi-robot
motion-planning algorithms and exploration algorithms of multiple robots. The tasks that multi-agent robots can perform are becoming
increasingly more complex as they move from single, one-time tasks to those involving many iterations. This study is an investigation of the
current trends and the potentials for multi-agent robot systems.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Multi-agent systems; Robotics; Distributed systems

1. Introduction multi-agent systems (distributed autonomous systems), the

The environments in which robots operate include
factories, offices, and homes. Because various tasks
are required of robots, cooperation becomes important.
Currently, various studies have been undertaken on the issue
of the accomplishment of tasks by multi-agent robots.
The characteristics of distributed autonomous systems or
multi-agent systems were described as follows in Ref. [1]:
(1) incomplete information or capabilities for solving the
problem in each agent, (2) no system global control,
(3) decentralized data, and (4) asynchronous computation.
One more important aspect to be added to the above list is
that, although systems are evaluated according to the
performance of multi-agents, group performance cannot
be programmed directly. Designs are limited to the
individual performance of each agent. The performance of
multi-agents emerges from that of individual agents. The
gap between the evaluated object (the behavior of multi-
agents) and the designed object (the behavior of an
individual agent) makes it difficult to design a multi-agent
system. Because multi-agent robot systems are part of
* Tel.: C81 35 841 6456; fax: C81 35 841 8547.
E-mail address: ota@prince.pe.u-tokyo.ac.jp
1474-0346/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aei.2005.06.002
above-mentioned characteristics can also apply to multi-
agent robot systems.
However, multi-agent robot systems have the following
special characteristics: (s1) since a robot has its own physical
parts, including sensors, processors, actuators, and
communication devices, its limitations must be considered,
such as those related to calculation power, sensing errors, and
errors in actuating and communicating devices; and (s2)
robots move in actual environments; therefore, geometry must
be considered. In other words, physical interaction, such as
collision avoidance and the manipulation of physical objects
by the cooperation of robots, must be taken into account.
Several reviews on these issues are currently available.
For example, Ref. [2] presents a review of artificial systems,
multi-agent robot systems, and software agents as well as
natural systems, such as human and animal groups. In
Ref. [3], in order to clarify the mechanism of cooperation
among multiple robots, five key research areas applying to
all of the reviewed papers were examined. They included
group architecture, resource conflict, origin of cooperation,
learning, and geometry problems. Ref. [4] focused on three
topics as he surveyed existing studies: arbitration among
agents, communication, and dynamic configurable
architecture.
In this review, the focus is on the task assigned to the
robots. Multi-agent robots deal with many kinds of tasks.
The task specification determines the level and kind of
60 J. Ota / Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70
intelligence that robots need. Although many method-
ologies have been proposed for some specific tasks or
general task frameworks, an overall definition of robotic
tasks is still lacking. It has not been determined what types
of tasks multiple robots should perform or what is
appropriate for robots. In order to overcome the current
deficiency, in this paper, we (a) classify tasks from two
viewpoints and (b) survey previous studies on the basis of
the classification obtained in (a), describing what kind of
knowledge robots need to create to realize these tasks, and
(c) we discuss future trends for multi-agent robot systems.
It is natural to consider that behavior is essential for
robots. Here, the robot tasks are categorized according to the
various dimensions of the tasks and the numbers of tasks
that are to be performed.
1.1. Dimension of the goal state: point-reaching tasks
(zero-dimension)/region-sweeping tasks (more than
one-dimension)/compound tasks
Point-reaching tasks are those in which the target is
expressed with a specific goal configuration of the robot.
The goal configuration is expressed as a specific point in the
configuration space of the robots. Here, the configuration of
the robot is a specification of the position of every point in
the robot in a certain coordinate system. The configuration
space is the space of the entire configuration of the robot [5].
Standard motion-planning tasks of multi-agent robots are
grouped into this category. Here, the word ‘dimension’ is
used to compare the expressive form of the goal, that is, the
goal point (which is zero-dimensional in the configuration
space). In the point-reaching task, the robot’s trajectory is
generated by connecting the robot’s start and goal
configurations. In general, a robot’s trajectory is expressed
with a space curve and parameterized with an arc length
(one parameter). Hence, we can regard the dimension of a
robot’s trajectory as one. The point-reaching task is to
generate a one-dimensional solution (the robot’s trajectory)
to accomplish the zero-dimensional goal.
Region-sweeping tasks are those in which the target is
expressed with a specific goal region. The target is to
generate the trajectory of the robot covering the required
region with the robot’s sensing area, i.e. to generate a one-
dimensional solution (trajectory) to complete a multi-
dimensional goal. The term ‘multi-dimensional goal’
indicates that the goal is expressed as a certain region that
has more than one-dimension. Sweeping or exploring tasks
are included in the second category. For a sweeping task of a
flat region, the dimension is two.
It is noteworthy that, when the dimension of the target is
equal to one, the problem becomes a control problem rather
than the task realization problems addressed here. An
example of a control problem is a tracking task on a given
trajectory by a mobile robot. This type of task will not be
discussed in this paper.
Table 1
Task classification of multi-agent robots
One-time Many-times
Point-reaching Motion-planning Coming and going
Cooperative handling of a between two positions
large object
Pattern formation
Region-sweeping Sweeping Periodical cooperative
Map generation sweeping
Compound Cooperative transpor- Collecting objects/
tation in unknown foraging
environments Robot soccer
Compound tasks are those in which the two types of tasks
referred to above are combined.
1.2. Number of iterations of tasks: one-time/many-times
Ordinary tasks should be performed once only. Some
tasks, however, must be performed many-times. Here,
‘many-times’ means that we expect the effect of adaptation,
learning, and self-organization to occur as a result of
several trials.
1.3. Task classification
Tasks can be classified into six (Z3!2) by a
combination of the two categories given above. Examples
of tasks are shown in Table 1. Most multi-agent robotic
tasks are included in this table. Tasks in the same class are
similar in that the same behavior is required of the robots.
Former studies in this field are surveyed on the basis of
these classes.
Many studies have researched the multi-agent robotic
tasks in Table 1. For example, there are studies on
cooperative manipulation and transportation, such as those
by Refs. [6–18]. An example is shown in Fig. 1, in which
four circular robots are tasked with transporting one large
rectangle-shaped object cooperatively. The main topic in
this field is how to achieve stable and robust transportation
in environments that involve errors in sensing, actuating,
and communication. Other important topics are the
development of self-reconfigurable robots [19–24], in
which many small robotic units gather and connect
dynamically depending on the demands, and the achieve-
ment of cooperative localization [25–31], in which several
robots maintain formation to know their location within
Fig. 1. An example of cooperative transportation.
 J. Ota / Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70
their environment without the use of landmarks. The last
two papers mentioned above deal with the multi-robot
Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) problem.
The standard SLAM problem asks if it is possible for a
mobile robot to start in an unknown location in an unknown
environment and then incrementally build a map of this
environment while simultaneously using this map to
compute absolute vehicle location [32]. The structure of
multi-agent robot systems is similar to that used in
Distributed Artificial Intelligence (for example, [33,34])
because it deals with the intelligence of many agents
interacting in the same domain.
2. ‘One-time’ and ‘point-reaching’ tasks
There are many studies of one-time and point-reaching
tasks. One of the most fundamental topics is ‘motion-
planning of multi-agent robots’, in which individual robots
reach goal configurations from initial configurations
while avoiding each other. Some examples are shown in
Fig. 2. In Fig. 2, four robots try to move to their destinations
as quickly as possible while avoiding other robots and static
obstacles.
Several approaches exist to solve the motion-planning
problem. Erdmann et al. introduced the priority method [35].
Here, priority is added to each robot in advance by utilizing
the initial and goal configurations of the robots. The plan is
obtained from the robot with the highest priority. The
problem can be solved by iterating a single robot motion-
planning N times, where N is the number of robots. Planning
is executed with a visibility graph [36] in configuration
space-time [37]. Ref. [38] adopted the same kind of approach
when navigating with multiple all-terrain vehicles.
Azarm et al. proposed a dynamic priority method [39].
With this method, as several robots are about to collide, a
motion plan is prepared for these robots while considering
all possible combinations of priorities among the robots.
The plan with the least cost is then selected. Finally, each
robot follows this plan.
Ref. [40] proposed the distributed motion-planning
method with the concept of ‘plan merging’. In order to
assure synchronization among nearby robots, mutual
Fig. 2. Motion-planning problem of multi-agent robots.
61
communication is made when entering/leaving the area,
where two robots intersect.
The coordination diagram method consists of two
steps: (1) each robot generates its own trajectory, and (2)
each robot determines a velocity profile to avoid collisions
among the robots. Ferrari et al. applied the above
methodology [41]. The calculation cost could be smaller
by utilizing the anytime algorithm, whose quality of
results improves gradually as the computation time
increases [42].
Lavalle et al. presented a method that can compute the
solutions that simultaneously optimize an independent
performance index for each robot [43]. This is a kind of
multi-objective optimization problem, and the method is
based on dynamic programming. Siméon et al. offered the
planning algorithm for multiple mobile robots with fixed
paths based on a bounding-box representation of the
obstacles [44]. The method can solve the problem of more
than 100 robots in practical cases.
Yoshioka et al. introduced a sensor-based path-planning
methodology for multi-agent robots [45]. Sensor-based
path-planning is a method in which no robot uses a map of
the working environments but, rather, makes use of the
knowledge (rules) about the relationship between sensor
information and action. For example, robots ‘go straight to
the goal’ when nothing is in front and ‘turn to the right’
when they encounter something in front of them.
Arai et al. presented a method using the concept of the
distributed artificial potential field [46], in which robots
avoid each other by receiving a virtual repulsive force from
other robots and obstacles while obtaining a virtual
attractive force from each goal position. This method is
similar to the motion-generation algorithm of flocks/herds in
the field of computer graphics called Boids [47]. Ota et al.
extended algorithm in Ref. [46] and actualized a feasible
motion generation by introducing a real-time search
methodology [48]. Ref. [49] offers a detailed survey of
multi-agent motion-planning.
From the application side, the problem is similar to the
motion-planning problem of Automated Guided Vehicles
(AGVs) in factory environments (Fig. 3). In Fig. 3, many
mobile robots (AGVs) in factory environments transport
objects from one place to another. In ordinal cases, magnetic
62 J. Ota / Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70

Fig. 3. AGV transport system in factory environments.

tapes are attached to the factory floor for the AGVs to
follow.
AGV systems are an example of the application of multi-
agent robot systems in factory environments. AGV control
problems are divided into two types: scheduling and routing
[50]. The scheduling problem is to determine what AGV
should be assigned to a given task (for example, transport
Object A from point B to point C). The routing problem is to
determine which route should be selected for a certain AGV
to achieve the assigned task. The latter problem is similar to
this class. Several routing algorithms have been proposed
(for example, [51–53]). The timing of the holding and
release of the resource (working space) in the vicinity of
AGV travel is the focus of this study.
Following are the differences between the multi-agent
motion-planning problem and the AGV motion-planning
problem: (a) robots in the former move freely within the
working area. On the other hand, robots in the latter are
restricted to the network established by the magnetic tapes. (b)
In the former, the problem is settled when all the robots reach
their goal configurations. In the latter, there are many transport
tasks. Here, AGVs need to move within the path network.
There are other tasks included in this category.
Yamashita et al. introduced a motion-planning method of
multiple mobile robots for the cooperative transportation of
a large object [54]. In Fig. 4, the motion of the robots and the
objects should be adequately considered. Here, the
orientation of the object should be mapped depending on
the environmental conditions (for example, the object
should be placed vertically as it is transported in a narrow
corridor). Other important considerations are that the
sensing and actuating errors of mobile robots should be
taken into account in the planning phase. In order to tackle
the high dimensionality of the problem, the motion planner
is divided into a global path planner and a local
manipulation planner. In the global planner, the motion of
the object is generated by using A* search to assure the
optimality of the solution (for an explanation of A* search,
please see textbooks on artificial intelligence, such as
Ref. [55]). In the local planner, a position-based motion plan
of robot manipulators is made to consider the position errors
of the robots.
Ref. [56] solved the problem of the ‘coordinated target
assignment problem’, in which several unmanned air

Fig. 4. Cooperative transportation of large objects.

 J. Ota / Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70
Fig. 5. An example of formation control.
vehicles (UAVs) are assigned to go to different target
locations. A hierarchical approach has been offered to solve
the following sub-problems: task assignment, coordinated
UAV intercept, path-planning, trajectory generation, and
asymptotic trajectory following.
Many studies have focused on the control of robot
formation, in which several robots are tasked to go to their
destination while maintaining a specific physical arrange-
ment. In this problem, each robot is to reach the goal
configuration from the initial configuration, as shown in
Fig. 5. The difficulty of satisfying the two demands entails
reaching the goal as quickly as possible and maintaining the
desired formation. The following studies have been
published on this topic [57–67]. The main issues discussed
in this field were: (a) completeness of the algorithm,
(b) stabilizing ability against many kinds of errors, and
(c) sensing and communication locality in control.
Shimoyama et al. presented a mathematical model of
collective motion of multi-agents [68]. They modeled the
behavior with a differential equation and showed that the
equation can produce various kinds of dynamic patterns
by introducing a set of dimensionless parameters:
(a) marching, (b) oscillatory (wavy), (c) oscillatory
(circling), (d) oscillatory (spiral), (e) wandering, and
(f) swarming.
Fig. 6. Iterative transportation task.
63
3. ‘Many-time’ and ‘point-reaching’ tasks
When a certain task has to be executed many-times, it
becomes important to generate a group formation of robots
based on the learning capacity of individual robots. Several
studies have been conducted on this topic. Hand-to-hand
delivery motion was introduced to avoid deadlocks [69].
This motion is compatible with object transportation and
mutual avoidance of two robots. Yoshimura et al. settled an
iterative transportation task, as shown in Fig. 6, in which the
target of the task is to transport as many objects as possible
from the start to the goal positions in an unknown
environment [70]. All robots should explore the environ-
ments efficiently and transport objects while avoiding
recognized obstacles and other robots. The learning capacity
of robots for generating adequate group formation is shown
depending on both the characteristics of the objects (cost of
handling over the object between two robots) and the
disposition of obstacles. The final group formation of robots
is determined by taking into account the variation of the cost
of handing over the object. When the cost is small, it
converges to a ‘relay type’, in which the objects are
transported by the hand-to-hand delivery motions of
individual robots. When the cost is large, the formation
converges into a ‘loop’, in which each robot transports an
object from the start to the goal position within a loop.
Inoue et al. extended the above methodology to
dynamically changing environments [71]. A three-phase
methodology was proposed. It includes an environmental
exploration phase, a path-generation phase, and a strategic
phase. They considered a trade-off between ‘searching for
unknown environments’ and ‘transport efficiency in
recognized environments’. Kawabata et al. addressed the
emergence of communication in an iterative multi-robot
navigation problem [72]. They discussed methods for
robots to learn appropriate actions, including types of
communication that are not directed but decided by
the robots to adapt to an environment. They demonstrated
that, using this approach, a proper communication
procedure results.
64 J. Ota / Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70
Fig. 7. Region-sweeping problem by multi-agent robots.
4. ‘One-time’ and ‘region-sweeping’ tasks
The region-sweeping (covering) task finishes when the
region produced by integrating the sensing area of the robots
along the robots’ trajectories becomes identical to that of
the target region (Fig. 7). Here, the robots are assumed to
have their own sensing areas. The tasks are realized by
covering a multi-dimensional area with one-dimensional
trajectories of robots, as described in Section 1. This is
fundamentally different from point-reaching tasks, in which
trajectories are made to reach zero-dimensional targets. The
problems with these tasks are related to the path-generation
problems of painting robots or those designed for cleaning
or maintenance. The main issues are (a) dealing with
complicated shapes within a region and (b) assigning tasks
to each robot.
Kurabayashi et al. [73] proposed an off-line sweep
planning algorithm for known environments. They intro-
duced both edges of the configuration space and Voronoi
diagram so as to obtain the trajectories of a working area.
The paths were then adequately divided among the robots
based on an evaluation of the cost.
There are several studies that deal with local communi-
cation networks of the multiple robots. Ichikawa et al. [74]
presented a multi-robot system that creates a communication
network starting from the initial location area and expanding
over a working space. They showed the effectiveness through
manufacturing 10 hardware robots with simple sensors.
Yoshida et al. discussed a design methodology of robots’
group behavior and optimal local communication area from
the viewpoint of task realization efficiency [75,76].
In Ref. [77], the following cycle for exploring the
behavior of robots in an unknown environment is presented:
(a) a working environment is divided into cells of the same
size; (b) each robot recognizes the environments by using a
range sensor and classifies the cells into open cells,
unknown cells, and occupied cells; (c) any open cell
adjacent to an unknown cell is labeled a frontier edge cell.
Adjacent edge cells are grouped into frontier regions, and
robots go to the center of each region.
Roy et al. dealt with a rendezvous problem of two robots,
in which the two meet at a certain adequate position in
unknown environments and unknown starting positions
[78]. In this problem, each robot is required to localize itself
in the environment. It must then determine where it is and
reach an adequate rendezvous point in an unknown
environment. This is a combination of the cooperative
exploration, SLAM, and landmark selection problems.
The method was tested with real robots with practical
communication limits.
Schneider-Fontán et al. proposed the methodology for
doing a cleanup and collection task [79]. They took a
territorial approach in which the robots were assigned
individual territories. In order to adapt to robot malfunc-
tions, the territories can be dynamically resized.
Rybski et al. designed and built a set of miniature robots
for a surveillance task [80]. They discussed how to achieve
the task with robots using a limited communication
bandwidth and showed the relationship between the
number of robots with the same bandwidth and the
performance of a task.
In Ref. [81], a distributed algorithm was introduced for
multi-robot observation tasks of multiple moving targets.
These researchers presented a distributed-potential field
approach for achieving real-time behavior, in which each
robot is attracted to nearby targets and repelled by other
nearby robots.
Jung et al. settled the same kind of problem as that in the
above-mentioned study [82]. They developed a region-
based approach, which attempts to solve the sensor
distribution problem without explicit negotiation among
the robots. Their approach includes two layers: the first one
distributes robots across regions based on a topological map,
and the second tries to maximize the number of tracked
targets in a region.
Pheromone-based covering task realization was also
achieved. Wagner et al. introduced three methods for
covering unknown environments by using pheromones [83].
The algorithm is more adaptive than the existing search
method to dynamic changes in the working environment and
the sensor noises of the robots.
Vidal et al. dealt with the problem that both UAVs and
unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) pursue a team of
evaders and generate a map [84]. They modeled the
problem as a probabilistic game theoretical framework
and advanced two pursuit policies that maximize
 J. Ota / Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70
the probability of capturing the evaders with various time
scales: local-max and global-max methods.
Payton et al. proposed the concept of a virtual pheromone
by using simple transceivers mounted atop a mobile robot
[85,86]. A gas expansion methodology is implemented
among the robots to solve the problem of providing
surveillance for an unknown environment. This can be
modeled as a kind of dynamic formation problem.
5. ‘Many-time’ and ‘region-sweeping’ tasks
An example in this class is the patrolling of a
dynamically changing environment. This problem can be
modeled as a Multiple Traveling Salesmen Problem
(MTSP) [87] by considering observation points as nodes
in graph theory. We can calculate the observation points by
utilizing the method of Ref. [77] or other methodologies.
There are very few studies that have examined this method.
Trevai et al. advanced a method to generate an
exploration path in a restricted working environment [88].
The observation points are distributed in the environment,
and they are calculated by utilizing a reaction-diffusion
equation on a graph proposed in Ref. [89]. The positions of
these points can be moved in real-time with respect to the
recognized environmental information. By obtaining the
result of the MTSP, robots can share their exploration
regions efficiently within an environment. Because the
derived solution is a set of closed-loop trajectories,
the patrolling task is continuous.
6. ‘One-time’ and ‘compound’ tasks
When the task is to (a) find a specific object whose initial
location is unknown to the robots and (b) transport it to a
desired position, it is categorized as a compound task. This
is because it includes a region-sweeping task (searching the
object in the working environment) and a point-reaching
task (transporting an object to a target position). More
generally, compound tasks consist of several subtasks, such
as a searching subtask or a transporting subtask. Multi-agent
robots share the role of realizing each subtask in real-time.
This can be modeled as a task assignment problem.
In Ref. [90], a review of multi-agent robot systems is
presented with a focus on the problem of a multi-robot task
allocation. These researchers utilized a domain-independent
taxonomy to solve the problem. They dealt with the
relationship between the problem and the relevant theory
in the field of operations research and combinatorial
optimization.
Noreils offered an architecture composed of three levels:
function, control, and planner [91]. Cooperation among
robots is achieved in two phases: (1) collaboration, in which
a task is divided into subtasks; and (2) coordination,
65
in which a Predicate/Transition net is introduced for the
coordinated protocol.
Parker proposed a fault-tolerant architecture called
ALLIANCE for heterogeneous robots [92]. This hierarch-
ical behavior-based architecture, which utilizes mathemat-
ically modeled motivational behaviors, such as impatience
and acquiescence, constantly monitors the sensory feedback
of the tasks. These behaviors are effective for achieving an
adaptive action selection of robots for the environmental
changes and failures of robots.
Gerkey et al. presented an auction-based dynamic task
allocation methodology based on the Contract Net Protocol
[93]. Experimental results for loosely coupled and box-
pushing tasks demonstrated that the system is robust for
changes in the environment. Ref. [94] extended the study to
include a more general architecture. These researchers
focused on the effects of two key aspects of distributed
control, ‘commitment’ and ‘coordination’. They compared
four task-allocation strategies to solve an emergency
handling problem and showed that there is no single
strategy that produces the best performance in all cases.
Murphy et al. proposed a hierarchical architecture
utilizing a concept of emotions [95]. They applied it to the
task of serving finger food at a reception, in which waiter
robots serve items to an audience and refiller robots serve
refills upon request. The experimental results showed the
effectiveness of the emotions used from the viewpoint of
emergent cooperation.
Miyata et al. developed an architecture for cooperative
transport by multiple mobile robots in an unknown
environment [96], as shown in Fig. 8. They consider the
unit task as a job that should be done by one robot, such as,
for example, searching, handling an object, maintaining a
safe distance from humans, or cooperatively transporting a
large object to its destination. The unit tasks are assigned to
Fig. 8. Transport of a large object in an unknown environment.
66 J. Ota / Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70
each robot in real-time with a priority-based assignment
planner by using a linear programming method.
In Ref. [97], a task-programming framework for
collective robots is presented. They extended the finite-
state automata theory with the concept of the Q-machine
and perceptual cues. The validity of the framework was
shown by solving a multi-robot box-pushing problem.
Jung et al. proposed a multi-agent planning methodology
using an action selection scheme similar to behavior
networks [98] so that spatial and topological navigation,
cooperation, and communication could be achieved [99].
They used two autonomous robots to solve a task involving
cooperative cleaning. They discussed how symbolic
systems could be used in a multi-agent system [100].
Fierro et al. proposed a software framework for multi-
agent robot systems [101], including a formal architecture
and high-level language for programming robot behavior.
They utilized a high-level language named CHARON to
describe the complex behaviors of multi-agent robots.
Brumitt et al. developed a multiple robot system that is
capable of achieving multiple goals in natural terrain
[102,103]. In their study, they advanced a mission planner
to assign multiple goals (destinations) to robots dynamically
by solving the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) and
Multiple TSP, including a dynamic route planner based on
the D* planner [104]. The architecture was adopted to a real
robot system.
7. ‘Many-time’ and ‘compound’ tasks
As previously reported, learning or adaptive ability
becomes important in this task class.
The task of collecting samples scattered in the working
environments by many robots in unknown environments has
been thoroughly studied. The task is popular in the field of
swarm intelligence, where there is no explicit communi-
cation among robots and very simple behavior is expected
of the robots. In order to complete the task efficiently, an
adequate formation of robots is necessary. Such a task
could then be called one of the simplest ‘many-time’ and
‘compound’ tasks.
In Ref. [105], a behavioral approach was applied to the
above-mentioned problem. The effectiveness of phero-
mones was compared with a purely random-movement
method and with a gradient-field method. The pheromone
effect can be realized by embedding the following simple
rules into each robot: (a) a robot drops two crumbs when
each carries a sample, and (b) it picks up one crumb when
neither one carries a sample. This advantage of the chain-
making behavior of robots, which is a hand-to-hand delivery
motion among robots in the same vicinity, was developed in
Ref. [106]. The performance was shown to be superior.
Sugawara et al. showed that the workability of the group
increased drastically when the density of robots exceeded
the critical value under phase-transition behavior with
a finite interaction between robots [107]. Here, instead of
utilizing the crumb, the robot that obtains a sample radiates
light for a short period. After that, it goes home. Other
nearby robots are attracted to the light. In Ref. [108], with a
mathematical formulation similar to that in Ref. [107], it is
shown that there is an optimal group size that maximizes
group performance. Ijspeert et al. proposed a test-bed
experiment in which the task of the robots is to pull sticks
out of the ground [109]. Here, the cooperation of two robots
is necessary in order to pull them out. They applied the
probabilistic model to the quantitative evaluation of robot
behavior. The same kind of task was also dealt with in
Ref. [110].
As the architecture for general tasks, in Ref. [111], the
L-ALLIANCE was developed as an extended version of the
ALLIANCE architecture, including the learning behavior of
robots. Here, robots monitor the performance of other robots
working on common tasks and evaluate it on the basis of the
time of task completion. The robots then update their
control parameters.
Several types of architecture have been analyzed for
RoboCup competitions; some examples are found in the
work of Refs. [112–115]. It is natural for the RoboCup task
to be included in this class. However, in the present
situation, it seems that the architecture presented in the
study is unsuccessful in its attempt to introduce learning
ability in robots. The following factors are discussed in the
multi-agent architecture for RoboCup: real-time decision-
making, restriction of communication range, and sensing/
actuating error and restriction of calculation power.
In Ref. [116], a reinforcement learning approach was
used for the design of multiple space robots. For space
applications, a fail-safe system is necessary, in particular, to
prevent communication mishaps. They introduced a new
learning method and tested it on a truss construction task.
Human-robot interaction is also a very important topic.
Some studies on the following issues have been conducted:
transportation of unknown large objects by human-
supervised multi-agent robot systems [117–120]
and cooperation between men and machines for rescue
missions [121].
8. Conclusion
In this paper, we classified tasks performed by multiple
robots based on the dimension of the goal state and the
number of iterations they perform. This classification is
made by considering how a motion-planning problem,
which is one of the most fundamental tasks, can be
extended. The dimension of the goal state is an extension
of the geometric dimension. The number of iterations is an
extension of the time dimension.
The results of the review, according to the classifications
listed above, clarify the following points:
 J. Ota / Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70
† Trends in realized tasks by multi-agent robots are moved
from single-task realization (for example, multi-agent
motion-planning and region-sweeping motion gener-
ation) to multiple-task realization and from one-time
task realization to multiple-task realization. In other
words, in the earlier stages of this research, specific
heuristics for specific tasks were embedded into the
robots, which are not enough for general types of tasks.
Recently, some studies have proposed task assignment
methodologies for multi-agent robots seeking a general
task description.
† Learning, evolution, and real-time performance are
becoming important in the field of multiple-task
realization.
† Mathematical analyses have been conducted for
relatively simple tasks, such as foraging. These analyses
can be extended to more general tasks. In order for
multi-agent robots to accomplish general tasks, robots
need to have and use knowledge about tasks and working
environments. A concept of emergence that will promote
cooperation among robots is necessary. It seems that no
methodologies have been developed that promote
enough emergent behavior among robots; however,
some researchers are investigating the subject.
Based on the above discussion, the following three
themes are important as future topics of the multi-agent
robot systems.
The first theme is the performance of multi-agent robot
systems. Multi-agent robot systems have been considered
as a distributed autonomous system with two main
characteristics: flexibility and tolerance for errors. These
characteristics have been the focus of many studies on
multi-agent robot systems. In addition to flexibility and
tolerance for errors, future multi-agent systems will need to
be efficient, particularly from the viewpoint of engineering.
Dwarf intelligence [122] is the intelligence that is produced
from a combined architecture of the rough, robust off-line
plan-making of each robot and on-line re-planning or
reactive behavioral control with sensor information.
Fig. 9. An example of a multi-agent rearrangement problem. (a) Initial configuration (b) goal configuration.
67
This approach has the possibility to solve the problem
because a rough, robust off-line plan-making of each robot
ensures efficiency with the advantage of plan generation,
while on-line re-planning or reactive behavioral control
with sensor information can contribute to the two
characteristics. The concept of ‘mobiligence’ [123], which
is a combination of mobility and intelligence, is also a
noteworthy element of the design of multi-agent robot
systems. The concept of ‘mobiligence’ was derived from
studies by biologists and engineers; it has the following
three characteristics: embodied plasticity, co-embodiment
with the environment, and internal generation of abductive
information.
The second theme is a design problem of multi-agent
robot systems. Although more and more complicated tasks
are being dealt with, there are still many design problems,
such as the number of robots and their working environ-
ments. Such large-scale design problems remain unsolved.
If the tasks and the behavior of the robots are restricted, their
behavior can be modeled by utilizing queuing network
theory [124]. However, in more general cases, because it is
difficult to construct mathematical models for multi-robot
behavior, a simulation-based optimization approach [125]
would be preferable. In order to decrease the calculation
cost, the concept of co-evolution, such as that proposed by
Refs. [126,127], will be important.
The last theme is the evaluation of multi-agent robot
systems. As shown in this paper, many algorithms have been
proposed. The tasks deal with algorithms that are slightly
different from each other, making it very difficult to
quantitatively evaluate the algorithms. Benchmark pro-
blems [49] are one way to address this issue, and the task
classification presented in this paper would be essential for
creating the problems. It is important for multi-agent robots
to extract subtasks from a given mission. A rearrangement
task by multi-agent robots may be one in which each robot
rearranges all the movable objects from the initial
configuration to the goal configuration by grasping and
transporting them. An example task is shown in Fig. 9. Here,
two mobile robots need to transport eight movable objects to
68 J. Ota / Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70
their destinations. This problem is different from a foraging
task because the density of the movable objects is so high
that it is impossible to transport a certain object directly to
its goal. Instead, they need to set aside other objects before
completing the transportation (a single robot case is solved
in Ref. [128]). In other words, task constraints should be
considered. This means that robots should find (1) good
intermediate configurations of objects and (2) the sequence
of each object’s movement in order to complete the task. In
such cases, it is desirable for robots to be able to adapt to
changes in task specifications, such as the initial configur-
ation of the objects, the goal configuration of the objects, the
shape of the working environments, and the number of
robots.
References
[1] Sycara KP. Multi-agent systems. AI Mag 1998;19(2):79–92.
[2] Agah A. Robot teams, human workgroups, and animal sociobiology:
a review of research on natural and artificial multi-agent autonomous
systems. Adv Robotics 1996;10(6):523–46.
[3] Cao YU, Fukunaga AS, Kahng AB. Cooperative mobile robotics:
antecedents and directions. Autonomous Robots 1997;4(1):7–27.
[4] Kurabayashi D. Toward realization of collective intelligence and
emergent robotics (survey). Proc IEEE Int Conf Syst Man Cybern
1999;IV:748–53.
[5] Latombe JC. Robot Motion Planning. Kluwer: Boston; 1991.
[6] Hashimoto M, Oba F, Eguchi T. Dynamic control approach for
motion coordination of multiple wheeled mobile robots transporting
a single object. Proc IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Robots Syst 1993;
1944–51.
[7] Stilwell DJ, Bay JS. Towards the development of a material transport
system using swarms of ant-like robots. Proc IEEE Int Conf Robotics
Automat 1993;766–71.
[8] Kube CR, Zhang H. Collective robotics: from social insects to
robots. Adaptive Behav 1994;2(2):189–219.
[9] Sasaki J, Ota J, Yoshida E, Kurabayashi D, Arai T. Cooperating
grasping of a large object by multiple mobile robots. Proc IEEE Int
Conf Robotics Automat 1995;1205–10.
[10] Donald BR, Jennings J, Rus D. Information invariants for distributed
manipulation. J Robotics Res 1997;16(5):1–30.
[11] Ota J, Arai T. Transfer control of a large object by a group of mobile
robots. Robotics Autonomous Syst 1999;28(4):271–80.
[12] Khatib O. Mobile Manipulation: the robotic assistant. Robotics
Autonomous Syst 1999;26(2–3):175–83.
[13] Aiyama Y, Hara M, Yabuki T, Ota J, Arai T. Cooperative
transportation by two four-legged robots with implicit communi-
cation. Robotics Autonomous Syst 1999;29(1):13–19.
[14] Hirata Y, Kosuge K, Asama H, Kaetsu H, Kawabata K. Coordinated
transportation of a single object by multiple mobile robots without
position information of each robot. Proc IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell
Robots Syst 2000;2024–9.
[15] Ahmadabadi MN, Nakano E. A. “constrain and move” approach to
distributed object manipulation. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat
2001;17(2):157–72.
[16] Sugar TG, Kumar V. Control of cooperating mobile manipulators.
IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2002;18(1):94–103.
[17] Tanner HG, Loizou SG, Kyriakopoulos KJ. Nonholonomic
navigation and control of cooperating mobile manipulators. IEEE
Trans Robotics Automat 2003;19(1):53–64.
[18] Chaimowics L, Kumar V, Campos MFM. A paradigm for dynamic
coordination of multiple robots. Autonomous Robots 2004;17(1):
7–21.
[19] Fukuda T, Kawauchi Y. Cellular robotic system (CEBOT) as one of
the realization of self-organizing intelligent universal manipulators.
Proc IEEE Int Conf Robotics Automat 1990;662–7.
[20] Tomita K, Murata S, Kurokawa H, Yoshida E, Kokaji S. Self-
assembly and self-repair method for a distributed mechanical
system. IEEE Trans Robotics Automation 1999;15(6):1035–45.
[21] Murata S, Yoshida E, Kurokawa H, Tomita K, Kokaji S. Self-
repairing mechanical systems. Autonomous Robots 2001;10(1):
7–21.
[22] Rus D, Vona M. Crystalline robots: self-reconfiguration with
compressible unit modules. Autonomous Robots 2001;10(1):
107–24.
[23] Yim M, Zhang Y, Duff D. Modular robots. IEEE Spectrum 2002;
39(2):30–4.
[24] Shen WM, Salemi B, Will P. Hormone-inspired adaptive communi-
cation and distributed control for CONRO self-reconfigurable
robots,. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):700–12.
[25] Kurazume R, Nagata S, Hirose S. Cooperative positioning with
multiple robots. Proc IEEE Int Conf Robotics Automat 1994;
1250–7.
[26] Fox D, Burgard W, Kruppa H, Thrun S. A probabilistic approach to
collaborative multi-robot localization. Autonomous Robots 2000;
8(3):325–44.
[27] Grabowski R, Navarro-Serment LE, Paredis CJJ, Khosla PK.
Heterogeneous teams of modular robots for mapping and explora-
tion. Autonomous Robots 2000;8(1):293–308.
[28] Thrun S. A probabilistic online mapping algorithm for teams of
mobile robots. Int J Robotics Res 2001;20(5):335–63.
[29] Schmitt T, Hanek R, Beetz M, Buck S, Radig B. Cooperative
probabilistic state estimation for vision-based autonomous mobile
robots. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):670–84.
[30] Roumeliotis SI, Bekey GA. Distributed multi-robot localization.
IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):781–95.
[31] Di Marco M, Garulli A, Gianitrapani A, Vicino A. Simultaneous
localization and map building for a team of cooperating robots: a set
membership approach. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2003;19(2):
238–49.
[32] Dissanayake MWMG, Neuman P, Clark S, Durrant-Whyte HF,
Csorba M. A solution to the simultaneous localization and map
building (SLAM) problem. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2001;
17(3):229–41.
[33] Lesser VR. Multi-agent systems: an emerging subdiscipline of AI.
ACM Computing Surveys 1995;27(3):340–2.
[34] Stone P, Veloso M. Multiagent systems: a survey from a machine
learning perspective. Autonomous Robots 2000;8(3):345–83.
[35] Erdmann M, Lozano-Pérez T. On multiple moving objects.
Algorithmica 1987;2(4):477–521.
[36] Nilsson NJ. A mobile automaton: an application of artificial
intelligence techniques. Proc 1st Int Joint Conf Artif Intel 1969;
509–20.
[37] Fujimura K. Motion planning in dynamic environments. Tokyo:
Springer; 1991.
[38] Saptharishi M, Oliver CS, Diehl CP, Bhat KS, Dolan JM, Trebi-
Ollennu A, Khosla PK. Distributed surveillance and reconnaissance
using multiple autonomous ATVs: CyberScout. IEEE Trans
Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):826–36.
[39] Azarm K, Schmidt G. A decentralized approach for the conflict-free
motion of multiple mobile robots. Adv Robotics 1997;11(4):323–40.
[40] Alami R, Fleury S, Herrb M, Ingrand F, Robert F. Multi-robot
cooperation in the MARTHA project. IEEE Robotics Automat Mag
1998;5(1):36–47.
[41] Ferrari C, Pagello E, Ota J, Arai T. Multi-robot motion coordination
in space and time. Robotics Autonomous Syst 1998;25(3-4):219–29.
 J. Ota / Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70
[42] Zilberstein S, Russel SJ. Anytime sensing, planning and action:
a practical model for robot control. Proc 13th Int Joint Conf Artif
Intel 1993;1402–7.
[43] Lavalle SM, Hutchinson SA. Optimal motion planning for multiple
robots having independent goals. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat
1998;14(6):912–25.
[44] Siméon T, Leroy S, Laumond JP. Path coordination for multiple
mobile robots: a resolution-complete algorithm. IEEE Trans
Robotics Automat 2002;18(1):42–9.
[45] Yoshioka T, Noborio H. Sensor-based traffic rules for multiple
automata based on a geometric deadlock-free characteristic.
J Robotics Mechatronics 1996;8(1):48–56.
[46] Arai T, Ota J. Motion planning of multiple mobile robots using
virtual impedance. J Robotics Mechatronics 1996;8(1):67–74.
[47] Reynolds CW. Flocks, herds, and schools: a distributed behavioral
model. Comput Graphics 1987;21(4):25–34.
[48] Ota J, Arai T, Yoshimura Y, Miyata N, Yoshida E, Kurabayashi D,
Sasaki J, et al. Motion planning of multiple mobile robots by
combination of learned visibility graph and virtual impedance. Adv
Robotics 1996;10(6):605–20.
[49] Arai T, Ota J. Motion planning of multiple mobile robots. Proc
IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intel Robots Syst 1992;1992:1761–8.
[50] Qiu L, Hsu WJ, Huang SY, Wang H. Scheduling and routing
algorithm for AGVs: a survey. Int J Prod Res 2002;40(3):745–60.
[51] Broardbent AJ, Besant CB, Premi SK, Walker SP. Free ranging AGV
systems: promises, problems, and pathways. Proc 2nd Int Conf
Automat Mater Handling 1985;2:221–37.
[52] Kim CW, Tanchoco JMA. Conflict-free shortest-time bi-directional
AGV routing. Int J Prod Res 1991;29(12):2377–91.
[53] Taghaboni-Dutta F, Tanchoco JMA. Comparison of dynamic routing
techniques for automated guided vehicle systems. Int J Prod Res
1995;33(10):2653–69.
[54] Yamashita A, Arai T, Ota J, Asama H. Motion planning of multiple
mobile robots for cooperative manipulation and transportation. IEEE
Trans Robotics Automat 2003;19(2):223–37.
[55] Nilsson NJ. Principles of artificial intelligence. Tioga: Palo Alto;
1980.
[56] Beard RW, McLain TW, Goodrich MA, Anderson EP. Coordinated
target assignment and intercept for unmanned air vehicles. IEEE
Trans Robotics Automat 2002;18(6):911–22.
[57] Sugihara K, Suzuki I. Distributed algorithms for formation of
geometric patterns with many mobile robots. J Robotic Syst 1996;
13(3):127–39.
[58] Balch T. Behavior-based formation control for multi-robot teams.
IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 1998;14(6):926–39.
[59] Ando H, Oasa Y, Suzuki I, Yamashita M. A distributed memoryless
point convergence algorithm for mobile robots with limited
visibility. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 1999;15(5):818–28.
[60] Yamaguchi H, Arai T, Beni G. A distributed control scheme for
multiple robotic vehicles to make group formations. Robotics
Autonomous Syst 2001;36(4):125–47.
[61] Egerstedt M, Hu X. Formation constrained multi-agent control.
IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2001;17(6):947–51.
[62] Fredslund J, Matarić MJ. A general algorithm for robot formations
using local sensing and minimal communication. IEEE Trans
Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):837–46.
[63] Vaughan RT, Støy K, Sukhatme GS, Matarić MJ. LOST:
localization-space trails for robot teams. IEEE Trans Robotics
Automat 2002;18(5):796–812.
[64] Ögren P, Egerstedt M, Hu X. A control lyapunov function approach
to multi-agent coordination. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2002;
18(5):847–51.
[65] Das AK, Fierro R, Kumar V, Ostrowski JP, Spletzer J, Taylor CJ. A
vision-based formation control framework. IEEE Trans Robotics
Automat 2002;18(5):813–25.
69
[66] Feddema JT, Lewis C, Schoenwald DA. Decentralized control of
cooperative robotic vehicles: theory and application. IEEE Trans
Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):852–64.
[67] Lowton JR, Beard RW, Young BJ. A decentralized approach to
formation maneuvers. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2003;19(6):
933–41.
[68] Shimoyama N, Sugawara K, Mizuguchi T, Hayakawa Y, Sano M.
Collective motion in a system of motile elements. Phys Rev Let
1996;76(20):3870–3.
[69] Fukuda T, Ishihara H, Hiraoka N. Deadlock resolution in distributed
autonomous robotic system with hand-to-hand motion. Proc IEEE
Int Conf Robotics Automat 1996;2049–54.
[70] Yoshimura Y, Ota J, Inoue K, Kurabayashi D, Arai T. Iterative
transportation planning of multiple objects by cooperative mobile
robots. In: Asama H, Fukuda T, Arai T, Endo I, editors. Distributed
Autonomous Robotic Systems 2. Tokyo: Springer; 1996. p. 171–82.
[71] Inoue K, Ota J, Hirano T, Kurabayashi D, Arai T. In: Lueth T,
Dillmann R, Dario P, Wörn H, editors. Distributed Autonomous
Robotic Systems 3. Berlin: Springer; 1998. p. 3–12.
[72] Kawabata K, Asama H, Tanaka M. A study of communication
emergence among mobile robots: simulation of intention trans-
mission. In: Asama H, Fukuda T, Arai T, Hasegawa T, editors.
Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems 5. Tokyo: Springer; 2002.
p. 71–80.
[73] Kurabayashi D, Ota J, Arai T, Yoshida E. Cooperative sweeping by
multiple mobile robots. Proc IEEE Int Conf Robotics Automat 1996;
1744–9.
[74] Ichikawa S, Hara F. An experimental realization of cooperative
behavior of multi-robot system. In: Asama H, Fukuda T, Arai T,
Endo I, editors. Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems. Tokyo:
Springer; 1994. p. 224–34.
[75] Yoshida E, Arai T, Yamamoto M, Ota J. Local communication of
multiple mobile robots: design of optimal communication area for
cooperative tasks. J Robotic Syst 1998;7(15):408–19.
[76] Yoshida E, Arai T, Ota J. Local communication of multiple mobile
robots: design of group behavior for efficient communication. Adv
Robotics 1998;11(8):759–79.
[77] Yamauchi B. Decentralized coordination for multi-robot explora-
tion. Robotics Autonomous Syst 1999;29(2–3):111–8.
[78] Roy N, Dudek G. Collaborative robot exploration and rendezvous:
algorithms, performance bounds and observations. Autonomous
Robots 2001;11(2):117–36.
[79] Schuneider-Fontán M, Matarić MJ. Territorial multi-robot task
division. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 1998;14(5):815–22.
[80] Rybski PE, Stoeter SA, Gini M, Hougen DF, Papanikolopoulos NP.
Performance of a distributed robotic system using shared communi-
cations channels. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):713–26.
[81] Parker LE. Distributed algorithms for multi-robot observation of
multiple moving targets. Autonomous Robots 2002;12(3):231–55.
[82] Jung B, Sukhatme GS. Tracking targets using multiple robots: the
effect of environmental occlusion. Autonomous Robots 2002;13(3):
191–205.
[83] Wagner IA, Lindernbaum M, Bruckstein AM. Distributed covering
by ant-robots using evaporating traces. IEEE Trans Robotics
Automat 1999;15(5):918–33.
[84] Vidal R, Shakernia O, Kim HJ, Sim DH, Sastry S. Probabilistic
pursuit-evasion games: theory, implementation, and experimental
evaluation. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):662–9.
[85] Payton D, Daily M, Estowski R, Howard M, Lee C. Pheromone
robotics. Autonomous Robots 2001;11(3):319–24.
[86] Payton D, Estkowski R, Howard M. Compound behaviors in
pheromone robotics. Robotics Autonomous Syst 2003;44(3-4):
229–40.
[87] The traveling salesman problem. In: Lawler EL, Lenstra JK,
Rinnoy KAHG, Shmoys DB, editors.. New York: Wiley; 1985.
70 J. Ota / Advanced Engineering Informatics 20 (2006) 59–70
[88] Trevai C, Fukazawa Y, Yuasa H, Ota J, Arai T, Asama H.
Exploration path generation for multiple mobile robots using a
reaction-diffusion equation on a graph. Integr Comput-aided Eng
2004;11(3):195–212.
[89] Yuasa H, Ito M. Self-organizing system theory by use of reaction-
diffusion equation on a graph with boundary. Proc IEEE Int Conf
Syst Man Cybern 1999;I:211–6.
[90] Gerkey BP, Matarić MJ. A formal analysis and taxonomy of task
allocation in multi-robot systems. Int J Robotics Res 2004;23(9):
939–54.
[91] Noreils FR. Toward a robot architecture integrating cooperation
between mobile robots: application to indoor environment. Int
J Robotics Res 1993;12(1):79–98.
[92] Parker LE. ALLIANCE: an architecture for fault-tolerant multi-
robot cooperation. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 1998;14(2):
220–40.
[93] Gerkey BP, Matarić MJ. Sold!: auction methods for multi-robot
coordination. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):758–68.
[94] Matarić MJ, Sukhatme GS, Østergaard EH. Multi-robot task
allocation in uncertain environments. Autonomous Robots 2003;
14(2–3):253–63.
[95] Murphy RR, Lisetti CL, Tardif R, Irish L, Gage A. Emotion-based
control of cooperating heterogeneous mobile robots. IEEE Trans
Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):744–57.
[96] Miyata N, Ota J, Arai T, Asama H. Cooperative transport by multiple
mobile robots in unknown static environments associated with real-
time task-assignment. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):
769–80.
[97] Kube CR, Zhang H. Task modeling in collective robotics.
Autonomous Robots 1997;4(1):53–72.
[98] Maes P. Situated agents can have goals. Robotics Autonomous Syst
1990;6(1):49–70.
[99] Jung D, Zelinsky A. An architecture for distributed cooperative
planning in a behavior-based multi-robot system. Robotics Auton-
omous Systems 1999;26(2–3):149–74.
[100] Jung D. Zelinsky A.Ground Symbolic Communication between
Heterogeneous Cooperating Robots. Autonomous Robots 2000;8(3):
269–92.
[101] Fierro R, Das A, Spletzer J, Esposito J, Kumar V, Ostrowski JP,
Pappas G, Taylor CJ, Hur Y, Alur R, Lee I, Grudic G, Southall B,
et al. A framework and architecture for multi-robot coordination. Int
J Robotics Res 2002;21(10–11):977–95.
[102] Brumitt B, Stentz A, Hebert M. The C.M.U.U.G.V., Group.
Autonomous driving with concurrent goals and multiple vehicles:
mission planning and architecture. Autonomous Robots 2001;11(2):
103–15.
[103] Brumitt B, Stentz A, Hebert M. The C.M.U.U.G.V., Group.
Autonomous driving with concurrent goals and multiple vehicles:
experiments and mobility components. Autonomous Robots 2002;
12(2):135–56.
[104] Stentz A. The focused D* algorithm for real-time replanning. Proc
14th Int Joint Conf Artif Intel 1995;14:1652–9.
[105] Steels L. Cooperation among distributed agents through self-
organization. In: Demazeau Y, Müller JP, editors. Decentralized
AI. North Holland: Elsevier; 1990. p. 175–96.
[106] Drogoul A, Ferber J. From Tom Thumb to the dockers: some
experiments with foraging robots. Proc 2nd Int Conf Simul of
Adaptive Behav 1992;2:451–9.
[107] Sugawara K, Sano M. Cooperative acceleration of task performance:
foraging behavior of interacting multi-robot system. Physica D 1997;
100(3–4):343–54.
[108] Lerman K, Galstyan A. Mathematica model of foraging in a group of
robots: effect of interference. Autonomous Robots 2002;13(2):
127–41.
[109] Ijspeert AJ, Martinoli A, Billard A, Gambardella LM. Collaboration
through the exploitation of local interactions in autonomous
collective robotics: the stick pulling experiment. Autonomous
Robots 2001;11(2):149–71.
[110] Martinoli A, Easton K, Agassounon W. Modeling swarm robotic
systems: a case study in collaborative distributed manipulation. Int
J Robotics Res 2004;23(4–5):415–36.
[111] Parker LE. Lifelong adaptation in heterogeneous multi-robot teams:
response to continual variation in individual robot performance.
Autonomous Robots 2000;8(3):239–67.
[112] Candea C, Hu H, Iocchi L, Nardi D. Piaggio M. Coordination in
multi-agent RoboCup teams. Robotics Autonomous Syst 2001;
36(2–3):67–86.
[113] Weigel T, Gutmann JS, Dietl M, Keiner A, Nebel B. CS Freiburg:
coordinating robots for successful soccer playing. IEEE Trans
Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):685–99.
[114] Iocchi L, Nardi D, Piaggio M, Sgorbissa A. Distributed coordination
in heterogeneous multi-robot systems. Autonomous Robots 2003;
15(2):155–68.
[115] Pagello E, D’Angelo A, Ferrari C, Polesel R, Rosati R, Speranzon A.
Emergent behaviors of a robot team performing cooperative tasks.
Adv Robotics 2003;17(1):3–19.
[116] Takadama K, Matsumoto S, Nakasuka S, Shimohara K. A
reinforcement learning approach to fail-safe design for multiple
space robots - cooperation mechanism without communication and
negotiation schemes. Adv Robotics 2003;17(1):21–39.
[117] Nakamura A, Ota J, Arai T. Human-supervised multiple
mobile robot system. IEEE Trans Robotics Automat 2002;18(5):
728–43.
[118] Beltran-Escavy J, Nakamura A, Kakita S, Arai T, Ota J. Human-
robot GUI, system with group control for multiple mobile robot
systems—graphic interface and comparison with previous joystick-
based system. Int J Jpn Soc Prec Eng 1998;32(4):291–6.
[119] Beltran-Escavy J, Nakamura A, Kakita S, Arai T, Ota J. Human-
robot GUI, system with group control for multiple mobile robot
systems—system monitoring. Int J Jpn Soc Prec Eng 1999;33(2):
149–55.
[120] Beltran-Escavy J, Nakamura A, Kakita S, Arai T, Ota J. Human-
robot GUI, system with group control for multiple mobile robot
systems—introduction to virtual constraints. Int J Jpn Soc Prec Eng
1999;33(3):265–70.
[121] Murphy RR. Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Trans
Syst Man Cybern Part C 2004;34(2):138–53.
[122] Arai T, Ota J. Dwarf intelligence—a large object carried by seven
dwarves. Robotics Autonomous Syst 1996;18(1–2):149–55.
[123] Asama H, Yano M, Tsuchiya K, Ito K, Yuasa H, Ota J, et al.
System principle on emergence of mobiligence and its engineering
realization. Proc IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Robots Syst 2003;
1715–20.
[124] Hoshino S, Ota J, Shinozaki A, Hashimoto H. Comparison of an
AGV transportation system by using the queuing network theory.
Proc IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Robots Syst 2004;3785–90.
[125] Gosavi A. Simulation-based optimization. Kluwer: Boston; 2003.
[126] Chiba R, Ota J, Arai T. Integrated design for routing and network in
AGV systems using co-evolution. Proc IEEE Int Conf Robotics, Intel
Syst Signal Process 2003;318–23.
[127] Chiba R, Ota J, Arai T. Design of robust flow-path network for AGV
systems using competitive co-evolution with packaging. Proc
IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Robots Systems in press.
[128] Ota J. Rearrangement of multiple movable objects— integration of
global and local planning methodology. Proc IEEE Int Conf
Robotics Automat 2004;1962–7.