Interactive Collaborative Robotics Third International Conference ICR 2018 Leipzig Germany September 18 22 2018 Proceedings Andrey Ronzhin

Interactive Collaborative Robotics Third
International Conference ICR 2018

Leipzig Germany September 18 22 2018
Proceedings Andrey Ronzhin
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/interactive-collaborative-robotics-third-international-co
nference-icr-2018-leipzig-germany-september-18-22-2018-proceedings-andrey-ronzhi
n/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Interactive Collaborative Robotics 5th International

Conference ICR 2020 St Petersburg Russia October 7 9
2020 Proceedings Andrey Ronzhin
https://textbookfull.com/product/interactive-collaborative-
robotics-5th-international-conference-icr-2020-st-petersburg-
russia-october-7-9-2020-proceedings-andrey-ronzhin/
Interactive Collaborative Robotics First International

Conference ICR 2016 Budapest Hungary August 24 26 2016
Proceedings 1st Edition Andrey Ronzhin
https://textbookfull.com/product/interactive-collaborative-
robotics-first-international-conference-icr-2016-budapest-
hungary-august-24-26-2016-proceedings-1st-edition-andrey-ronzhin/
Proceedings of 15th International Conference on

Electromechanics and Robotics Zavalishin s Readings ER
ZR 2020 Ufa Russia 15 18 April 2020 Andrey Ronzhin
https://textbookfull.com/product/proceedings-of-15th-
international-conference-on-electromechanics-and-robotics-
zavalishin-s-readings-er-zr-2020-ufa-
russia-15-18-april-2020-andrey-ronzhin/
Exploring Service Science 9th International Conference

IESS 2018 Karlsruhe Germany September 19 21 2018
Proceedings Gerhard Satzger
https://textbookfull.com/product/exploring-service-science-9th-
international-conference-iess-2018-karlsruhe-germany-
september-19-21-2018-proceedings-gerhard-satzger/
Rules and Reasoning Second International Joint
Conference RuleML RR 2018 Luxembourg Luxembourg
September 18 21 2018 Proceedings Christoph Benzmüller
https://textbookfull.com/product/rules-and-reasoning-second-
international-joint-conference-ruleml-rr-2018-luxembourg-
luxembourg-september-18-21-2018-proceedings-christoph-benzmuller/
Spatial Cognition XI 11th International Conference

Spatial Cognition 2018 Tübingen Germany September 5 8
2018 Proceedings Sarah Creem-Regehr
https://textbookfull.com/product/spatial-cognition-xi-11th-
international-conference-spatial-cognition-2018-tubingen-germany-
september-5-8-2018-proceedings-sarah-creem-regehr/
Big Data Analytics and Knowledge Discovery 20th

International Conference DaWaK 2018 Regensburg Germany
September 3 6 2018 Proceedings Carlos Ordonez
https://textbookfull.com/product/big-data-analytics-and-
knowledge-discovery-20th-international-conference-
dawak-2018-regensburg-germany-september-3-6-2018-proceedings-
carlos-ordonez/
Electronic Government and the Information Systems

Perspective: 7th International Conference, EGOVIS 2018,
Regensburg, Germany, September 3–5, 2018, Proceedings
Andrea K■
https://textbookfull.com/product/electronic-government-and-the-
information-systems-perspective-7th-international-conference-
egovis-2018-regensburg-germany-september-3-5-2018-proceedings-
andrea-ko/
Database and Expert Systems Applications 29th

International Conference DEXA 2018 Regensburg Germany
September 3 6 2018 Proceedings Part II Sven Hartmann
https://textbookfull.com/product/database-and-expert-systems-
applications-29th-international-conference-dexa-2018-regensburg-
germany-september-3-6-2018-proceedings-part-ii-sven-hartmann/
Andrey Ronzhin
Gerhard Rigoll
Roman Meshcheryakov (Eds.)
LNAI 11097
Interactive
Collaborative Robotics
Third International Conference, ICR 2018
Leipzig, Germany, September 18–22, 2018
Proceedings
123
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 11097
Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science
LNAI Series Editors

Randy Goebel
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Yuzuru Tanaka
Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
Wolfgang Wahlster
DFKI and Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
LNAI Founding Series Editor

Joerg Siekmann
DFKI and Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/1244
Andrey Ronzhin Gerhard Rigoll
•
Roman Meshcheryakov (Eds.)
Interactive
Collaborative Robotics
Third International Conference, ICR 2018
Leipzig, Germany, September 18–22, 2018
Proceedings
123
Editors
Andrey Ronzhin Roman Meshcheryakov
St. Petersburg Institute for Informatics Institute for Control Problem of the Russian
and Automation of the Russian Academy Academy of Sciences
of Sciences Moscow
St. Petersburg Russia
Russia
Gerhard Rigoll
TU Munich
Munich
Germany
ISSN 0302-9743 ISSN 1611-3349 (electronic)

Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
ISBN 978-3-319-99581-6 ISBN 978-3-319-99582-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99582-3
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018952053
LNCS Sublibrary: SL7 – Artificial Intelligence
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors
give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or
omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
The Third International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Robotics (ICR) was

organized as a satellite event of the jubilee 20th International Conference on Speech
and Computer (SPECOM) by St. Petersburg Institute for Informatics and Automation
of the Russian Academy of Science (SPIIRAS, St. Petersburg, Russia), Technical
University of Munich (TUM, Munich, Germany), and Tomsk State University of
Control Systems and Radioelectronics (TUSUR, Tomsk, Russia).
Challenges of human–robot interaction, robot control, and behavior in social
robotics and collaborative robotics as well as applied robotic and cyberphysical sys-
tems are mainly discussed during the conference.
ICR 2018 was hosted by the Leipzig University of Telecommunications (HfT
Leipzig) in cooperation with SPIIRAS, TUM, and TUSUR. The conference was held
during September 18–22, 2018, at HfT Leipzig, a private university of applied sciences
funded by Deutsche Telekom and located in the middle of a popular student and
nightlife district in the south of Leipzig, Germany.
During the conference, an invited talk on “Robot Learning Through Physical
Interaction and Human Guidance” was given by Prof. Dongheui Lee (Technical
University of Munich and Human-Centered Assistive Robotics Group at the German
Aerospace Center, DLR, Germany).
This volume contains a collection of 30 accepted papers presented at the conference,
which were thoroughly reviewed by members of the Program Committee consisting of
more than 20 top specialists in the conference topic areas. Theoretical and more general
contributions were presented in common (plenary) sessions. Problem-oriented sessions
as well as panel discussions then brought together specialists in limited problem areas
with the aim of exchanging knowledge and skills resulting from research projects of all
kinds.
Last but not least, we would like to express our gratitude to the authors for providing
their papers on time, to the members of the conference reviewing team and Program
Committee for their careful reviews and paper selection, and to the editors for their hard
work preparing this volume. Special thanks are due to the members of the local
Organizing Committee for their tireless effort and enthusiasm during the conference
organization. We hope that all attendees benefitted from the event and also enjoyed the
social program prepared by the members of the Organizing Committee.
September 2018 Andrey Ronzhin

Gerhard Rigoll
Roman Meshcheryakov
Organization
The conference ICR 2018 was organized by the Leipzig University of Telecommu-
nications, in cooperation with St. Petersburg Institute for Informatics and Automation
of the Russian Academy of Science (SPIIRAS, St. Petersburg, Russia), Technical
University of Munich (TUM, Munich, Germany), and Tomsk State University of
Control Systems and Radioelectronics (TUSUR, Tomsk, Russia). The conference
website is located at: http://specom.nw.ru/icr2018/.
Program Committee
Roman Meshcheryakov Dongheui Lee, Germany

(Co-chair), Russia Iosif Mporas, UK
Gerhard Rigoll (Co-chair), Germany Vladmir Pavlovkiy, Russia
Andrey Ronzhin (Co-chair), Russia Viacheslav Pshikhopov, Russia
Christos Antonopoulos, Greece Mirko Rakovic, Serbia
Branislav Borovac, Serbia Yulia Sandamirskaya, Switzerland
Sara Chaychian, UK Jesus Savage, Mexico
Ivan Ermolov, Russia Hooman Samani, Taiwan
Oliver Jokisch, Germany Evgeny Shandarov, Russia
Dimitrios Kalles, Greece Lev Stankevich, Russia
Igor Kalyaev, Russia Tilo Strutz, Germany
Alexey Kashevnik, Russia Sergey Yatsun, Russia
Gerhard Kraetzschmar, Germany
Organizing Committee
Oliver Jokisch (Chair) Andrey Ronzhin

Ingo Siegert Anton Saveliev
Tilo Strutz Alexander Denisov
Michael Maruschke Ekaterina Miroshnikova
Gunnar Auth Dmitry Ryumin
Alexey Karpov Natalia Kashina
Contents
Task and Spatial Planning by the Cognitive Agent with Human-Like

Knowledge Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Ermek Aitygulov, Gleb Kiselev, and Aleksandr I. Panov
Path Finding for the Coalition of Co-operative Agents Acting

in the Environment with Destructible Obstacles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Anton Andreychuk and Konstantin Yakovlev
Sparse 3D Point-Cloud Map Upsampling and Noise Removal

as a vSLAM Post-Processing Step: Experimental Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Andrey Bokovoy and Konstantin Yakovlev
Cloud Robotic Platform on Basis of Fog Computing Approach. . . . . . . . . . . 34

Aleksandr Chueshev, Olga Melekhova, and Roman Meshcheryakov
Toward More Expressive Speech Communication

in Human-Robot Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Vlado Delić, Branislav Borovac, Milan Gnjatović, Jovica Tasevski,
Dragiša Mišković, Darko Pekar, and Milan Sečujski
The Dynamic Model of Operator-Exoskeleton Interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Valery Gradetsky, Ivan Ermolov, Maxim Knyazkov, Eugeny Semenov,
and Artem Sukhanov
The Influence of Various Factors on the Control of the Exoskeleton . . . . . . . 60

Valery Gradetsky, Ivan Ermolov, Maxim Knyazkov, Eugeny Semenov,
and Artem Sukhanov
Sign Language Numeral Gestures Recognition Using Convolutional

Neural Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Ivan Gruber, Dmitry Ryumin, Marek Hrúz, and Alexey Karpov
Consensus-Based Localization of Devices with Unknown

Transmitting Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Nurbanu Güzey and Hacı Mehmet Güzey
Modelling Characteristics of Human-Robot Interaction in an Exoskeleton

System with Elastic Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Sergey Jatsun, Sergei Savin, and Andrey Yatsun
Safety-Related Risks and Opportunities of Key Design-Aspects

for Industrial Human-Robot Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Lukas Kaiser, Andreas Schlotzhauer, and Mathias Brandstötter
VIII Contents
Improvements in 3D Hand Pose Estimation Using Synthetic Data . . . . . . . . . 105

Jakub Kanis, Dmitry Ryumin, and Zdeněk Krňoul
Ontology-Based Human-Robot Interaction: An Approach and Case

Study on Adaptive Remote Control Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Alexey Kashevnik, Darya Kalyazina, Vladimir Parfenov, Anton Shabaev,
Olesya Baraniuc, Igor Lashkov, and Maksim Khegai
A Decentralized Data Replication Approach for the Reconfigurable Robotic

Information and Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Eduard Menik and Anna Klimenko
The Model of Autonomous Unmanned Underwater Vehicles Interaction

for Collaborative Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Igor Kozhemyakin, Ivan Putintsev, Vladimir Ryzhov, Nikolay Semenov,
and Mikhail Chemodanov
Cognitive Components of Human Activity in the Process of

Monitoring a Heterogeneous Group of Autonomous Mobile Robots
on the Lunar Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Boris Kryuchkov, Vitaliy Usov, Denis Ivanko, and Ildar Kagirov
About One Approach to Robot Control System Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Eugene Larkin, Alexey Bogomolov, Aleksandr Privalov,
and Maksim Antonov
Providing Availability of the Smart Space Services by Means of Incoming

Data Control Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Dmitriy Levonevskiy, Irina Vatamaniuk, and Anton Saveliev
Automatic Synthesis Gait Scenarios for Reconfigurable Modular

Robots Walking Platform Configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Sergey Manko and Evgeny Shestakov
Fast Frontier Detection Approach in Consecutive Grid Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Petr Neduchal, Miroslav Flídr, and Miloš Železný
Design and Operation Principles of the Magnetomechanical Connector

of the Module of the Mobile Autonomous Reconfigurable System . . . . . . . . 202
Nikita Pavliuk, Konstantin Krestovnikov, Dmitry Pykhov,
and Victor Budkov
Trends in Development of UAV-UGV Cooperation Approaches

in Precision Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Quyen Vu, Mirko Raković, Vlado Delic, and Andrey Ronzhin
Contents IX
Structural Analysis and Animated Simulation of Biotechnical

Position-Velocity Control System of a Robot-Manipulator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Ekaterina Rostova, Nikolay Rostov, and Boris Sokolov
Proactive Localization System Concept for Users of Cyber-Physical Space. . . 233

Anton Saveliev, Dmitrii Malov, Alexander Edemskii, and Nikita Pavliuk
Current Control in the Drives of Dexterous Robot Grippers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Vladimir Serebrennyj, Andrey Boshlyakov, and Alexander Ogorodnik
Comparing Fiducial Markers Performance for a Task of a Humanoid Robot

Self-calibration of Manipulators: A Pilot Experimental Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Ksenia Shabalina, Artur Sagitov, Mikhail Svinin, and Evgeni Magid
Robust Webcam-Based Hand Detection for Initialisation

of Hand-Gesture Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Tilo Strutz, Alexander Leipnitz, and Björn Senkel
Multi-agent Robotic Systems in Collaborative Robotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

Sergey Vorotnikov, Konstantin Ermishin, Anaid Nazarova,
and Arkady Yuschenko
Hybrid Force/Position Control of a Collaborative Parallel Robot Using

Adaptive Neural Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
Seyedhassan Zabihifar and Arkadi Yuschenko
Swarm Robotics: Remarks on Terminology and Classification . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Aufar Zakiev, Tatyana Tsoy, and Evgeni Magid
Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Task and Spatial Planning
by the Cognitive Agent with Human-Like
Knowledge Representation
Ermek Aitygulov1 , Gleb Kiselev2,3 , and Aleksandr I. Panov1,3(B)

1
Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russia
aytygulov@phystech.edu, panov.ai@mipt.ru
2
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
3
Federal Research Center “Computer Science and Control” of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
kiselev@isa.ru
Abstract. The paper considers the task of simultaneous learning and

planning actions for moving a cognitive agent in two-dimensional space.
Planning is carried out by an agent who uses an anthropic way of knowl-
edge representation that allows him to build transparent and understood
planes, which is especially important in case of human-machine inter-
action. Learning actions to manipulate objects is carried out through
reinforcement learning and demonstrates the possibilities of replenishing
the agent’s procedural knowledge. The presented approach was demon-
strated in an experiment in the Gazebo simulation environment.
Keywords: Cognitive agent · Sign · Sign-based world model

Human-like knowledge representation · Behavior planning
Pseudo-physical logic · Reinforcement learning · Spatial planning
Task planning
1 Introduction
One of the main tasks researchers are facing with in the field of robotics and
artificial intelligence is the task of ensuring the effective interaction of robots
and people in collaborative scenarios, i.e. when a person and a machine perform
joint actions in a shared environment. To solve this problem the questions arise
of arranging the operation the robotic system in such a way that its actions are
transparent, predictable and quickly interpretable by a person, in other words, it
is necessary that the robot’s behavior be human-like in cases of human-machine
interaction becomes especially urgent. One of the directions of scientific research
aimed at solving this issue is the direction for the development of cognitive
agents, i.e. such intelligent agents who would learn and plan their actions using
approaches based on cognitive models of human behavior [1,2].
c Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

A. Ronzhin et al. (Eds.): ICR 2018, LNAI 11097, pp. 1–12, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99582-3_1
2 E. Aitygulov et al.
In this paper, we consider the task of developing a cognitive agent that plans
to move in space and actions to manipulate objects using the so-called sign-
based world model [3–5]. This way of knowledge representation about the envi-
ronment, the agent himself and other participants in joint activities is based
on the psychological theories of Leontyev’s activity [6] and Vygotsky’s cultural-
historical approach [7], which ensures his simple interpretation by human. In this
paper, the agents world model is spatial procedural and declarative knowledge
that use pseudo-physical logic [8], created with the use of psychological data on
the human-like spatial reasoning. Spatial knowledge constructed by analyzing
the map using egocentric coordinates allows maintaining the agent’s autonomy
regardless of the state of the “center”, and various levels of map representation
reduce the requirements for its computing resources.
The agent’s actions planning, carried out within the world model, is also
psychologically plausible. We leave out the details of the reactive functions [9,
10] and the algorithms for recognizing the objects of the surrounding space
significant for the agent [11]. The presented in the paper algorithm of spatialMAP
planning is hierarchical and abstracts from the details of the implementation
of an action, solving the task of creating a sequence of abstract agent actions
(moving, rotating, picking up an object), which will lead to the set goal. At each
iteration of the plan execution, the planner can be restarted, which makes it
possible to make a more detailed plan for implementing the abstract action.
The world model of a cognitive agent can be replenished through learning.
In this paper, complex actions to move objects are constructed through rein-
forcement learning through the TRPO algorithm [12], which allows to optimize
the strategies of choosing smaller actions with guaranteed monotonous improve-
ment. The constructed functions, the control over which is transmitted every
time after obtaining the appropriate prescription from the planning algorithm,
allow to interact with different kinds of objects without classifying the methods
of interactions and having only an abstract description of the required state at
the end of the action. After the successful completion of the learning algorithm
and the performance of the action, the action is saved as an experience and
re-learning is no longer required.
The cognitive agent described in this paper is able to function in real environ-
ments, which is experimentally confirmed in simulations in Gazebo. Also, work
is underway to implement experiments in real conditions with a robotic system
that includes a platform allowing the movement of the agent, an arm similar to
the one for the Turtlebot 2, as well as the camera, lidar and other sensors.
The paper is organized as follows. Part 2 presents the formulation of the
problem of planning the movements of a cognitive agent, and briefly describes the
algorithm for the operation of the cognitive agent. Part 3 provides an overview
of modern methods of planning movements using pseudo-physical logics, as well
as a comparison of reinforcement learning algorithms. Part 4 provides a detailed
implementation of the planning and reinforcement learning algorithm. Part 5
contains a description of the experiments performed.
Task and Spatial Planning by the Cognitive Agent 3
2 Problem Statement
The goal driven behavior of the cognitive agent is realized through an iterative
procedure, which consists of 3 basic steps:
1. Agents learning.
2. Planning actions to achieve the target situation.
3. Plan implementation in the environment.
Agents learning is based on the reinforcement learning approach, for the
implementation of which the algorithm TRPO is used. Learning takes place
in a synthetic environment, which is a minimalistic model of the environment,
containing only the information necessary for learning. Reinforcement learning
is a machine learning tool that allows an agent to develop the desired behavior
strategy based on the environmental response. This method uses a system of
penalties and rewards for the actions of the agent, which allows you to take into
account the experience of previous interactions. To describe the activity of a
cognitive agent, a probability distribution π(o|s) is used that characterizes the
probability of an agent choosing an action o in a state s. Probability distribution
π is called a strategy: π(o|s) = P (ot = o|st = s).
The agent, following the strategy, applies the actions and passes from the
state to the state, receiving for it a reward r, which can be either positive or
negative.
As an evaluation of the strategy, a value η(π) is considered that is the
mathematical expectation of the discounted remuneration for the whole session:
∞
η(π) = Eπ [ γ t r(st )].
t=0
The TRPO algorithm described in this paper uses a surrogate function, the
maximization of which, with the right choice of step, entails optimizing the
value η(π). Combining with the algorithm Natural policy gradient [13] greatly
improves the work of the algorithm.
In the case of using as a goal situation for reinforcement learning some sub-
goal in the overall task of planning, the result is a sequence of actions (strategy)
to achieve this sub-goal. After the formation of such meta-actions for the sub-
goals follows the process of planning actions. The plan P to achieve a set of facts
G (the target state of a cognitive agent)
isa sequence of pairs, where a0 ...a
N is
the set of actions of the agent, and 0 , ..., N a set of states such that G ⊆ N .
The plan P describes the process of solving the planning problem.
The planning problem consists of a description of the initial situation S, the
final situation F , and the planning domain D = T, R, Pr, A. The description of
the situation S in the spatial planning case we are considering contains the initial
coordinates of the objects on the agent map, the boundaries of the map, as well as
a description of the agent’s state (its direction and the state of the manipulator).
The situation description F contains the final coordinates of the objects, the
agent and the map constraints. Planning domain includes description of object
types, description of roles R (abstract classes, for example “block?x”, “direction-
start”, “region?y”), description of predicates and actions. Predicates express
relationships between objects (predicate “ontable”), agent status (“manipulator

empty”, “agent direction”) and spatial logic of the problem (predicates “close”,
“close”, “far”). The predicates of spatial logic are interrelated in such a way
that the predicate description for any distance, except for the “close” distance,
consists of predicates of smaller distances to intermediate objects. Actions ∀a ∈
A, a = n, Cnd, Ef f have the form, where n - the name of the action, Cnd -
the facts describing the condition for the applicability of the action, but Ef f -
the facts that are actualized as a result of the application of the action.
The implementation of the plan is carried out in the Gazebo simulation
environment, where a step-by-step execution of the plan takes place and the
knowledge about the agent’s capabilities obtained using the TRPO algorithm is
used.
3 Related Works
The spatial representation of the planning task requires the cognitive agent to
know the function of estimating distances, the possibility of representing and
manipulating spatial quantities in its own world model. Most of the approaches
that have been developed in this area can be divided into three areas: spatial-
network approaches, approaches based on biologically plausible representation
of the environment and approaches based on the psychological representation of
knowledge.
Spatial-network approaches [14,15] do not require knowledge of the environ-
ment used by cognitive agents, but are among the most common approaches
in robotics when using mobile non-intelligent systems. The description of their
activities is reduced to the partition of the map of the area into cells and the
transitions of agents through these cells. The advantage of these approaches over
the others is the speed of building an action plan, as inadequacies can be distin-
guished inapplicability in real conditions with a previously unknown or partially
known map of the environment.
The biological approach is typical for tasks that do not require the agent’s
conceptual general knowledge of the environment. In most cases, the agent is
not intelligent, but is able to make simple deductive assumptions about changes
in the environment. In [16], a model based on studies of rat’s brain activity is
described [17–19]. The model describes a hierarchical environment represented
by maps of different scales. Planning of movement takes into account all pos-
sible goals of achieving the goal, which requires a large amount of resources
for calculating possible changes in activity, taking into account the dynamics of
environmental changes. This problem was partially addressed in [20,21], which
led to the creation of the RatSLAM system, which allowed the agent to travel
long distances in real terrain.
Within the framework of a psychologically plausible approach to the issue of
agent action planning, problems associated with the incompleteness and inac-
curacy of the description of the environment are considered. To solve the tasks
set, a wide range of ways of representing the agent’s knowledge is used, many of
which allow approximating knowledge of the environment up to the level required

for action planning. In [22,23], an approach is considered in which the spatial
model is perceived by an artificial agent as a set of the most likely actions in
the current position of the agent, which approximates the representation of the
spatial relationships of the artificial agent to the representation that is used by
human.
In this paper we describe an approach that takes into account the merits of
the hierarchical representation of the map by the agent, the possible incomplete-
ness of knowledge about the objects of the map and the dynamics of its change.
Sign-based knowledge representation formalism allows an agent to cooperate
with other cognitive agents [24] and create a plan consisting of actions based on
the pseudo-physical logic of the spatial relationships of the location of objects on
the map. The approach uses not only actions to move the agent, but also actions
that manipulate the surrounding objects. For this, the capabilities of the rein-
forcement learning algorithm were used. The reinforcement learning algorithms
can be conditionally divided into two groups: based on the choice of strategy by
maximizing the value function and based on the search for an optimal strategy
in the strategy space [29]. Examples of reinforcement learning algorithms based
on utility maximization are the algorithms described in [25,26]. The algorithm
of Q-learning [27] for the robotic system manipulator was applied, the reward
depended on the distance from the part of the manipulator responsible for cap-
ture the target. The space of actions was discrete. An example of the application
of the first approach in the continuum of action is the work [28]. To make a deci-
sion the agent trained according to the method from the first group compares
the value of the utility function of each action, and in spite of the fact that this
approach makes the algorithms flexible in application to various tasks, in some
problems it is inefficient. Algorithms of the second group change the strategy
directly without spending time on evaluating all actions. TRPO [12], used in
this work, which allows to work in the continuum of action space, belongs to the
second group and in the search for strategy changes parameters only in a certain
neighborhood, therefore it converges along a smoother trajectory.
4 Synthesis of Behavior of Cognitive Agent

4.1 Human-Like Knowledge Representation
A sign representation of the agent’s knowledge was proposed in [3,30]. The sign
is a tuple of four components s = n, p, m, a, where n - is the component of
the name, p - the component of the image, m - the component of the signif-
icance, a - the component of the personal meaning. Signs can mediate both
elementary objects and complex actions. The same semantic networks describe
the components of the sign, whose nodes are special structures called causal
matrices [5]. Causal matrices are structured sets of references to other signs and
elementary features. Each of the sign components corresponds to a certain type
of information, for example, the sign image component describes the process
of object recognition and categorization. The significance component represents
the agent’s knowledge of the environment, and the component of the personal
meaning describes the agent’s preferences and the nature of his activity. The
name component allows you to make a naming process, i.e. link the remaining
components into a single logical structure.
The main task of the spatialMAP algorithm described in this paper is the
synthesis of the plan for moving the agent with the sign-based world model on
the map and the agent’s implementation of the interaction with the objects that
are located on it. In the agent’s world model, the map is displayed using the
signs of cells and regions [24], which are assigned to the agent in advance based
on pseudo-physical logic. At the recognition stage, the agent divides it into 9
regions, the size of which depends only on the characteristics of the card itself,
and associates them with the signs “Region-0” - “Region-8”. Next, the agent
looks at the region in which it is located. If no objects are present in the region,
the agent connects the “Cell” and “Cell-4” signs with this area and builds around
it a focus of attention that describes the current situation consisting of 9 cells. If
there are any objects in the region, the agent recursively divides the region into
9 parts until a segment of the map containing only agent is formed. After this,
the focus formation procedure described above is followed. Next, causal matrices
are formed on a network of values for the “Location” and “Contain” signs (see
Fig. 1), which describe the location of all regions and cells relative to the cell
with the agent, as well as the objects that are in them.
Fig. 1. Causal matrices of the the “Location” and “Contain” signs.
After this follows the process of formation of causal matrices of the initial
and final situations and map that are required for the synthesis of the action
plan (the process is shown in Algorithm 1). Matrices of situations consist of
references to signs describing the relationship at the focus of attention of the
agent, consisting of cells and the agent itself (its direction and the state of the
manipulator). The map matrices describe the status of the task map on a more
abstract level and contain references to the regions signs.
4.2 SpatialMAP Algorithm
The process of plan synthesis is implemented using the spatialMAP algorithm

and allows you to build an action plan from the initial to the finish situations
of the planning task. The input to the algorithm is given a description of the
situations and the planning domain that is required to refine the predicates and
actions applicable in the present task.
1 Tagent := GROU N D(map, struct)

2 P lan := M AP SEARCH(Tagent )
3 Function MAP SEARCH(zsit−cur ,zsit−goal ,zmap−cur ,zmap−goal ,plan,i):
4 if i > imax then
5 return ∅
6 end
a a
7 zsit−cur , zmap−cur = Zsit−start , Zmap−start
a a
8 zsit−goal , zmap−goal = Zsit−goal , Zmap−goal
9 Actchains = getsitsigns (zsit−cur )
10 for chain in Actchains do
11 Asignif | = abstract actions (chain)
12 end
13 for zsignif in Asignif do
14 Ch| = generate actions (zsignif )
15 Aapl = activity(Ch, zsit−cur )
16 end
17 Achecked = metacheck(Aapl , zsit−cur , zsit−goal , zmap−cur , zmap−goal )
18 for A in Achecked do
19 zsit−cur+1 , zmap−cur+1 = Sit (zsit−cur , zmap−cur , A)
20 plan.append(A, zsit−cur )
21 if zsit−goal ∈ zsit−cur+1 and zmap−goal ∈ zmap−cur+1 then
22 Fplans .append (plan)
23 end
24 else
25 P lans := M AP SEARCH
(zsit−cur+1 , zsit−goal , zmap−cur+1 , zmap−goal , plan, i + 1)
26 end
27 end
Algorithm 1. Process of plan synthesis by cognitive agent
The process of plan synthesis consists of two main stages: the stage of replen-
ishing the agent’s world model with new signs based on the planning and learning
task (step 1) and the recursive search phase (steps 2–27). The recursive search
phase begins with the comparison of the current recursion step with the maxi-
mum possible (steps 4–6), if the step is less than the maximum, then the matrices
of the present and target situations and the map should be obtained (steps 7–8).
Next, in step 9 chains of causal matrices of signs are formed, which enter the
present planning situation (in the first step of the recursion, the matrix of the
initial situation). In steps 10–12, a process is underway to search for matrices

of abstract (not specified within the framework of the present task) actions. For
each matrix of actions found, a process of its refinement takes place on the set
of matrices of signs activated in this task (steps 13–14). At step 15, a process
of selecting the appropriate actions in the present situation occurs. Then, at
step 17, among all the remaining actions, those whose application will create the
situation most similar to the target one are selected. After this, in steps 19–20
the plan is replenished with the selected action and a new situation is created
from the effects of the action and the signs entering the present situation. In
steps 21–23, the activation of the matrices of the target situation and the map
by the agent is checked, if the matrices of the target situation and the cards were
activated, then the algorithm ends, if not, then in step 25 a recursive call of the
plan search function takes place with an increase in the number of iterations by
1. After the planning process is over, the shortest one is selected from all the
plans that have been planned and the process of its execution begins. A plan is
a list of tuples that consist of actions and states. Each state include coordinates,
and direction of the agent after the action is performed.
P lan := [(a1 , S1 ), (a2 , S2 ), (a3 , S3 ).
The plan is sent to the agent in the Gazebo environment sequentially, the
agent after the execution of each of the actions returns the result of execution. If
the result is positive, the next step is sent, otherwise there is replanning process.
The next step describes the process of generating personal meanings
(actions), obtained with the reinforcement learning algorithm.
4.3 Learning of Sub-plans

To describe the agent’s interaction with the environment, the Markov decision-
making process (S, O, P, r, γ) is used, where S a set of states, O set of actions,
P : S × O × S → [0, 1] transition probability distribution, reward function and γ
discounting factor. In this paper,the action space is continual, so a multidimen-
sional
normal distribution N (μ, ) is used to determine the strategy π, where μ
and are specified by the neural network. Thus, the strategy π is parametrized
by the weights of the θ neural network, and all functions of π are functions of θ.
The function η(θ), which is the evaluation of the strategy πθ , is replaced by
the following surrogate function, which links the two strategies:
= η(θ) + Eπ πθ(o|s) (Qθ (s, o) − Vθ (s)),

Lθ (θ) θ
πθ (o|s)
where Qθ and Vθ are the value functions of an action and a state and are defined
as follows:
∞
Qθ (st , ot ) = Eπθ ( γ l r(st+l )|st = st , ot = ot ),
l=0
∞
Vθ (st ) = Eπθ ( γ l r(st+l )|st = st ).
l=0
Optimization Lθ with θ by restriction to the average Kullback-Leibler distance

entails an increase in the initial function η(θ). To search the optimal direction
problem, the natural policy gradient method is used, which uses linear approxi-
mation L and quadratic approximation DKL : for 12 (θold − θ)T K(θold )(θold −θ) ≤
θold
δ, where K(θold ) = Δθ DKL . Update rule:
θnew = θold + αK(θold )−1 ∇θ L(θ)|θ=θold .
The value K(θold )−1 ∇θ L(θ)|θ=θold is the solution of the equation K(θold )x =
∇θ L(θ)|θ=θold with respect to x, the value α is selected by linear search for a
θold
maximum L with constraints DKL (θold , θ) ≤ δ.
5 Experiments in Simulator
As part of the demonstration of the procedure for synthesizing the behavior
of a cognitive agent, an experiment was conducted to move the robotic agent
Turtlebot 2 in Gazebo to the table where a small block was placed and the
block was picked up by the agent’s manipulator. The plan consisted of a list
of actions, including “move”, “rotate” and “pick-up” actions. The process was
organized using a client-server architecture, where the client was a spatialMAP
planner on a remote machine that sent a message using the services of the ROS
operating system to the server. Messages are about the goal move point in case
the “move” action was activated, about changing the direction of the agent
when activating the action “rotate” and the activation of the “pick-up” action.
When the “pick-up” action was activated, the script obtained using the TRPO
algorithm started working. Agent’s scheme of the environment is presented in
Fig. 2.
To implement the TRPO algorithm, two environments were created: a syn-
thetic learning environment and a framework for applying the algorithm to
Gazebo. Two environments have the same space of states and actions. To
describe the agent’s interaction with them, an example of the manipulator’s
grip of an object on the table is given below.
Figure 3 shows the model of a manipulator in a synthetic environment in
the two-dimensional case. Points 1–4 are joints of manipulators. The action is
to change the angle in one of them (in 3D, rotation around the vertical axis is
added). Point B - the target point at which the agent should move point 4.
The remuneration system works as follows: if, as a result of the action, the
−→
length of the vector 4B has decreased, then the agent receives a reward in the
−→ −→
amount 4B , if not changed, then it is fined 5, and if increased, is fined 2 4B .
−→ −→ −→
The state of the agent is a sequence (β1 , β2 , β3 , α1 , α2 , α3 , 4B, 3B, 2B) (in 3D it
is added α4 ), where βi are the angles in joints and αi are the angles between the
Fig. 2. Scheme of cognitive agent’s spatial representations.
Fig. 3. Model manipulator in a synthetic environment.
→
−
−→ →
− −→ →
−
−→
following vectors: α1 = (14, 1B), α2 = (24, 2B), α3 = (34, 3B). In such a state
space, the inequality α1 ≤ 0 means that the goal point B is below the vector
→
−
14 and it is necessary to make a turn in the joint 1 by the corresponding angle.
This representation of the position of the manipulator relative to the goal point
makes the strategy π less dependent on position B. Because the space of states
and actions for the two media are identical, the neural network trained in a
synthetic environment can be used in an environment interacting with Gazebo.
6 Conclusion
The paper presents an original approach to the synthesis of cognitive agent
behavior, which is realized through the interaction of a reinforcement learning
approach and a planning algorithm based on a psychologically plausible way of
representing knowledge. A scheme of such interaction is proposed for robotic
platforms with a manipulator, and an example of the work of this approach
in the task of moving a platform in space and manipulating it with external
objects is demonstrated. In future works, it is planned to disclose the interac-

tion of centralized planning algorithms for agent coalitions and reinforcement
learning methods, allowing the interaction of agents with the environment in
real conditions.
Acknowledgments. The results concerning models of sign components and planning

algorithms (Sects. 4.1 and 4.2) were obtained under the support of the Russian Sci-
ence Foundation (project No. 16-11-00048), and the results on reinforcement learning
for manipulator (Sects. 4.3 and 5) were obtained under the support of the Russian
Foundation for Basic Research (project No. 17-29-07079).
References
1. Laird, J.E.: The Soar Cognitive Architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge (2012)
2. Sun, R., Hlie, S.: Psychologically realistic cognitive agents: taking human cognition
seriously. J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell. 25, 65–92 (2012)
3. Osipov, G.S., Panov, A.I., Chudova, N.V.: Behavior control as a function of con-
sciousness. I. World model and goal setting. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Int. 53, 517–529
(2014)
4. Osipov, G.S., Panov, A.I., Chudova, N.V.: Behavior control as a function of con-
sciousness. II. Synthesis of a behavior plan. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Int. 54, 882–896
(2015)
5. Panov, A.I.: Behavior planning of intelligent agent with sign world model. Biol.
Inspired Cogn. Archit. 19, 21–31 (2017)
6. Leontyev, A.N.: The Development of Mind. Erythros Press and Media, Kettering
(2009)
7. Vygotsky, L.S.: Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)
8. Pospelov, D.A., Osipov, G.S.: Knowledge in semiotic models. In: Proceedings of
the Second Workshop on Applied Semiotics, Seventh International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Information-Control Systems of Robots (AIICSR 1997),
Bratislava, pp. 1–12 (1997)
9. Emelyanov, S., Makarov, D., Panov, A.I., Yakovlev, K.: Multilayer cognitive archi-
tecture for UAV control. Cogn. Syst. Res. 39, 58–72 (2016)
10. Brooks, R.A.: Intelligence without representation. Artif. Intell. 47, 139–159 (1991)
11. Siagian, C., Itti, L.: Biologically-inspired robotics vision Monte-Carlo localiza-
tion in the outdoor environment. In: IEEE International Conference on Intelligent
Robots and Systems, pp. 1723–1730 (2007)
12. Schulman, J., Levine, S., Moritz, P., Jordan, M., Abbeel, P.: Trust region policy
optimization (2015)
13. Kakade, S.: A natural policy gradient (2002)
14. Daniel, K., Nash, A., Koenig, S., Felner, A.: Theta*: any-angle path planning on
grids. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 39, 533–579 (2010)
15. Palacios, J.C., Olayo, M.G., Cruz, G.J., Chvez, J.A.: Thin film composites of
polyallylamine-silver. Superficies y Vacio (2012)
16. Erdem, U.M., Hasselmo, M.E.: A biologically inspired hierarchical goal directed
navigation model. J. Physiol. Paris 108(1), 28–37 (2014)
17. Morris, R.G.M., Garrud, P., Rawlins, J.N.P., O’Keefe, J.: Place navigation
impaired in rats with hippocampal lesions. Nature 297(5868), 681–683 (1982)
18. Steele, R.J., Morris, R.G.M.: Delay-dependent impairment of a matching-to- place

task with chronic and intrahippocampal infusion of the NMDA-antagonist D-AP5.
Hippocampus 9(2), 118–136 (1999)
19. Steffenach, H.-A., Witter, M., Moser, M.-B., Moser, E.I.: Spatial memory in the
rat requires the dorsolateral band of the entorhinal cortex. Neuron 45(2), 301–313
(2005)
20. Milford, M., Wyeth, G.: Persistent navigation and mapping using a biologically
inspired slam system. Int. J. Robot. Res. 29(9), 1131–1153 (2010)
21. Milford, M., Schulz, R.: Principles of goal-directed spatial robot navigation in
biomimetic models. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 369(1655), 20130484–
20130484 (2014)
22. Epstein, S.L., Aroor, A., Sklar, E.I., Parsons, S.: Navigation with learned spatial
affordances, pp. 1–6 (2013)
23. Epstein, S.L., Aroor, A., Evanusa, M., Sklar, E.I., Parsons, S.: Spatial abstraction
for autonomous robot navigation. Cogn. Process. 16, 215–219 (2015)
24. Kiselev, G.A., Panov, A.I.: Sign-based approach to the task of role distribution in
the coalition of cognitive agents. SPIIRAS Proc. 57, 161–187 (2018)
25. Albers, A., Yan, W., Frietsch, M.: Application of reinforcement learning for a 2-
DOF robot arm control, November 2009
26. Stephen, J., Edward, J.: 3D simulation for robot arm control with deep Q-learning
(2016)
27. Watkins, C.J.C.H.: Learning from delayed rewards (1989)
28. Gu, S., Holly, E., Lillicrap, T., Levine, S.: Deep reinforcement learning for robotic
manipulation with asynchronous off-policy update (2016)
29. Sutton, R.S., McAllester, D., Singh, S., Mansour, Y.: Policy gradient methods for
reinforcement learning with function approximation (1999)
30. Osipov, G.S.: Sign-based representation and word model of actor. In: Yager, R.,
Sgurev, V., Hadjiski, M., and Jotsov, V. (eds.) 2016 IEEE 8th International Con-
ference on Intelligent Systems (IS), pp. 22–26. IEEE (2016)
Path Finding for the Coalition
of Co-operative Agents Acting
in the Environment
with Destructible Obstacles
Anton Andreychuk1,2(B) and Konstantin Yakovlev1,3

1
Federal Research Center “Computer Science and Control”
of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
andreychuk@mail.com, yakovlev@isa.ru
2
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), Moscow, Russia
3
National Research University Higher School of Economics (NRU HSE),
Moscow, Russia
Abstract. The problem of planning a set of paths for the coalition of

robots (agents) with different capabilities is considered in the paper.
Some agents can modify the environment by destructing the obstacles
thus allowing the other ones to shorten their paths to the goal. As a
result the mutual solution of lower cost, e.g. time to completion, may be
acquired. We suggest an original procedure to identify the obstacles for
further removal that can be embedded into almost any heuristic search
planner (we use Theta*) and evaluate it empirically. Results of the eval-
uation show that time-to-complete the mission can be decreased up to
9–12 % by utilizing the proposed technique.
Keywords: Path planning · Path finding · Grid · Coalition of agents

Co-operative agents · Co-operative path planning · Multi-agent systems
1 Introduction
Path planning for a point robot is usually considered in Artificial Intelligence
and robotics as a task of finding a path on the graph whose nodes correspond
to the positions the robot (agent) can occupy, and edges – possible transitions
between them. Voronoi diagrams [8], visibility graphs [9], grids [19] are the most
widespread graphs used for path finding, with grids being the most simple and
easy-to-construct discretizations of the workspace. To find a path on a grid
typically one of the algorithms from A* family is used. A* [5] is a heuristic
search algorithm that searches in state-space comprised of the elements (nodes)
corresponding to certain graph vertices (grid cells or corners). There exist various
modifications of A* that are suitable for grid-based path finding. In this work we
utilize so-called any-angle path finders that do not constrain agent’s moves to
cardinal and diagonal ones only but rather allow to move into arbitrary direction
c Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018
A. Ronzhin et al. (Eds.): ICR 2018, LNAI 11097, pp. 13–22, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99582-3_2
14 A. Andreychuk and K. Yakovlev
as long as the endpoints of the move are tied to distinct grid elements. Among
such algorithms Theta* [2], Field D* [3], Anya [4], etc., can be named.
Abovementioned algorithms can not be directly applied to multi-robot path
planning which is gaining more and more attention nowadays due to numerous
applications in transport [10], logistics [17], agriculture [14], military [7] and other
domains, but they can be modified to become base blocks of multi-agent path
finders such as CBS [13], M* [15], MAPP [1,16], AA-SIPP(m) [18], etc. Typically
those planners consider the interaction between the robots only spatial-wise by
taking into account possible collisions and avoiding them.
In this work we investigate the case when robots can interact and co-operate
by performing not only move-or-wait actions but modify-the-environment
actions as well. This is similar to integration of task and motion planning [6],
but unlike other researchers in this field we do not concentrate on task planning
with grasping the objects, which is a typical scenario, but rather on task plan-
ning with path finding. The approach we suggest can be of particular interest
to solving so-called smart relocation tasks [11,12] when the mission can not be
accomplished without the robots helping each other.
2 Problem Statement
Consider a coalition of heterogeneous robots that need to reach their respective

goals in static, a-priory known environment, represented as a grid, composed of
blocked and un-blocked cells. Without loss of generality we examine the case
when only two heterogeneous robots, e.g. an UAV and a wheeled robot, are
considered. The UAV can move directly to its goal, e.g. fly above all the obstacles,
while the wheeled robot must circumnavigate them. An example of a modeled
scenario is presented in Fig. 1.
The robots are different not only in the way they move, but they also may
perform different set of actions. Wheeled robot can perform only move actions
while UAV can destroy obstacles as well (at no cost). In order to do so it must first
approach them. The problem now is to obtain coordinated mission completion
plan composed of two sub-plans: one per each robot.The cost of the individual
plan is the time needed to traverse the planned path, which is proportional to
its length, so, without loss of generality the individual cost is the length of the
path. Two metrics to measure the overall cost are considered, e.g. the flowtime
(the sum of path lengths) and the makespan (maximum over path lenghts). We
are interested in getting such solutions that have lower cost compared to the
case when path planning is conducted independently by the robots. For the rest
of the paper we assume that x- and y-coordinates of the start and goals location
of two robots are equal, e.g. the UAV is hovering above the wheeled robot and
its (x, y) goal location is the same. We will refer to the wheeled robot as to the
first agent and to the UAV as to the second one.
Path Finding for the Coalition of Co-operative Agents 15
Fig. 1. Heterogeneous group of mobile robots in a grid-world. Locations of the robots

are tied to the centers of un-blocked grid cells. Flying robot can move directly to the
goal flying above the obstacles, while wheeled robot has to circumnavigate them.
3 Method
To decrease the cost of the initial non-cooperative solution one need to (a) iden-
tify the obstacles that force the second agent to deviate from the shortest possi-
ble, e.g. straight-line, path to its goal; (b) modify the original straight-line path
of the second agent in such a way that it approaches each identified obstacle (thus
destroying it); (c) re-plan a path for the first agent. Also a grid pre-processing
is needed in order to assign the unique identifiers to all the obstacles in the
environment. This is done trivially by traversing the grid cells one by one, and
every time a blocked cell is found, all adjacent blocked ones are traversed and
assigned with a unique identifier.
After finding and identifying all the obstacles on the grid, the trajectory for
the first agent is planned using the modified heuristic search algorithm Theta*,
which pseudocode is given in Algorithm 1. Besides finding the path the algorithm
identifies obstacles whose removal can potentially shorten the length of such
path. Detailed description of Theta* can be found in [2]. We reference the reader
to this paper for details and now proceed with the description of the proposed
modifications. One of such modifications is that an additional data structure,
obstacles, is introduced (lines 3–4) that stores the number of times each obstacle
was hit during the search. Main loop is similar to the original Theta*, e.g. on each
step the most promising state is retrieved and its successors are generated. These
successors correspond to moves from the current cells to the neighbouring grid
ones. If the move is infeasible due to the target cell being blocked it is discarded
(as in conventional heuristic search path planner), but we also count the number
of such blocked cells in lines 11–13. Thus, when the algorithm terminates, one
obtains not only the information about whether the path was found or not1 , but
also the information about how many times the path-finder attempted to move
through the particular obstacles.
Algorithm 1. Theta* with counting interfering obstacles

1 parent(sstart ) := sstart ; g(sstart ) := 0;
2 OP EN := {sstart }; CLOSED := ∅;
3 for each obstacle on grid as o do
4 obstacles(o) := 0;
5 while OP EN = ∅ do
6 s := state with minimal f -value from OP EN ;
7 remove s from OP EN and add to CLOSED;
8 if s = goal then
9 return obstacles and ”path found”;
10 for each state in neighbours(s) as s do
11 if s is blocked then
12 obstacles(getObstacleAt(s ))++;
13 continue;
14 if s ∈
/ CLOSED then
15 if s ∈
/ OP EN then
16 g(s ) := ∞;
17 updateVertex(s, s’);
18 return obstacles and ”path not found”;

19 Function updateVertex(s, s’)
20 if lineOfSight(parent(s), s’) then
21 s := parent(s);
22 if g(s) + c(s, s ) < g(s ) then
23 g(s ) := g(s) + c(s, s );
24 f (s ) := g(s ) + h(s );
25 parent(s ) := s;
26 insert/update s in OP EN ;
Obviously, if the vertices (cells) of the obstacle o have never been consid-
ered during the search, e.g. obstacles(o) is equal to 0, then this obstacle has no
influence on robot’s mission. If obstacles(o) > 0 then removing o might lead to
a potentially shorter path. Thus, a simple criterion for removing an obstacle is
suggested: o = argmaxo∈Obstacles (obstacles(o)), where Obstacles stands for all
obstacles on a grid. If it is possible to remove n obstacles, then n first ones with
the largest values of obstacles(o) are selected.
1
The path itself can be reconstructed by iteratively tracing backpointers from goal
vertex until start is reached.
After the obstacles are chosen, one needs to construct a trajectory for the
second agent (flying robot), such that it passes through the vertices that are adja-
cent to the chosen obstacles. In case only one obstacle o is going to be removed,
the shortest path for the second agent can be found as follows. The distances
from each cell comprising the boundary of o to start and goal are calculated and
such cell, c, is chosen that minimizes the distance dist(start, c) + dist(c, goal),
see Fig. 2b. This cell is used to form a path [start, c, goal] . If more than one
obstacle is going to be removed, such an approach becomes computationally bur-
densome. Instead, we suggest another procedure that does not guarantee finding
the shortest path, but works much faster.
Obviously, the shortest path from start to goal is the straight line segment
connecting them start, goal. Thus to minimize the length of the path that
needs to pass through the vertices adjacent to the obstacles being removed, this
path should be as close to this segment as possible. Therefore for each of the
removing obstacles o we look for such vertex (residing at the boundary of o) that
minimizes the distance to start, goal segment. After all, the sought path for
the second agent is constructed by aligning these vertices in order of increasing
distance from start.
Fig. 2. Robots’ paths before and after removing the obstacle. (a) initial paths for the
ground robot and for the UAV (shown in blue and orange respectively) ; (b) boundary
of the obstacle to be removed (shown in bold) and the cell c on this boundary that
minimizes dist(start, c) + dist(c, goal); (c) paths after removing the obstacle. (Color
figure online)
An example of removing an obstacle and re-planning paths for both agents

is presented in Fig. 2. As one can see the path for the flying robot (marked
in orange) is almost un-affected, while the path for the ground robot (marked
in blue) becomes significantly shorter, which means that time-to-complete the
mission lowers down.
4 Experimental Evaluation
Described methods and algorithms were implemented in C++2 and evalu-
ated on a PC of the following configuration: OS - Windows 7, CPU - Intel
Q8300 (2.5 GHz), RAM - 2 GB. Descriptions of the real-world urban areas were
extracted from OpenStreetMaps and used as the input. 100 maps each being
1.2 × 1.2 km in size were transformed into 501 × 501 grids with blocked cells cor-
responding to buildings. Initially 200 instances per each grid were generated in
such a way that the distance between the start and goal locations exceeded 960 m
(400 cells). Then the instances for which the length of the trajectory found by
the original Theta* algorithm differed from the straight-line distance by no more
than 10% were discarded. Thus, a total of 1457 instances formed the resultant
input.
To guide the search of the proposed modification of Theta* both un-weighted
and weighted heurisic (Euclidean distance) was used, e.g. heuristic weight was
set eiter to 1 (w = 1) or to 2 (w = 2). Using weighted heuristic makes the
algorithm “greedy”, i.e. more focused on the goal, as a result, it spends less time
(and memory) to find a solution. The number of removed obstacles varied from
1 to 5. The following performance indicators were tracked:
(1) Path A – path length of the first agent (i.e., of the agent that does not have
the ability to modify the environment – ground robot).
(2) Number of nodes – number of vertices that were processed and stored in
memory in order to build path for the first agent. This indicator directly
relates to memory consumption (the more vertices are stored the more mem-
ory is used).
(3) Time – runtime of the algorithm (excluding overheads, such as loading a
map, saving a result, etc.).
(4) Path B – path length of the second agent (i.e., of the agent that has the
ability to modify the environment – flying robot).
These indicators were tracked both before and after the modification of the
environment. The results of the conducted experiments are as follows.
Figure 3 shows the average memory consumption after the first stage of plan-
ning (Stage 1), as well as after modifying the grid and removing the correspond-
ing number of obstacles (Obs = 1, ..., Obs = 5). Left five columns correspond
to the results obtained by the algorithm with un-weighted heuristic function
(w = 1), while right 5 columns were gained with heuristic weight set to 2. One
can note that removing obstacles leads to a notable reduction in the number of
vertices processed by the path planning algorithm. If un-weighted heuristic is
used (w = 1) than the memory consumption is reduced up to 30%, moreover if
the weighted heuristic function is utilized (w = 2) – this consumption is reduced
up to 65%.
2
Source code is available at https://github.com/PathPlanning/AStar-JPS-
ThetaStar/tree/destroy obs and replan
Fig. 3. Memory consumption (number of processed nodes) before and after removing
the obstacles.
Similar claims can be done w.r.t. runtime—see Fig. 4 for details. This figure
shows the average amount of time which the algorithm spends to find the trajec-
tories for both agents. Similarly to memory consumption, the runtime decreases
when the number of removed obstacles increases. For w = 1 the runtime is
reduced up to 29.8%, and for w = 2—up to 71%.
Fig. 4. Planning time before and after removing the obstacles.
To evaluate the quality of obtained solutions the following metrics were used:
– flowtime also known as sum-of-costs (SoC) – the sum of the lengths of indi-
vidual trajectories;
– makespan – the maximum length of an individual trajectory.
Assuming that both agents move with identical speeds, the first metrics reflects
the aggregate time-cost, associated with the mission; the second one shows when
the last robot reaches its goal, so it can be seen as time to complete a mission.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Although this step was in the highest degree improper, Pinckney
had some excuse for his conduct. Left without instructions in the face
of an emergency which might have been foreseen at Washington, he
argued that his government, which had officially annexed West
Florida, meant to support its acts with a strong hand. He thought that
the issue presented by Cevallos was such as the President was
bound to take up, and he knew that the only chance of carrying the
points which the President had at heart was in energetic action. For
three years he had watched the peremptory tone of France and
England at Madrid, and had been assured by the common voice of
his diplomatic colleagues that threats alone could extort action from
the Spanish government. He had seen the Prince of Peace, after
resorting to one subterfuge after another, repeatedly forced to cower
before the two great robbers who were plundering Spain, and he
explained to Madison the necessity of imitating their example if the
President meant that Spain should cower before the United States.
Perhaps he felt that Godoy looked on the President at Washington
as the jackal of Bonaparte, and he may have wished to prove that
America could act alone. His eager ambition to make himself as
important as the representatives of France and England in the eyes
of Europe might imply vanity, but rested also on logic.
The first result of this energetic tone was not what Pinckney had
hoped. Cevallos was outwardly unmoved; Pinckney’s violence only
caused him to lay aside that courtesy which was the usual mark of
Spanish manners. His official notes were in outward form still civil
enough, but in two or three conversations Pinckney listened to a
series of remarks as blunt as though Lord Harrowby were the
speaker. Pinckney reported to Madison the tenor of these rough
rejoinders.[195] Cevallos told him that the Americans, ever since their
independence, had been receiving the most pointed proofs of
friendship and generosity from Spain, who, as was well known,
received no benefit from them,—on the contrary, their commerce
was extremely injurious to Spain; the Spanish government had ten
times more trouble with them than with any other nation, and for his
part, he did not wish to see the trade with the United States
extended. Spain had nothing to fear from the United States, and had
heard with contempt the threats of senators like Ross and
Gouverneur Morris. The Americans had no right to expect much
kindness from the King; in the purchase of Louisiana they had paid
no attention to his repeated remonstrances against the injustice and
nullity of that transaction, whereas if they had felt the least friendship
they would have done so. They were well known to be a nation of
calculators, bent on making money and nothing else; the French,
and probably in the result all the nations having possessions in the
West Indies, would be materially injured by them, for without a doubt
it was entirely owing to the United States that St. Domingo was in its
present situation.
Pinckney received[196] at the same time what he called secret
intelligence on which he could implicitly rely, that Cevallos meant to
create indefinite delays to the ratification, for Yrujo had written that
neither these nor the French spoliation claims, nor West Florida,
would induce the American government to depart from its pacific
system. France had indeed gone to the point of advising and even
commanding Spain to relinquish her claim on Louisiana, and this
was the reason why Spain had so quietly given it up; but in regard to
the spoliations, France preferred not to see them paid, as the more
money Spain paid America the less she could pay France, and
France knew as well as Spain how little serious was the American
government in the idea of abandoning its neutrality.
Pinckney having done his worst, found himself in a position
extremely awkward. Although he threatened to leave Spain, and
proclaimed that he meant soon to demand his passports, he did not
venture to take this last step without instructions. Cevallos,
excessively perplexed by his conduct, could not conceive that he
should act thus without some definite authority. Boldly as Cevallos
talked, he was in truth greatly alarmed by the idea of war. The
French representative at Madrid wrote to Talleyrand that Pinckney
had terrified the secretary beyond reason:[197]—
“The difficulty of making himself understood by M. de Cevallos in a
language with which he is not familiar, excites Mr. Pinckney to fly out
in terms beyond moderation and proper civility. He positively threatens
war, and loudly announces his resolution shortly to demand his
passports. The truth is that he is preparing to depart, and finds himself
almost deprived of power to remain, not only in consequence of his
personal altercation with the minister, but also of the care with which
he has taken the public into his confidence.... M. de Cevallos seems
to me to be quite seriously alarmed at the results this may have.”
Ten days later the Frenchman reported that Cevallos was more
uneasy than ever.[198]
“‘If the Emperor,’ added M. de Cevallos, ‘would but say a word,
and let the United States understand that he is not pleased at seeing
them abuse the advantages which they owe to their strength and to
the nearness of their resources over an ally of France, this would
reconcile all difficulties, and save his Majesty the necessity of exacting
satisfaction for an insult which is as good as inflicted.’”
The Frenchman, having no instructions, contented himself with
suggesting that the Emperor had more pressing matters on hand.
“‘So,’ said M. de Cevallos, ‘France will have caused our actual
misunderstanding with our neighbors, and we are to expect no
service from her influence!’”
While Cevallos thus invoked the aid of France, the news of
Pinckney’s war slowly crossed the Atlantic. No sooner did it arrive
than Yrujo in the middle of October, shortly after his attempt to
seduce the patriotism of Major Jackson, wrote to the Secretary of
State a formal letter,[199] repeating what had already been said to
Pinckney at Madrid. Madison’s reply was studiously moderate and
conciliatory.[200] He explained as best he could the offensive
language of the Mobile Act, and announced that a special minister
would soon reach Madrid, to hasten the adjustment of all territorial
disputes; he deprecated the demand for an abandonment of the
French claims, and argued that such a condition of ratification was
not supported by international law; he urged Yrujo to give
assurances of an unqualified ratification, but he said not a word
about Pinckney’s performances, and gave it to be understood that
Pinckney would be recalled. A few days afterward he wrote to
Monroe, ordering him in haste to Spain. “The turn which our affairs at
Madrid have taken renders it expedient in the judgment of the
President that you should proceed thither without delay.”[201] In
another letter, written at nearly the same time, he was more explicit:
[202]—
“Pinckney’s recall has been asked by the Spanish government,

and a letter of leave goes to him. I suspect he will not return in good
humor. I could not permit myself to flatter him, and truth would not
permit me to praise him. He is well off in escaping reproof, for his
agency has been very faulty as well as feeble.”
The first attempts to overawe Spain had failed. Pinckney, not
disavowed but ignored, fell into the background; and once more
Monroe stepped forward to rescue the Administration. When these
instructions were written, he had already reached Paris on his way to
Madrid; but Madison, undeterred by Pinckney’s disaster, still
persisted in advising him to place his main reliance “in a skilful
appeal to the fears of Spain.”[203]
CHAPTER XIII.
Hardly was the Louisiana treaty sent to America in May, 1803,
when Monroe began preparations for a journey to Madrid. The
outbreak of temper with which Godoy and Cevallos received the
news that Spain had been secretly deprived of Louisiana, caused
Bonaparte to feel that further maltreatment of his ally was for the
moment unwise; and he interposed a sudden veto on Monroe’s
journey. “With respect to Florida, this is not the time to pursue that
object,” said he, when Monroe came to take leave.[204] The Consul
Cambacérès echoed the warning: “You must not go to Spain at
present; it is not the time; you had better defer it.” The Third Consul
Lebrun spoke in the same tone. Monroe took the advice, and
abandoned the journey to Madrid. In July he crossed the Channel to
London, and Aug. 17, 1803, was duly presented to George III. as the
successor of Rufus King, who had already returned to America.
Livingston remained at Paris to manage the relations with Napoleon.
In spite of success that should have filled his cup of ambition to
overflowing, Livingston was far from satisfied. Neither the President
nor the Secretary of State liked him; and to the latter he was a
possible rival, who might become dangerous if the authority of
President Jefferson, which was Madison’s great support, should
wane, and should New York claim the presidency from Virginia.
Monroe distrusted Livingston, believing him to grasp at the whole
credit of the Louisiana treaty, and to be intriguing to withdraw the
Florida negotiation from Monroe’s hands by causing its transfer from
Madrid to Paris.[205] The Secretary of State was perpetually annoyed
by his minister. Sometimes Livingston experimented on Spain,
sometimes on England. At one moment he sent to the First Consul
an indiscreet memorial that brought a remonstrance from the British
government; at another he fell into a virulent quarrel with the
American claims commissioners under the Louisiana treaty. His
claims convention was admitted to be full of mistakes which he did
not himself attempt to defend, while the American consul at Paris
declared that his conduct in regard to certain claims was dictated by
blind and insatiable vanity, if not by corrupt and criminal motives.[206]
Mistakes cost Livingston little serious annoyance; but although he
could afford to disregard British complaints or Consul Skipwith’s
abuse, or even the severe criticisms of the claims commissioners, he
must have had more than human patience to sit quiet under the
superiority of Monroe. He knew that whatever diplomatic credit was
due for the Louisiana negotiation rightly belonged to him, and that
Monroe had no claim to any part of it, except that of supporting and
approving what was already accomplished; yet he saw the
Administration and the public attribute the chief honor to his rival. He
showed his wounded self-esteem in protests and statements to
which the world was deaf. His old Federalist friends took malicious
pleasure in telling him that his triumph had offended the vanity of
Jefferson.[207]
Consoling himself with the reflection that he should insist on
returning to America in the autumn of 1804, Livingston endured
these annoyances as he best could, and found in the society of
Robert Fulton and Joel Barlow the hope of greater fame and profit
than political distinctions could possibly bring. While he watched and
encouraged Fulton’s experiments with the steamboat, clouds
gathered more and more thickly round his diplomatic path. The First
Consul had never inspired him with much confidence; but after the
rupture of the Peace of Amiens, in May, 1803, Bonaparte’s acts
became more and more alarming to every Republican. He passed
the autumn of 1803 in preparations for a descent on England. He
next effected, in February, 1804, the arrest, trial, and banishment of
Moreau. The seizure and arbitrary execution of the Duc d’Enghien
followed a month afterward, and finally, in May, 1804, the
proclamation of the Empire.
In the midst of these events Livingston received from home the
letter already quoted, in which Madison told the story of the Mobile
Act, and complained of Yrujo’s violent conduct. “The correspondence
is chiefly of importance,” said the Secretary of State, “as it urges the
expediency of cultivating the disposition of the French government to
take our side of the question.” Livingston was personally rather
inclined to the opposite course. He had little faith in obtaining favors
from the Emperor, and no disposition to place the United States in
the attitude of begging for them; but he had not the chief share in
shaping action. A few weeks after receiving these instructions, when
he heard of the quasi war which Pinckney in July declared at Madrid,
Livingston was already expecting the arrival of his successor,
General Armstrong, in the autumn.
The news from Spain reaching London, startled Monroe from his
repose. As soon as he could make ready, Oct. 8, 1804, placing his
legation in charge of a secretary, Monroe left London. While he
waited in Paris to sound the disposition of Talleyrand, General
Armstrong arrived to relieve Livingston. Thus it happened that three
American ministers—Monroe, Livingston, and Armstrong—met at
Paris in November, 1804, to cope with Talleyrand, in whose hands
lay the decision of Jefferson’s quarrel with Spain.
The question to be decided was whether the United States
government should disregard its obligations to Napoleon and act
independently, or whether the President should defer to the opinion
of Talleyrand and to the Emperor’s will. The story of diplomatic
adventure, which has so often an interest beyond what could be
supposed possible from the contact of three or four quiet and elderly
gentlemen meeting about a green table, or writing letters inordinately
long, owes that interest in most cases to a hope or a despair, to a
mystery or an elucidation; but Monroe’s labors at that time offered
little mystery, and less hope. Although he did not know all that was
happening behind the diplomatic curtain, he knew enough to be
aware that his negotiation for Florida, on the ground chosen by the
President, was hopeless.
Three months had passed since Cevallos made his appeal to
Talleyrand for help. “If the Emperor would but say a word,” Cevallos
urged;[208] “if he would make the United States understand that he
will not be pleased at seeing them abuse their advantages,”—this
would put an end to insults like the Mobile Act and Pinckney’s
threats. Talleyrand’s answer could not be doubtful. Angry with
Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Livingston for their attack on West
Florida, into which his own and his master’s finessing had drawn
them; still angrier with Pinckney for the burlesque of Napoleonic
manners with which he alarmed the government of Spain; hostile at
heart to Bonaparte’s ultimate schemes against the Spanish empire,
but determined that if Spain were to be plundered France should
have the booty; willing to repay a part of the humiliation and
disappointment which the United States had twice inflicted upon him,
—the instant the Spanish ambassador at Paris brought the Mobile
Act to his notice, Talleyrand assured him with emphasis that the
Emperor would formally oppose such pretensions on the part of the
United States;[209] and when Pinckney’s conduct was reported to
him, with the request that the Emperor would instruct his minister at
Washington to act in concert with Yrujo in order to prevent a rupture,
Talleyrand hastened to meet the wish of the Spanish government.
Cevallos made other requests. After narrating the history of
Pinckney’s claims convention, he touched briefly on the claim for
French spoliations which the Americans so warmly urged against
Spain, and he asserted that Lucien Bonaparte had given an
assurance that these claims were covered by the Franco-American
treaty of 1800, and therefore could not be pressed against Spain. He
complained that Pinckney had used “language the most gross, the
most insulting, and, so to speak, the most audacious and menacing.”
He called attention to the dangers which would result from allowing
the boundary of Louisiana to be extended toward either Florida or
Mexico; and he begged “that orders might be sent to the French
commissioner Laussat in Louisiana, enjoining him to restrain the
pretensions of the Americans regarding the limits of that province,
and not to show himself favorable to the wishes of the Americans, as
there is reason to suspect him of doing, according to his
correspondence with the Spanish commissioner.”
Laussat’s offence consisted in telling the American
commissioners that his instructions fixed the Rio Bravo as the
western boundary of Louisiana. Cevallos made no protest to
Talleyrand against the truth of Laussat’s statement. He tacitly
admitted that Laussat was right; but he invited Talleyrand to join in
depriving the United States of Texas, which the United States had
bought, and the price of which they had paid to France. That Godoy
should conspire for this purpose was natural, for he had no reason to
respect the Louisiana cession, and he had pledged his honor in no
way to the United States; but that he should ask Napoleon to deprive
the United States of property which Napoleon himself had bought
from Spain and sold to the United States, and for which he had
received some millions of coin for his personal objects and
ambitions, showed that the Prince of Peace understood the
characters of Bonaparte and Talleyrand.
Talleyrand, who held that Bonaparte had made a mistake in
selling Louisiana to the United States, and who looked upon himself
as having no responsibility for the transaction, was glad to restrict
what he thought the evil that had been done. Taking the complaints
of Spain to the Emperor, he received permission to do what Spain
requested; and during the month of August he sent from the Foreign
Office a series of documents that disposed for the time of any hopes
still nourished by Jefferson’s diplomacy.
These three papers were too important to be forgotten. French
diplomatic writings were models of concise, impassive clearness,
contrasting with the diffuse and argumentative, if not disputatious,
style which sometimes characterized American and Spanish official
correspondence. These three short letters offered examples of
French methods. The first was addressed to General Turreau at
Washington, and concerned the boundaries of Louisiana toward the
west:[210]—
“If the Mississippi and the Iberville trace with precision the eastern
boundary of that colony, it has less precise limits to the westward. No
river, no chain of mountains, separates it from the Spanish
possessions; and between the last settlements of Louisiana and the
first of those in the Spanish colonies are frequently to be found
intervals so great as to make a line of demarcation difficult to agree
upon. So Spain already appears to fear that the United States, who
show an intention of forcing back the western limits of Louisiana, may
propose to advance in this direction to the ocean, and establish
themselves on that part of the American coast which lies north of
California.”
Turreau was directed to divert the United States government from
the idea of extension toward the west and northwest in any manner
that might annoy Spain. He was to employ means of persuasion and
friendly influence for this purpose, rather than to act officially; all
official action being reserved for objects directly interesting France.
The second document[211] was also addressed to Turreau, but
was more decided in tone, as though the Emperor himself had
dictated its language. After a brief allusion to Pinckney’s claims
convention and the American theory that Spain was responsible for
French spoliations which she had not prevented, Talleyrand
continued:—
“That convention, made under date of Aug. 11, 1802, is posterior
by—months to that which France concluded with the United States,
the 8th Vendemiaire, An ix. (30 Sept. 1800), and which declared that
no indemnity should be given for prizes made by either of the two
Powers. This Article ought to leave the Americans no hope that prizes
made against them on Spanish shores would be excepted and paid
for; it would be useless for them to suppose that it is Spain from whom
they seek these indemnities: Spain, who would have only the
advances to pay, would afterward recur to France for reimbursement.
It is, then, upon France that this charge would ultimately fall; and as
we are relieved by the convention of Sept. 30, 1800, from every kind
of debt relating to prizes, we can only with some surprise see the
United States seeking to obtain from another government a part of the
indemnities which they had decidedly renounced in their convention
with France. Spain had doubtless lost sight of these considerations,
and had not in view this convention of ours, when her plenipotentiary
signed that of Aug. 11, 1802, which the United States now require her
to ratify. Circumstances which have since taken place have,
fortunately, furnished Spain with an occasion for retracing the false
step she took in signing this convention. The Federal government,
which by different acts relative to the Floridas has violated the
sovereign rights of Spain, and which for more than eighteen months
has refused to ratify its convention with her, has lost the right to
complain because the Court of Madrid now imitates its refusal, and
insists upon making such modifications in this treaty as the lapse of
time may make it think necessary and better suited to its rights and
dignity.”
After sending these instructions to Turreau, the French Minister
for Foreign Relations next turned to Spain, and wrote a note
intended to reassure Cevallos. The peculiar interest of this document
lay in the spirit it showed toward the United States. Cevallos had
invited an understanding as to the boundaries of Louisiana to be
alleged against the United States. These boundaries, defined
eighteen months before in the secret instructions for Victor, a copy of
which was given to Laussat, declared the Rio Bravo to be the
western limit of Louisiana:[212] “Bounded on the west by the river
called Rio Bravo, from the mouth of this stream up to the 30th
parallel, beyond this point the line of demarcation ceases to be
traced, and it seems that there has never been an agreement as to
this part of the frontier.” That Laussat meant to act on these
instructions was proved by his language to Governor Claiborne and
General Wilkinson.[213] “M. Laussat confidentially signified” to these
two American commissioners that the territory “did not comprehend
any part of West Florida; adding at the same time that it extended
westwardly to the Rio Bravo, otherwise called Rio del Norte.”
Although Cevallos had remonstrated against the indiscretion of this
statement, he had not suggested that Laussat was in error;[214] he
merely invited Talleyrand to check a subordinate officer, in order to
limit American pretensions. In accordance with this hint, Talleyrand
marked for the Spanish government the line it was to take in
resisting the American claim to territory for which France had
received the purchase money.
After defining the western boundary of Florida as fixed by treaty
at the Iberville and the Mississippi rivers, the French minister
instructed the Spanish government as follows:[215]—
“The western limit of Louisiana not having been fixed in a manner
equally precise by the treaties which preceded that of March 21, 1801,
nor by that treaty itself, the uncertainty which prevailed in regard to the
direction of its frontiers has necessarily continued since the cession
made to the United States. France could not even take upon herself to
indicate to the United States what ought to be that precise limit, for
fear of wounding on this point the pretensions of one or the other
Power directly interested in this question. It would have become the
object of negotiation between his Imperial and his Catholic Majesties.
To-day it can be treated only between Spain and the United States.
Nevertheless, as the Americans derive their rights from France, I have
been enabled to express to his Imperial Majesty’s minister
plenipotentiary near the United States the chief bases on which the
Emperor would have planted himself in the demand for a demarcation
of boundaries. Starting from the Gulf of Mexico, we should have
sought to distinguish between settlements that belong to the kingdom
of Mexico, and settlements that had been formed by the French or by
those who succeeded them in this colony. This distinction between
settlements formed by the French or by the Spaniards would have
been made equally in ascending northwards. All those which are of
French foundation would have belonged to Louisiana; and since
European settlements in the interior are rare and scattered, we might
have imagined direct lines drawn from one to the other to connect
them; and it is to the west of this imaginary line that the boundary
between Louisiana and the Spanish possessions would have been
traced at such distance and in such direction as France and Spain
should have agreed. The great spaces which sometimes exist
between the last French settlements and the last Spanish missions
might have left still some doubts on the direction of the boundary to be
traced between them, but with the views of friendship and conciliation
which animate their Majesties, these difficulties would have been soon
smoothed away.”
Such were, according to Talleyrand, the conciliatory intentions
which should have animated his Imperial Majesty. They were widely
different from the positive instructions formally approved by the First
Consul Nov. 26, 1802, which ordered Victor and Laussat to consider
the Rio Bravo as the boundary of their command. The difference was
the whole province of Texas.
On another point Talleyrand reassured the Spanish government.
“In any case,” said he, “the Court of Madrid would appear to have
no ground for the fear it shows that the United States may make use
of their possession of Louisiana in order to form settlements on the
northwest coast of America. Whatever boundary may be agreed upon
between Spain and the United States, the line will necessarily be so
far removed from the western coast of America as to relieve the Court
of Madrid from any anxiety on that score.”
Yet no one knew better than Talleyrand the instincts of the
American people, and their ambition to use the entire continent for
their experiments! He knew that the First Consul, by his instructions
to Laussat, had given, so far as he could, the authority of both
French and Spanish governments to the claim of the United States
that Louisiana stretched westwardly to the Rio Bravo, and on the
northwest indefinitely to a line yet to be fixed. He knew that Laussat,
who hated the Spaniards more than he did the Americans, had
betrayed the secret. If Talleyrand hoped to repress American
ambition, he must have calculated on the effects of force or fear, or
he must have been overwhelmed by the immensity of the scale on
which the Americans were acting. The doctrine of contiguity, on
which the United States could rest their most plausible claim to
Oregon, was as valid then as it ever afterward became; and if
Talleyrand did not appreciate it, Godoy proved himself the more
sagacious statesman.
By Sept. 1, 1804, these precautionary measures were completed,
and Talleyrand could wait for the coming of Monroe and Armstrong.
About the middle of October Monroe appeared in Paris. His
instructions, sent from Washington before the news of Pinckney’s
extravagances had reached America, obliged him to insist upon the
right to West Florida as “a sine quâ non, and no price to be given for
it;”[216] to insist, also, upon the right to Texas, but with a border-land
to be kept unsettled for thirty years; and to offer two million dollars
for East Florida beyond the Perdido. The Cabinet then for the first
time decided to commit itself to the doctrine that West Florida was a
part of the Louisiana purchase,[217] alleging as its ostensible reason,
not so much the abstract justice of the title, as the wish to avoid
acknowledging Spanish land-grants made in Florida since the
Louisiana cession.
“It is indispensable,” wrote Madison, April 15, 1804, “that the
United States be not precluded from such a construction [of the
treaty],—first, because they consider the right as well founded;
secondly and principally, because it is known that a great proportion of
the most valuable lands between the Mississippi and the Perdido have
been granted by Spanish officers since the cession was made by
Spain. These illicit speculations cannot otherwise be frustrated than
by considering the territory as included in the cession made by Spain.”
The hope that Spain might submit to these concessions rested on
the belief that she could not afford to quarrel with the United States.
Foreseeing that she must soon be drawn into the war with England,
the President from the first looked forward to that event, believing
that the same reasons which as he supposed had forced Bonaparte
to cede Louisiana, must reconcile Spain to the cession of Florida.
“Should she be engaged in the war,” wrote Madison to Monroe, “or
manifestly threatened with that situation, she cannot fail to be the
more anxious for a solid accommodation on all points with the United
States, and the more willing to yield, for that purpose, to terms which,
however proper in themselves, might otherwise be rejected by her
pride and misapplied jealousy.”
The first part of this calculation was realized even before Monroe
quitted London. Oct. 1, 1804, a British squadron seized the Spanish
treasure-ships on their voyage from America; and no one doubted
that Spain must declare war. She did so a few weeks later,
December 12, before Monroe reached Madrid. The effect of this new
disaster on what Madison called her “misapplied jealousy” remained
to be seen.
The only published record of Monroe’s stay in Paris is contained
in a note dated Nov. 8, 1804, which he persuaded Livingston to
convey to Talleyrand. Although Livingston’s temper was peculiar, and
his diplomacy under ordinary circumstances restless, he was well
acquainted with the men who governed France; and he had little
faith in another man’s ability to do what he had himself attempted in
vain. That Livingston should be jealous of Monroe’s presence in
Paris was natural; for the American minister at London was not
accredited to the Emperor, and his interference could do nothing but
harm to the actual minister at Paris. When asked to act as medium
for Monroe’s proposed communications with Talleyrand, Livingston
made objections. Not until Armstrong arrived, about November 1, did
the ministers agree upon the terms of the note, and send it to its
address. Monroe had then been one month absent from London.
Nothing could be more courteous than the tone of Monroe’s
letter, which ignored Pinckney’s conduct, and breathed a spirit of
benevolence.[218] The object of writing was to ask the Emperor’s
good offices in support of the negotiation to be opened at Madrid;
and in order to reach this end, Monroe touched on the story of his
present mission, recounting the causes of the previous quarrel with
Spain, and alluding to West Florida, the spoliation claims, the claims
for damages rising from Morales’s occlusion of the Mississippi, and
to the Mobile Act, which, as Monroe admitted, was intended to
authorize the taking immediate possession of Florida. The only
offensive idea suggested in the note was that the Spanish
occupation of Florida implied an aggression against the United
States, “which tends to provoke hostility and lead to war.”
The note combining the diplomacy of three ministers was sent;
and the three diplomatists waited in fear of what would follow,
dreading nothing so much as Talleyrand’s answer. They had reason
to know that it would be unfavorable, and that at least on the
question of West Florida Talleyrand had already committed himself
against the United States. They were told, too, that on reading their
note Napoleon showed great irritation. Besides this, they had other
causes of alarm. Within three days after Monroe’s arrival at Paris,
Marbois, his best friend among Napoleon’s ministers, told him that
the question was one of money:[219] “Such was the situation of
Spain at this time, that he was persuaded if we would make her
suitable pecuniary accommodations we might succeed.” M.
Hauterive, another gentleman within the circle of government, soon
afterward repeated the remark: “Spain must cede territory; the
United States must pay money.” Care was taken to let Monroe
understand that once this principle should be agreed upon, France
would cause the negotiation to be transferred to Paris. Armstrong
soon afterward wrote to Madison, alluding to the story in regard to
the Emperor:[220]—
“This country has determined to convert the negotiation into a job,
and to draw from it advantages merely pecuniary to herself, or, in
other language, to her agents. It is this venality that explains her
present reserve, the degree of excitement displayed by the Emperor
on reading the note, and the marked incivility with which Mr. Monroe
was treated by Talleyrand. Since his departure, repeated intimations
have been given to me that if certain persons could be sufficiently
gratified, the negotiation should be transferred hither, and brought to a
close with which we should have no reason to find fault.”
Monroe, though honest as any man in public life, and more
courageous in great emergencies than some of his friends or rivals,
was commonly not quick at catching an idea, nor did he see it at last
from a great elevation; but in this instance the idea was thrust so
persistently into his face, that had he been blind he could not have
missed it. Nothing could more clearly explain his situation than the
language of the diary in which he recorded, for the President’s
benefit, the daily course of his conduct.
“No other alternative,” he explained,[221] “presented itself to me
than to abandon the object and return to London, or to submit to the
terms which it was sufficiently well understood France was willing to
accept, and seemed in some measure to dictate, which amounted to
this: that we should create a new loan of about seventy millions of
livres, and transfer the same to Spain, who would immediately pass
them over to France, in consideration of which we should be put in
possession of the disputed territory, under stipulations which should
provide for the adjustment of the ultimate right there, and
reimbursement of the money by instalment in seven years.”
“To submit to the terms proposed was altogether out of the
question,” continued Monroe. Having led his Government to take the
ground that West Florida had already been bought, he could not
enter into a negotiation to buy it a second time. His instructions
made this point a sine quâ non of negotiation. Recognizing that
under these circumstances further effort was useless, or in his own
words that no other alternative presented itself but to abandon the
object and return to London, Monroe intimated to Talleyrand that he
meant not only to pay no money, but also to negotiate in spite of
Napoleon; and started for Madrid.
“I did not hesitate,” he wrote home,[222] “in many informal
communications, the substance of which I was persuaded were made
known to those in power, to declare most solemnly that I would
sanction no measure which contemplated a payment of money to
Spain in any transaction we might have with her in the affair,—by
which was meant, by creation of stock or otherwise which took the
money from our people; that neither the state of things between the
parties, the example of France in a similar case, or my instructions,
permitted it. These conversations were with a person who possessed
the confidence of certain persons in power, as well as my own, though
they were not of a nature to compromit either party. That circumstance
enabled me to speak with the utmost freedom, and perhaps to say
things which it might have been difficult to press directly in the same
manner to the parties themselves.”
In thus defying France, Monroe, if he resembled European
diplomatists, must have aimed at giving his Government an
opportunity to break with the Emperor and to proceed against Florida
by means of force. That he should have still hoped for success in
negotiating at Madrid was hardly possible. Armstrong thought his
chance desperate.[223]
“Mr. Monroe has no doubt communicated to you,” he wrote to the
Secretary of State, “the motives which induced him to leave England
in prosecution of his mission to Spain, and while here to attempt to
draw from this Government some new declaration in support of our
construction of the late treaty. With this view a note was prepared and
transmitted through Livingston, the receipt of which was
acknowledged by Mr. Talleyrand with a promise that ‘an answer
should be given to it as soon as the Emperor should have signified his
will on the subject.’ Having waited nearly a month, and no answer
being given, having some reason to believe that any declaration from
this Court now would be less favorable than those already made, and
fearful lest something might be lost at Madrid, while nothing could be
gained here, he set out on the 8th instant for Spain. I have but little
hope, however, that he will be able to do more than fulfil the forms of
his mission.”
Armstrong preferred, as he expressed it, “an effort (which cannot
fail) to do the business at home.” He had already discovered that the
Emperor was personally irritated with the Americans, that he took no
pains to conceal it, and that this irritation was a cause of his reserve.
“I have employed every means in my power to ascertain the cause
of this cause, and have learned from a person sufficiently near him to
know the fact, that this temper originated in representations made by
Leclerc and others from St. Domingo; that it has since been kept alive
by the incident of the war in that country, the trade carried on between
it and the United States, the freedom with which he is treated in our
press, the matrimonial connection of Jerome, and, above all, the
support which principles he wishes to extinguish in France receive
from the progressing prosperity of the United States.”
With Napoleon in this frame of mind; with Godoy and Cevallos in
a humor far worse; and with Talleyrand in such a temper as not to
allow of his treating Monroe with civility,—the American
plenipotentiary departed to Madrid, hoping that something might
occur to overcome his difficulties. During his journey, Charles IV.
declared war against England. This long-foreseen event, which
should have brought Spain to terms with the United States, in fact
threw her only at the feet of Napoleon. Henceforward every offence
to Spain was an offence to France, which the Emperor was the more
bound to resent because by treaty he must regard a war upon
Charles IV. as a war upon himself.
Talleyrand was not vindictive, but he had been twice mortified by
the failure of his policy toward America. If his callous cheek could
burn, it was still red with the blow which the last President of the
United States had struck it; and no waters of oblivion could drown in
his memory the cry of distress with which he had then begged for
mercy. He had been again overthrown by the present President, and
obliged to sell Louisiana, turn his back on the traditions of France,
and shut up his far-reaching mind within the limit of his master’s
artillery politics. Day by day he saw more clearly that soldiership, and
not statecraft, was to guide the destinies of France, and that the new
régime was but revolution without ideas. He had probably begun
already to feel that the presence of his coldly silent face was
becoming irksome to a will which revolted at the memory of a
remonstrance. Talleyrand was corrupt,—perhaps he thought himself
more corrupt than he was; but his political instincts were sounder
than his private morality. He was incarnate conservatism; but he was
wider-minded and more elevated in purpose than Napoleon. He had
no faith in Napoleon’s methods, and was particularly hostile to his
projects against Spain; but in respect to Monroe and his mission,
Talleyrand’s ideas coincided with those of the Emperor; and when
two such men marked out a victim, his chance of escape was small.
Talleyrand was not to blame that Monroe’s note remained
unanswered before Monroe left Paris. About ten days after receiving
it Talleyrand made to the Emperor a report on the subject, so cool
and clear as to read like a mathematical demonstration.[224]
“The United States,” he began, “who wish to negotiate at Madrid
under the auspices of France for the acquisition of Florida, have
acquired little title to the good offices of the Emperor by the sharpness
of tone and the want of civility (égards) with which they have
conducted themselves toward Spain.”
After enumerating the threats and aggressions of the United
States government against Spain during the last three years, the
report disposed of the American claims, one by one, in few words.
First, the spoliations, which had been formally abandoned by treaty;
second, the claim for losses rising from the interruption of entrepôt at
New Orleans, which “should be terminated by the treaty of cession,
—the acquisition of an immense country might throw out of view
some anterior losses;” finally, the claim to West Florida,—a species
of attack on the Emperor’s dignity and good faith which merited
some expression of his displeasure. To support this view, Talleyrand
related the history of the French negotiation for West Florida and its
failure, commenting on the manner in which the Americans had
fabricated their claim, and coming at last to a conclusion studiously
moderate, and evidently in harmony with the views of Hauterive as
expressed to Monroe. Talleyrand rarely wrote such papers with his
own hand; probably they were drawn up under his directions by
Hauterive, or some other subordinate of the Office, in the form of
suggestions rather than advice.
“According to such evidence, no one can suppose the United
States to be convinced of the justice of their rights; and we are
warranted in thinking that the Federal government, as a result of
confidence in its own strength, of its ambition, and its ascendency in
America, raises pretensions to a part of Florida in order to show itself
afterward more exacting toward Spain. The Emperor will feel that
justice requires him not to recognize such pretensions. If he should
assist by his good offices an arrangement between the United States
and Spain, he would wish good faith and impartiality for its base.
Only in case the United States should desist from their unjust
pretensions to West Florida, and return to the forms of civility and
decorum,—from which in their relations with each other governments
should never depart,—could the Emperor allow himself to second at

Interactive Collaborative Robotics Third International Conference ICR 2018 Leipzig Germany September 18 22 2018 Proceedings Andrey Ronzhin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interactive Collaborative Robotics Third International Conference ICR 2018 Leipzig Germany September 18 22 2018 Proceedings Andrey Ronzhin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Interactive Collaborative Robotics Third

International Conference ICR 2018

Interactive Collaborative Robotics 5th International

Interactive Collaborative Robotics First International

Proceedings of 15th International Conference on

Exploring Service Science 9th International Conference

Spatial Cognition XI 11th International Conference

Big Data Analytics and Knowledge Discovery 20th

Electronic Government and the Information Systems

Database and Expert Systems Applications 29th

Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science

LNAI Series Editors

LNAI Founding Series Editor

Roman Meshcheryakov (Eds.)

ISSN 0302-9743 ISSN 1611-3349 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018952053

LNCS Sublibrary: SL7 – Artiﬁcial Intelligence

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

The Third International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Robotics (ICR) was

September 2018 Andrey Ronzhin

Roman Meshcheryakov Dongheui Lee, Germany

Oliver Jokisch (Chair) Andrey Ronzhin

Task and Spatial Planning by the Cognitive Agent with Human-Like

Path Finding for the Coalition of Co-operative Agents Acting

Sparse 3D Point-Cloud Map Upsampling and Noise Removal

Cloud Robotic Platform on Basis of Fog Computing Approach. . . . . . . . . . . 34

Toward More Expressive Speech Communication

The Dynamic Model of Operator-Exoskeleton Interaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

The Influence of Various Factors on the Control of the Exoskeleton . . . . . . . 60

Sign Language Numeral Gestures Recognition Using Convolutional

Consensus-Based Localization of Devices with Unknown

Modelling Characteristics of Human-Robot Interaction in an Exoskeleton

Safety-Related Risks and Opportunities of Key Design-Aspects

Improvements in 3D Hand Pose Estimation Using Synthetic Data . . . . . . . . . 105

Ontology-Based Human-Robot Interaction: An Approach and Case

A Decentralized Data Replication Approach for the Reconfigurable Robotic

The Model of Autonomous Unmanned Underwater Vehicles Interaction

Cognitive Components of Human Activity in the Process of

About One Approach to Robot Control System Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Providing Availability of the Smart Space Services by Means of Incoming

Automatic Synthesis Gait Scenarios for Reconfigurable Modular

Fast Frontier Detection Approach in Consecutive Grid Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

Design and Operation Principles of the Magnetomechanical Connector

Trends in Development of UAV-UGV Cooperation Approaches

Structural Analysis and Animated Simulation of Biotechnical

Proactive Localization System Concept for Users of Cyber-Physical Space. . . 233

Current Control in the Drives of Dexterous Robot Grippers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Comparing Fiducial Markers Performance for a Task of a Humanoid Robot

Robust Webcam-Based Hand Detection for Initialisation

Multi-agent Robotic Systems in Collaborative Robotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

Hybrid Force/Position Control of a Collaborative Parallel Robot Using

Swarm Robotics: Remarks on Terminology and Classification . . . . . . . . . . . 291

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Ermek Aitygulov1 , Gleb Kiselev2,3 , and Aleksandr I. Panov1,3(B)

Abstract. The paper considers the task of simultaneous learning and

Keywords: Cognitive agent · Sign · Sign-based world model

c Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

relationships between objects (predicate “ontable”), agent status (“manipulator

which allow approximating knowledge of the environment up to the level required

4 Synthesis of Behavior of Cognitive Agent

Fig. 1. Causal matrices of the the “Location” and “Contain” signs.

4.2 SpatialMAP Algorithm

The process of plan synthesis is implemented using the spatialMAP algorithm