Mobile Robots Navigation with Temporal Constraints Using Behavior

Trees and Recovery Actions

Henrique F. Raia, Rafael R. R. de Souza and Patricia D. M. Plentz

Departamento de Informtica e Estatstica - INE, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
Florianpolis, Santa Catarina, 88040-900, Brazil
henriquefraia@gmail.com, rafael.rocker@grad.ufsc.br, patricia.plentz@ufsc.br

Abstract This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 brings

The number of robots performing several tasks in-
creases daily. Some of these tasks can be limited by
temporal constraints and, if the robots are not able to
complete these tasks within their deadline, the system
might have some losses. In order to avoid these losses,
we propose some recovery actions, to be used when
a deadline loss prediction mechanism predicts that a
robot will not be able to complete a task in the given
time. In this work, we performed simulations to verify
if the use of recovery actions help to reduce the losses
caused by the non-fulfillment of a temporal constraint.
The results obtained through simulations show that the
robots were able to complete more tasks and had a
better performance whenever the recovery actions were
used.
keywords: Recovery Actions, Deadline Prediction
Mechanism, Mobile Robots, Behavior Tree.
1 Introduction
On each day, the number of robots used on several
tasks increases. As presented in literature, they are
mainly used for the exploration of environments[4][5],
following mobile targets[10], and in the displacement of
objects between two points in an environment[1]. Some
of these tasks should be limited by temporal constraints
because the loss of its deadline can damage the whole
robotic system. Thus, knowing if a robot will be able
to fulfill the deadline of a task is essential.
This work proposes the development and use of
recovery actions to help the robots to conclude a task
within its deadline or reduce the losses caused by the
non-fulfillment of its temporal constraints. This topic
becomes more interesting when we consider a group of
mobile robots that perform a collaborative task.
The deadline missing prediction mechanism used is a
modification of Monteiros work[6] and is presented in
our previous paper[7]. For modeling the actions of the
robot, we use a behavior tree approach.
an explanation of the related works and a table that
compares these works to the one presented in this doc-
ument. In section 3 the system structure is explained,
as well as the model in which the behavior tree module
was based. The way in which the simulations were
carried, the scenarios in which they were performed,
and the results obtained with them are shown in section
4. Section 5 concludes this paper with the final
considerations regarding the work presented and the
future works that can be developed based on the one
presented in this document.
2 Related Work
We firstly searched for papers that used a deadline
missing prediction mechanism in groups of robots, but
we have not found any work, then we searched for
papers that addressed groups of robots performing tasks
with temporal constraints and prediction mechanisms
used by a group of robots. We found a small number
of papers and chose the ones which subjects were closer
to the one addressed by this work.
The work proposed by Carpin et al.[2] addresses
to send several robots to defined goals in a known
environment. The robots must reach all of the goals in
a given deadline. In that paper, the authors work with
a great group of small, low-cost robots and with limited
capabilities. These robots do not exchange information,
and the task is considered concluded when all the goals
are simultaneously reached by at least one robot of the
group.
Strom and Olson[8] propose an algorithm to address
the problem of signal strength prediction when all the
nodes of a mobile network are exploring a variety of
environments. Their algorithm performs this prediction
by combining the data obtained with other sensors
with signal strength measurement to locate attenuating
obstacles in the robots environment.
Guerrero and Oliver[3] presented a new task allo-
cation method for robot groups based on an auction
algorithm. This method can predict the time needed
to conclude a task and the coalition size that can
complete the task within its deadline. On their work,
Tardioli et al.[9] proposed a protocol that can guarantee
real-time communication on an ad hoc network. The
Real-Time Wireless Multi-hop Protocol (RT-WMP)
is based on a token exchange approach, supports
priorities and mobility, and can guarantee firm real-
time communication.
The table presented in Figure 1 shows a comparison
between the selected related papers and the work
presented in this article. These works were compared
considering four information: type of the environment,
prediction mechanism used, types of tasks addressed on
that work, and if temporal constraints are considered on
the tasks.
In our previous paper[7], we had explained the
deadline missing prediction mechanism, proposed by
Monteiro[6] and the improvements that we made on
this mechanism. We also explained the concept of
behavior tree.
3 Methodology
3.1 System Structure
The system structure used in this paper and the
functions executed by each of its modules, which are
showed in Figure 2, were implemented using the In-
digo distribution of ROS1 (Robotic Operating System).
Each of the greater rectangles represents a module, and
the smaller ones are the functions that each module
performs. The system is composed of three modules:
move_base, Behavior Tree and Linker and each module
have its own functions.
On Figure 2, the dashed rectangles show modules that
were obtained externally, while the continuum ones are
modules and functions developed during this work. The
move_base2 module is a node of the Robotic Operating
System (ROS) that is responsible for path planning,
navigation and obstacle avoidance. In this work, we use
this module to perform the previously cited actions.
The implemented behavior tree, further explained in
the next section, was developed using a ROS library
obtained in a GitHub3 repository, while the functions
that this module has to execute, i.e., the nodes of
the behavior tree were developed by us. This module
performs the deadline missing prediction, data storage,
and the recovery actions. The behavior tree module also
calls the move_base node to perform the navigation.
1 http://www.ros.org/
2 http://wiki.ros.org/move_base
3 https://github.com/almc/behavior_trees
On figure 2, the behavior tree module is presented in
a dashed rectangle, while its methods are presented
in continuum rectangles. With this, we are informing
that we developed the functions performed by the
behavior tree, but the basis, i.e., the library with
the functions inherent to the behavior tree functioning
were obtained externally, through the previously cited
GitHub repository.
In order to perform a recovery action, a robot needs
to know when another will not be able to fulfill a
task deadline. To allow the communication among the
robots of the group, we developed the Linker module.
This module was fully implemented during this work
development and is responsible for task assignment and
message exchange among the robots.
3.2 Behavior Tree
The behavior tree was modeled according to the
structure presented in Figure 3. This structure has a
selection node as the root node and three subtrees, and
each of them has its own functions.
The leftmost subtree is the idleness verification sub-
tree, which is responsible for verifying which robot is
idle and for alert the idle robot that a deadline loss
was detected. This subtree is composed of a sequence
node as main and two condition nodes as leaves. The
first condition nodes verifies whether a robot has a task
assigned to it or not and the second node verifies if an
active robot of the group will not be able to fulfill a
tasks deadline.
The normal set of actions subtree performs the
navigation, the deadline missing prediction and the
data storage. The first leaf node of this subtree is a
condition node that verifies if the history has enough
entries for the prediction mechanism to work properly.
The second leaf node performs the navigation from the
starting point to the goal. The prediction is performed
on the third node, and if the robot predicts that it will
not be able to complete the task within its deadline,
then it will start performing the recovery actions, which
are presented on the next subtree. After predicting that
it will be able to respect the tasks temporal constraints,
the robot returns to the start point. Once the robot
reaches the starting point, it stores the data obtained
during the task execution on a history file.
The last subtree comprises the recovery actions to
be performed when the deadline missing prediction
mechanism predicts that the robot will not be able to
complete the task within its deadline. This subtree
has a sequence node as its main node. The recovery
actions, performed by the robots are the action nodes
under a selection node. The "Robot Substitution"
recovery action is performed when there is enough total
 Environment Prediction Task Temporal
Mechanism Constraints

C a rp in e t a l. [2 0 1 4 ] Not Specified Search and Rescue;

Known Vigilance Relevant

S tro m e O ls o n Signal Strength Map

[2 0 1 2 ] Unknown Exploration Not Specified
Attenuation

G u e rre ro e O liv e r Coalition Size Foraging-like

[2 0 1 2 ] Not Specied and Relevant
Execution Time Tasks

Multi-robot
Ta rd io li e t a l. [2 0 1 5 ] Not Specified Not Specified control and Relevant
Coordination;
Sensor Networks

Objects
This Work Partially Known Deadline Loss Displacement Relevant

Figure 1: Table comparing the related works

ROS

move_base Behavior Tree

Deadline
Path
Prediction Linker
Planning
Mechanism

Task
Task
Navigation Data
Assignment
Storage

Obstacle Recovery
Avoidance Actions

Figure 2: System structure

simulation time4 for the idle robot perform the task
normally. The "Insufficient Time" recovery action is
executed when the time left on the total simulation
time is minor than the average return time, obtained
through historical data.
The remaining nodes of the recovery set of actions
subtree are Move to Begin, Store Data, and Stand
By. These nodes are responsible for the navigation
to the starting point, data storing in a history file,
and the navigation to an available recharging dock,
respectively.
4 The total simulation time was the time assigned to each
simulation. During each simulation, the robots could perform
as many tasks as possible within this time interval.
4 Experimental Results
4.1 Simulations
The simulations were performed using the Stage5
simulator. In each simulation, the robots had to
complete two tasks as many times possible within a
total simulation time. Each task has a deadline which
is defined as the average time needed for the robots to
complete the task.
Five robots are used in each simulation. Each
task is performed by one of them. Another robot
keeps idle, waiting to perform a recovery action when
5 http://wiki.ros.org/stage_ros

?
Normal
Idleness
Set of
Verication
Actions
Deadline Prediction
Is Enough Move Move
Loss not of Deadline
History to to
Idle?
Detected Objective Fullling Begin
Figure 3: Behavior tree structure
needed. The two remaining robots are used as moving
obstacles. They navigate through the map at random
time intervals.
Both tasks consist on the navigation from a starting
point to a goal. When the robots reach the goal, they
have to load a number of objects and bring them back
to the starting point. After each object loaded, the
robots speed is reduced by 25%.
For each simulation, we adopt two different dead-
lines: the local deadline and the global deadline. The
former refers to the deadline assigned to a task, i.e.,
the amount of time available for the robot to conclude
a task without any losses. This deadline, for simulation
purposes is obtained through historical data. The
global deadline is equivalent to the total simulation
time, i.e., the time available for the robots to perform as
many tasks as possible. This time is defined previously
and, in real applications, would be the time interval
in which the robots would perform the tasks. Despite
having a global deadline, the local deadline is important
to indicate the time needed for the robots to complete a
task. With this knowledge the robots can perform the
recovery actions in order to complete a greater number
of tasks.
The deadline missing prediction is performed when
the robot reaches the goal point. At this time, the robot
will predict if it will be able to complete the task within
its deadline or not. If the robot predicts that it will
not be able to respect the tasks temporal constraints,
then a recovery action will be executed. There are two
recovery actions to be performed: Insufficient Time
and Robot Substitution. When the first action is
performed, the robot verifies that it could not complete
the task within the remaining total simulation, then it
Selection Node
Sequence Node
Action Node
Recovery Condition Node
Set of
Actions
?
Move
Store Store Stand
to
Data Data By
Begin
Robot Insucient
Substitution Time
will reduce the number of objects loaded in order to
increase its speed.
The second recovery action is executed when a robot
predicts that it will not be able to conclude the task
within its deadline. If this prediction is true, then the
active robot will reduce the number of objects loaded,
and the idle robot will start performing the task in order
to substitute the robot that predicted a deadline loss.
On each scenario, ten simulations were performed and
the total simulation time also called global deadline,
was defined as a time interval in which the robots were
able to complete enough tasks to be able to evaluate
their performance. The tasks performed differ only on
the starting point and the goal.
4.2 Scenarios
To perform the simulations, we have prepared three
scenarios (maps). The first map is a representation of a
hallway of INE (Department of Informatics and Statis-
tics or Departamento de Informtica e Estatstica in
Portuguese) at the Federal University of Santa Catarina
(UFSC). Figure 4(a) presents this scenario.
The second map that is showed in Figure 4(b), is a
part of the Technological Center (CTC) at UFSC. This
map was obtained through Google Maps6 and modified
so that it could be used in the simulations.
The third map was also obtained through Google
Maps7 , and it also had to be modified for the simu-
lations. Figure 3(c) shows the residential condominium
6 https://www.google.com/maps/@-27.6001236,-
48.5184769,96m/data=!3m1!1e3
7 https://www.google.com.br/maps/@-15.5694046,-
56.0968103,111m/data=!3m1!1e3
in which the third scenario was based.
These two last images were modified in order to work
with the Stage simulator. For each map we defined
both tasks with its initial and final points, as well as
the place for delivering the objects.
(a) First scenario
Imagens 2016 Google,Dados do mapa 2016 Google
(b) Second scenario
Imagens 2016 Google,Dados do mapa 2016 Google
(c) Third scenario
Figure 4: Scenarios used on simulations
4.3 Simulation Results
Ten simulations were performed for each map. The
global deadline, i.e., the total simulation time, could
vary among the scenarios. Table 1 shows the total sim-
ulation time, and the number of simulations performed
on each map.
This table also compares the results obtained for each
task when the recovery actions were available or not on
each map. The values presented were obtained through
all ten simulations for each map. The values compared
are the total number of iterations, the number of
iteration able to fulfill the tasks deadline, and the total
number of objects carried after all ten simulations.
5 Conclusion
This work has addressed the use of corrective actions
by mobile robots that need to perform tasks with
temporal constraints. The results obtained in this work
show that the use of recovery actions can help the robot
to conclude a task within its deadline, even if this robot
predicted that it would not be able to fulfill the tasks
temporal constraints.
The use of recovery actions also allowed the robots
to carry more objects than when the recovery actions
were disabled, which proves that, despite the fact that
the robots carry fewer objects per task when executing
a recovery action, they still fetched more objects at the
end of each simulation comparing to the tests when the
robots did not use these actions.
Given the results presented in this paper, we have
some proposals for continuing this work. We would
like to modify the prediction mechanism proposed by
Monteiro[6], in order to perform the prediction peri-
10 m odically during navigation, this would help to identify
quickly the changes occurred on the environment.
Another future work that can be appointed is an anal-
ysis of the robots energy consumption, to verify if the
use of recovery actions presents an energy consumption
that could derail its use. We also want to develop a
broader set of recovery actions, i.e., which is adequate
for different types of task. Tests performed on real
robots are also a future work. These tests are needed to
verify if the results obtained on the simulations would
be similar in real environments.
10 m
6 Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the support of CAPES
(Coordenao de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal de Nvel
Superior), without which the present study could not
have been completed.
References
[1] Binghuang Cai, Shoudong Huang, Dikai Liu, and
Gamini Dissanayake. Rescheduling policies for
large-scale task allocation of autonomous straddle
 Table 1: Comparison of the results of Tasks 1 and 2 for each simulation scenario
First Map Second Map Third Map
Simulation Time 10 Minutes 30 Minutes 30 Minutes
Number of Simulations Performed 10 Minutes 10 Minutes 10 Minutes
T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2
With Recovery Actions
Total Number of Iterations 82 80 114 106 42 42
Iterations Able to Meet Deadline 55 62 74 52 23 26
Total Number of Objects Carried 146 145 212 158 70 69
Without Recovery Actions
Total Number of Iterations 70 70 102 73 30 30
Iterations Able to Meet Deadline 44 47 67 42 16 15
Total Number of Objects Carried 140 140 202 152 60 60

carriers under uncertainty at automated container to avoid deadline losses. In Proceedings of the 31th
terminals. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, International Conference on Computers and their
62(4):506514, 2014. Applications, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2016.

[2] Stefano Carpin, Marco Pavone, and Brian M [8] Johannes Strom and Edwin Olson. Multi-sensor
Sadler. Rapid Multirobot Deployment with ATTenuation Estimation (MATTE): Signal-
Time Constraints. In IEEE/RSJ International strength prediction for teams of robots. In IEEE
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, International Conference on Intelligent Robots
IROS, number Iros, pages 11471154, Chicago, IL, and Systems, pages 47304736, 2012.
USA, 2014.
[9] Danilo Tardioli, Domenico Sicignano, and
[3] Jos Guerrero and Gabriel Oliver. Multi- Jos Luis Villarroel. A wireless multi-hop
robot coalition formation in real-time scenarios. protocol for real-time applications. Computer
Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 60(10):1295 Communications, 55:421, 2015.
1307, 2012.
[10] Qingbao Zhu, Jun Hu, and Larry Henschen.
[4] MengLei Jia MengLei Jia, GuangMing A new moving target interception algorithm for
Zhou GuangMing Zhou, and ZongHai mobile robots based on sub-goal forecasting and
Chen ZongHai Chen. An efficient strategy an improved scout ant algorithm. Applied Soft
integrating grid and topological information for Computing Journal, 13(1):539549, 2013.
robot exploration. IEEE Conference on Robotics,
Automation and Mechatronics, 2004., 2:13, 2004.

[5] Yongguo Mei, Yung Hsiang Lu, C. S George

Lee, and Y. Charlie Hu. Energy-efficient mobile
robot exploration. Proceedings - IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Robotics and Automation,
2006(May):505511, 2006.

[6] Edwaldo R. B. Monteiro, Patricia D. M. Plentz,

and Edson R. De Pieri. Deadline missing
prediction for mobile robots through the use
of historical data. International Journal of
Computer, Electrical, Automation, Control and
Information Engineering, 8(5):723 731, 2014.

[7] Henrique Fortes Raia, Fernando de Lucca Siqueira,

and Patricia Della Ma Plentz. Using a deadline
missing prediction mechanism and recovery actions