Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Articles
YODA
The Young Observant Discovery Agent
■ The YODA Robot Project at the University of fect—an exciting climax to our six months of
Southern California/Information Sciences Insti- hard work.
tute consists of a group of young researchers who The YODA team was formed when a few of
share a passion for autonomous systems that can us felt the urge to do something with the big
bootstrap its knowledge from real environments
Denning robot at the Information Sciences
by exploration, experimentation, learning, and
Institute (ISI). The final push occurred when
discovery. Our goal is to create a mobile agent
that can autonomously learn from its environ- Rodney Brooks came to the University of
ment based on its own actions, percepts, and mis- Southern California (USC) and showed the
sions. Our participation in the Fifth Annual AAAI video clips of his robots at the Massachusetts
Mobile Robot Competition and Exhibition, held Institute of Technology (MIT). These clips
as part of the Thirteenth National Conference on demonstrated some interesting ideas about AI
Artificial Intelligence, served as the first milestone and looked like a lot of fun. Our goal became
in advancing us toward this goal. YODA’s software to transform our then-lifeless robot into YODA
architecture is a hierarchy of abstraction layers, (figure 1), an autonomous agent that would
ranging from a set of behaviors at the bottom lay-
learn to explore and interact in a real envi-
er to a dynamic, mission-oriented planner at the
ronment.
top. The planner uses a map of the environment
to determine a sequence of goals to be accom-
We decided that the Office Navigation
plished by the robot and delegates the detailed event in the robot competition was to be our
executions to the set of behaviors at the lower first milestone in working toward this goal. It
layer. This abstraction architecture has proven ro- would provide us a context in which to direct
bust in dynamic and noisy environments, as our efforts. We developed a general architec-
shown by YODA’s performance at the robot com- ture that would allow YODA to perform the
petition. competition task and accommodate the learn-
ing and discovery tasks that we would later
add. The following sections describe this ar-
T
he suspense is high. We stare intensely chitecture in more detail and provide an ac-
at the robot with one eye, keeping the count of YODA’s performance at the competi-
other one out for any surprises. As YODA tion and the challenges that we faced there.
approaches the director’s office, it seems to be
moving slower than ever before. It looks for
the door and slowly starts moving into the
General Architecture
room. Our minds seem to be sharing the The current YODA system comprises a Denning
same thought—”YODA, don’t fail us now.” YO- MRV-3 mobile robot and an on-board por-
DA announces the room for the meeting and table personal computer. The robot is a three-
then the time: “The meeting will start in one wheel cylindrical system with separate motors
minute.” Perfect! We scream, and it is all over. for motion and steering. It is equipped with
YODA’s final run in the Fifth Annual AAAI Mo- 24 long-range sonar sensors, 3 cameras for
bile Robot Competition and Exhibition (held stereo vision, a speaker for sound emission,
as part of the Thirteenth National Conference and a voice-recognition system. The commu-
on Artificial Intelligence [AAAI-96]) was per- nication between the robot and the control
Copyright © 1997, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved. 0738-4602-1997 / $2.00 SPRING 1997 37
Articles
38 AI MAGAZINE
Articles
Behavior Controller
findDoor passDoor 2walls 1wall foyer sound …
conference room. However, if the room is professors given the empty conference room.
empty, then the current plan is to satisfy the Finally, the scenario table is built based on
next goal of finding the shortest route to no- these two tables.
tify the professors. A sce na r i o is a permutation of the set of
The current plan is determined using the conference rooms. Each scenario denotes the
information acquired from the environment order in which the conference rooms are vis-
in conjunction with a set of tables that pro- ited. For example, given three conference
vide the shortest-path information corre- rooms, C1, C2, and C3, one of the permuta-
sponding to the current situation. These ta- tions is (C1, C2, C3), meaning that C1 is vis-
bles are built from parsing the input map. ited first, then C2, then C3. The scenario table
The input map (figure 3) consists of a list of records the total route lengths for the differ-
records, one record for each location or node. ent possibilities of empty conference rooms
A r e c o r d contains the node type (corridor, for each scenario. For this example scenario,
room, foyer), adjacent nodes, and the dis- the planner computes the total route lengths
tances to adjacent nodes. The planner builds for three cases: (1) the total route length for
three tables by parsing this map. It first com- visiting C1 first and then the professors’
putes the shortest paths among the confer- rooms, assuming C1 is empty; (2) the total
ence and professor rooms based on the con- route length for visiting C1 first, then C2,
nections and distances of the nodes. These and then the professors’ rooms, assuming C1
paths are stored in a table called the p a t h is occupied, and C2 is empty; and, finally, (3)
table. Each path consists of a list of nodes and the total route length for visiting C1 first,
the length of the path. Once the path table is then C2, then C3, and then the professors’
created, the system then builds the n o t i f y rooms, assuming C1 and C2 are occupied,
table by computing the shortest route to visit and C3 is empty. These three route lengths
the professors’ rooms. The notify table con- are stored in the table with the scenario. The
sists of a list of all the nodes in the route and number of cases depends on the number of
the route length. It can be used to notify the conference rooms.
SPRING 1997 39
Articles
(setq *map*
‘((C1 C (C2 E 100) (C7 S 100))
C9 R9 R8 C10 R3 C11 (C2 C (C1W 100) (R6 S 0) (C3 E 100))
(C3 C (C4 E 100) (R7 S 0) (C2 W 100))
Conf. 1 Conf. 2
(C4 C (C8 S 100) (C3 W 100) (C5 E 200)
(C5 C (C4 W 200) (C6 E 160) (R2 S 0))
C12 C13 C14 F1 C15 C16 C17 (C6 C (C5 W 160) (C11 S 230))
(C7 C (C1 N 100) (C9 S 160) (R6 E 0))
R5 R4 ...........
Director Foyer Prof. 2
)
Given the scenario table, there are at least ence room is found empty, the plan execu-
three ways to select one of the scenarios: We tion is based on a sequence of professors’
can select the scenario with the minimum to- rooms that were already planned as the short-
tal route length when the first conference est path. The room-to-room traveling, in
room is empty. In the given example, the sys- turn, is executed as travel through a sequence
tem will select the first scenario shown in of nodes in the room-to-room path.
figure 4. The second strategy selects the sce- There are various types of navigation be-
nario that has the minimum total route tween two nodes. The landmark planner ex-
length for the case where only the last confer- pands the high-level plan into a set of low-
ence room in the sequence is empty. In the level navigation behaviors depending on the
given example, this strategy will select the types of the two nodes. For example, “passing
third scenario. The third strategy is to select through the doorway” is the navigation type
the scenario with an average minimum, necessary to connect from a hallway type to a
which is the second scenario in the example. room type and “recognizing a landmark” to
We used the first strategy to select a scenario connect from a hallway type to a hallway
for the competition. By building the tables type (or foyer). Although most low-level be-
from bottom to top (from path table to sce- haviors are specified at this level of the execu-
nario table), we not only avoid redundant tion hierarchy, some behaviors, such as “de-
computations in the future (during execu- tecting an empty room,” have already been
tion) but also save recomputations while we specified in the high-level plan.
build the tables. This hierarchical plan execution enables
the plan to be safely recovered in case of a
Landmark Planner crash. The plan can be executed from the
At the middle layer of the architecture, the point of the crash instead of the beginning.
l a n d m a r k p l a nn e r reasons about each plan The hierarchical execution keeps the current
found by the high-level planner in terms of status hierarchically (for example, the current
behavioral actions. This layer also controls room, the current node) so that the point of
the execution of the high-level plan and the the execution at the time of the crash can
time-estimation task involved in notifying easily be located in the whole sequence of
the professors. Once a scenario is selected, the the overall plan.
scenario is executed as travel through a se- Our time estimation is based on the time
quence of conference rooms. When a confer- data recorded during the plan execution. YO-
40 AI MAGAZINE
Articles
SPRING 1997 41
Articles
42 AI MAGAZINE
Articles
SPRING 1997 43
Articles
performed the task perfectly and ended in the tation. Artificial Intelligence 47(2): 139–160.
director’s room, stating, “The meeting will Brooks, R. A. 1986. A Robust Layered Control Sys-
start in one minute.” Despite the fact that YO- tem for a Mobile Robot. IEEE Journal on Robotics
DA was the biggest, heaviest, and oldest robot and Automation 2(1): 14–23.
in the competition, a band of amateurs, Denning. 1989. Denning MRV-3 Product Manual.
working nights and weekends, was able to Denning Mobile Robotics Inc., Wilmington, Mas-
shape a lifeless robot into YODA, a robust au- sachusetts.
tonomous agent. For the YODA team members, Gat, E. 1992. Integrating Planning and Reacting in
this feat was truly surprising and an extreme- a Heterogeneous Asynchronous Architecture for
Controlling Real-World Mobile Robots. In Proceed-
ly exciting experience.
ings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, 809–815. Menlo Park, Calif.: American
Related Work Association for Artificial Intelligence.
Goodwin, G. C., and Sin, K. S. 1984. Adaptive Filter-
YODA’s abstraction architecture originates from ing, Prediction, and Control. New York: Prentice Hall.
a prediction-based architecture called LIVE
Shen, W. M. 1994. Autonomous Learning from the
(Shen 1991; Shen and Simon 1989) for inte- Environment. New York: W. H. Freeman.
grating learning, planning, and action in au- Shen, W. M. 1991. LIVE: An Architecture for Au-
tonomous learning from the environment tonomous Learning from the Environment. ACM
(Shen 1994). It also bears many similarities to SIGART Bulletin (Special Issue on Integrated Cogni-
Erann Gat’s (1992) ATLANTIS architecture, tive Architectures) 2(4): 151–155.
which integrates planning and reacting in a Shen, W. M., and Simon, H. A. 1989. Rule Creation
three-layer, heterogeneous asynchronous ar- and Rule Learning through Environmental Explo-
chitecture for mobile robots. Different from ration. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Internation-
ATLANTIS , however, YODA uses a closed-loop al Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
control theory (Goodwin and Sin 1984), as 675–680. Menlo Park, Calif.: International Joint
well as the idea of a signature, to maintain the Conferences on Artificial Intelligence.
awareness of its current states and control its
low-level behaviors. Furthermore, YODA also
uses landmarks to initiate and terminate the Wei-Min Shen is a research assis-
execution of sequences at the middle layer. tant professor in the Computer
Science Department at the Uni-
The use of signatures is closely related to
versity of Southern California
Arkin’s (1987) behavior-based approach and (USC) and a senior research scien-
schema theories by Arbib (1981) and others. tist at the USC/Information Sci-
Our motivation for using declarative repre- ences Institute. He received his
sentations is to facilitate our long-term goals Ph.D. in computer science from
for learning models from the environment Carnegie Mellon University in
and collaborations among multiple heteroge- 1989 on the subject of autonomous learning. From
neous agents. In this aspect, YODA seems to 1989 to 1994, he was with the Microelectronic and
have a different philosophy about models of Computer Technology Corporation, where he
spent five years applying innovative research re-
the world than Brooks’s (1991, 1986) sub-
sults to solving industrial problems. His current re-
sumption architecture.
search interests include machine learning and dis-
covery, autonomous agents and robots, intelligent
Acknowledgments
information integration, and data mining. He has
We would like to thank Ramakant Nevatia for an international reputation in these research areas
providing us the Denning Robot. Special and has authored one book and about 45 technical
thanks to the various projects and people in papers in journals and conferences.
the ISI Intelligent Systems Division for their
moral support and their tolerance for sharing Jafar Adibi is a Ph.D. student in
space (and occasionally “forces”) with YODA. the Department of Computer Sci-
ence at the University of South-
ern California (USC). He recived
References his B.S. in electrical engineering
Arbib, M. 1981. Perceptual Structures and Distribut- from Isfahan University of Tech-
ed Motor Control. In Handbook of Physiology—The nology, Isfahan, Iran, and his
N e r v o u s S y s t e m , II , ed. V. B. Brooks, 1449–1465. M.S. from USC. Currently, he is a
Bethesda, Md.: American Physiological Society. graduate research assistant at the
USC/Information Sciences Institute, where his cur-
Arkin, R. C. 1987. Motor Schema-Based Mobile
rent research interests include soft computing
Robot Navigation. International Journal of Robotics
methods, knowledge discovery, and applications of
Research 8(4): 92–112.
AI in medicine.
Brooks, R. A. 1991. Intelligence without Represen-
44 AI MAGAZINE
Articles
SPRING 1997 45
Insert IOS Press AD
46 AI MAGAZINE