No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A novel Human-Aware Navigation algorithm based on behavioral intention cognition
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2024
Abstract
In order to ensure safe and comfortable human–robot navigation in close proximity, it is imperative for robots to possess the capability to understand human behavioral intention. With this objective in mind, this paper introduces a Human-Aware Navigation (HAN) algorithm. The HAN system combines insights from studies on human detection, social behavioral model, and behavior prediction, all while incorporating social distance considerations. This information is integrated into a layer dedicated to human behavior intention cognition, achieved through the fusion of data from laser radar and Kinect sensors, employing Gaussian functions to account for individual private space and movement trend. To cater to the mapping requirements of the HAN system, we have reduced the computational complexity associated with traditional multilayer cost map by implementing a “first-come, first-served” expansion method. Subsequently, we have enhanced the trajectory optimization equation by incorporating an improved dynamic triangle window method that integrates human behavior intention cognition, leading to the determination of an appropriate trajectory for the robot. Finally, experimental evaluations have been conducted to assess and validate the efficacy of the human behavior intention cognition and the HAN system. The results clearly demonstrate that the HAN system outperforms the traditional Dynamic Window Approach algorithm in ensuring the safety and comfort of humans in human–robot coexistence environments.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Hoj, H. S., Hansen, S. and Svanebjerg, E., “Probabilistic Model-Based Global Localization in an Airport Environment,” In: 17th IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) (IEEE, 2021) pp. 1370–1375.Google Scholar
Tung, T. X. and Ngo, T. D., “Socially Aware Robot Navigation Using Deep Reinforcement Learning,” In: IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical & Computer Engineering (CCECE) (IEEE, 2018) pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Apraiz, A., Lasa, G. and Mazmela, M., “Evaluation of user experience in human-robot interaction: A systematic literature review,” Int. J. Soc. Robot. 15(2), 187–210 (2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T., Chen, Y., Hewitt, N., Hu, B. and Gu, Y., “Socially aware robot obstacle avoidance considering human intention and preferences,” Int. J. Soc. Robot. 15(4), 661–678 (2023).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yuan, R., Zhang, F., Qu, J., Li, G. and Fu, Y., “A novel obstacle avoidance method based on multi-information inflation map,” Ind. Robot. 47(2), 253–265 (2020).Google Scholar
Kodagoda, S., Sehestedt, S. and Dissanayake, G., “Socially aware path planning for mobile robots,” Robotica 34(3), 513–526 (2016).Google Scholar
Predhumeau, M., Spalanzani, A. and Dugdale, J., “Pedestrian behavior in shared spaces with autonomous vehicles: An integrated framework and review,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. 8(1), 438–457 (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melo, F. and Moreno, P., “Socially Reactive Navigation Models for Mobile Robots,” In: IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC) (IEEE, 2022) pp. 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sisbot, E. A., Marin-Urias, L. F., Alami, R. and Siméon, T., “A human aware mobile robot motion planner,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 23(5), 874–883 (2007).Google Scholar
Wen, Y., Wu, X., Yamane, K. and Iba, S., “Socially-Aware Mobile Robot Trajectories for Face-to-Face Interactions,” In: 14th International Conference on Social Robotics (ICSR) (2022) pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
Gao, Y. and Huang, C., “Evaluation of socially-aware robot navigation,” Front. Robot. AI 8, 721317 (2022). doi: 10.3389/frobt.2021.721317.Google Scholar
Charalampous, K., Kostavelis, I. and Gasteratos, A., “Recent trends in social aware robot navigation: A survey,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 93, 85–104 (2017).Google Scholar
Miao, H. and Zhu, Y., “Dynamic robot path planning using an enhanced simulated annealing approach,” Appl. Math. Comput. 222(5), 420–437 (2013).Google Scholar
Dijkstra, E. W., A Discipline of Programming (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2015).Google Scholar
Tang, W., Zhou, Y., Zhang, T., Liu, Y., Liu, J. and Ding, Z., “Cooperative collision avoidance in multirobot systems using fuzzy rules and velocity obstacles,” Robotica 41(2), 668–689 (2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, X., Zhu, Y., Lu, L. and Ou, L., “Dynamic window with virtual goal (DW-VG): A new reactive obstacle avoidance approach based on motion prediction,” Robotica 37(8), 1438–1456 (2019).Google Scholar
Guo, B., Guo, N. and Cen, Z., “Obstacle avoidance with dynamic avoidance risk region for mobile robots in dynamic environments,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 7(3), 5850–5857 (2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, L., Wang, X., Yang, X., Liu, H., Li, J. and Wang, P., “Path planning techniques for mobile robots: Review and prospect,” Expert Syst. Appl. 227, 120254 (2023). doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120254.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Ibáñez, J. R., Pérez-del-Pulgar, C. J. and Garcia-Cerezo, A., “Path planning for autonomous mobile robots: A review,” Sensors 21(23), 7898 (2021). doi: 10.3390/s21237898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rafai, A. N. A., Adzhar, N. and Jaini, N. I., “A review on path planning and obstacle avoidance algorithms for autonomous mobile robots,” J. Robot. 2022, 1–14 (2022). doi: 10.1155/2022/2538220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac, T. T., Copot, C., Tran, D. T. and De Keyser, R., “Heuristic approaches in robot path planning: A survey,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 86, 13–28 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., Zhao, Y., Deng, N. and Guo, K., “Dynamic path planning algorithm for a mobile robot based on visible space and an improved genetic algorithm,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 13(3), 1–17 (2016).Google Scholar
Qin, H., Shao, S., Wang, T., Yu, X., Jiang, Y. and Cao, Z., “Review of autonomous path planning algorithms for mobile robots,” Drones 7(3), 211 (2023). doi: 10.3390/drones7030211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, L., Zhu, C. and Su, X., “SLAM algorithm and Navigation for Indoor Mobile Robot Based on ROS,” In: IEEE 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence (SEAI) (IEEE, 2022) pp. 230–236.Google Scholar
Dang, T., “Autonomous mobile robot path planning based on enhanced A* algorithm integrating with time elastic band,” MM Sci. J. 2023, 6717–6722 (2023).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khatib, O., “Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 5(1), 90–98 (1986).Google Scholar
Zhang, L., Shi, X., Yi, Y., Tang, L., Peng, J. and Zou, J., “Mobile robot path planning algorithm based on RRT_connect,” Electronics 12(11), 2456 (2023). doi: 10.3390/electronics12112456.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, S., Ghrist, R. and Kumar, V., “Persistent homology for path planning in uncertain environments,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 31(3), 578–590 (2017).Google Scholar
Yuan, R., Zhang, F., Wang, Y., Fu, Y. and Wang, S., “A Q-learning approach based on human reasoning for navigation in a dynamic environment,” Robotica 37(3), 445–468 (2019).Google Scholar