Claims:1. A processor-implemented method comprising:
receiving distributed simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) by at least a part of a robotic cluster, wherein the robotic cluster comprises a leader robot and member robots, wherein the member robots comprise worker robots and standby robots;
calculating reliability of the leader robot based on associated components while performing tasks of the distributed SLAM;
determining at least one of a self-task completion time (STCT) value for each of the tasks of the leader robot by the leader robot and a leader’s task completion time (LTCT) value for each of the tasks of the leader robot by each of the worker robots when the reliability of the leader robot is less than a predefined threshold;
predicting failure of the leader robot based on the determined at least one of the LTCT value and the STCT value; and
performing hand-over of the tasks of the leader robot to one of the member robots upon predicting the failure of the leader robot, thereby executing fault-tolerant distributed SLAM.

2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein an LTCT value of a worker robot increases based on a time waited by the worker robot for the leader robot to finish a task and wherein the STCT value of the leader robot increases based on a time taken by the leader robot to perform a task.

3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein predicting failure of the leader robot based on the determined at least one of the LTCT value and the STCT value, comprises:
performing one of:
predicting failure of the leader robot when the STCT value of each of the worker robots is greater than a predetermined STCT limit value; and
predicting failure of the leader robot when the LTCT value of the leader robot is greater than a predetermined LTCT limit value.

4. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein performing hand-over of the tasks of the leader robot tasks to the one of the member robots upon predicting the failure of the leader robot, comprises:
performing one of:
taking over the leader robot’s tasks by the one of the member robots when the failure of the leader robot is predicted based on the LTCT value of each of the worker robots; and
assigning the leader robot’s tasks by the leader robot to the one of the member robots when the failure of the leader robot is predicted based on the STCT value of the leader robot.

5. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein performing hand-over of the tasks of the leader robot to the one of the member robots, comprises:
calculating reliability each of the member robots based on associated components while performing the distributed SLAM;
computing a standby score of each of the member robots based on the associated calculated reliability; and
performing hand-over of the tasks of the leader robot to the one of the member robots based on corresponding standby score.

6. The method as claimed in claim 5, wherein performing hand-over of the tasks of the leader robot to the one of the member robots based on corresponding standby score, comprises:
performing hand-over of the tasks of the leader robot to the one of the member robots having least standby score.

7. A system, comprising:
a cloud based infrastructure; and
a robotic cluster communicatively coupled to the cloud based infrastructure, wherein the robotic cluster comprises a leader robot and member robots having worker robots and standby robots, wherein the leader robot and each of the member robots receive distributed simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) from the cloud based infrastructure, wherein the leader robot and the member robots calculate reliability based on associated components while performing the distributed SLAM, wherein each of the worker robots determines a corresponding leader’s task completion time (LTCT) value for a task when the reliability of the leader robot is less than a predefined threshold or the leader robot determines a corresponding self-task completion time (STCT) value, and wherein performing one of:
one of the member robots predicts failure of the leader robot when the LTCT value of the worker robots is greater than a predetermined LTCT limit value and takes over leader robot’s tasks; and
the leader robot predicts the failure when the corresponding STCT value is greater than a predetermined STCT limit value and assigns the leader robot’s tasks to one of the member robots, thereby executing fault-tolerant SLAM.

8. The system as claimed in claim 7, wherein an LTCT value of a worker robot increases based on a time waited by the worker robot for the leader robot to finish a task and wherein the STCT value of the leader robot increases based on a time taken by the leader robot to perform a task.

9. The system as claimed in claim 7, wherein each of the member robots computes a corresponding standby score based on the associated calculated reliability and the one of the member robots having least standby score takes over the leader robot’s tasks.
, Description:FORM 2

THE PATENTS ACT, 1970
(39 of 1970)
&
THE PATENTS RULES, 2003

COMPLETE SPECIFICATION
(See section 10 and rule 13)

Title of invention:
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR EXECUTING FAULT-TOLERANT SIMULTANEOUS LOCALIZATION AND MAPPING IN ROBOTIC CLUSTERS

Applicant:
Tata Consultancy Services Limited
A company Incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956
Having address:
Nirmal Building, 9th Floor,
Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021,
Maharashtra, India

The following specification particularly describes the invention and the manner in which it is to be performed.

TECHNICAL FIELD
[001] The embodiments herein generally relate to simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) in robotic clusters and, more particularly, to fault-tolerant SLAM in the robotic clusters.
BACKGROUND
[002] Typically, autonomous robots are capable of concurrent map building of the environment and estimating their relative location, generally termed as simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) problem. In an era when commodity hardware is replacing costly, specialized hardware in most scenarios, software reliability within cloud robotic middle-ware may allow its distributed execution on lightweight, low cost robots and network edge devices. However successful functioning of multi-robot systems in critical missions requires resilience in the middle-ware such that the overall functioning degrades gracefully in the face of hardware failure and connectivity failure to the cloud server. Even, multi-robot cooperative SLAM provides reliability, but orienting and merging of maps built by different robot may be both processing and memory intensive task and hence, may not be suitable in a robotic cluster. Also, a failure of a primary robot terminates the map building process leading to failure of the SLAM process.

SUMMARY
[003] The following presents a simplified summary of some embodiments of the disclosure in order to provide a basic understanding of the embodiments. This summary is not an extensive overview of the embodiments. It is not intended to identify key/critical elements of the embodiments or to delineate the scope of the embodiments. Its sole purpose is to present some embodiments in a simplified form as a prelude to the more detailed description that is presented below.
[004] In view of the foregoing, an embodiment herein provides methods and systems for fault-tolerant simultaneous localization and mapping in robotic clusters. In one aspect, a processor-implemented method includes steps of: receiving distributed simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) by at least a part of a robotic cluster, wherein the robotic cluster comprises a leader robot and member robots, wherein the member robots comprise worker robots and a few standby robots in order among the worker robots; calculating reliability of the leader robot based on associated components while performing tasks of the distributed SLAM; determining at least one of a self-task completion time (STCT) value for each of the tasks of the leader robot by the leader robot and a leader’s task completion time (LTCT) value for each of the tasks of the leader robot by each of the worker robots when the reliability of the leader robot is less than a predefined threshold; predicting failure of the leader robot based on the determined at least one of the LTCT value and the STCT value; and performing hand-over of the tasks of the leader robot to one of the member robots upon predicting the failure of the leader robot, thereby executing fault-tolerant distributed SLAM.
[005] In another aspect, a system for fault-tolerant SLAM in robotic clusters is provided. The system includes a cloud based infrastructure and a robotic cluster communicatively coupled to the cloud based infrastructure, wherein the robotic cluster comprises a leader robot and member robots having worker robots and and a few standby robots in order among the worker robots, wherein the leader robot and each of the member robots receive distributed simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) from the cloud based infrastructure, wherein the leader robot and the member robots calculate reliability based on associated components while performing the distributed SLAM, wherein each of the worker robots determines a corresponding leader’s task completion time (LTCT) value for a task when the reliability of the leader robot is less than a predefined threshold or the leader robot determines a corresponding self-task completion time (STCT) value, and wherein performing one of: one of the member robots predicts failure of the leader robot when the LTCT value of the worker robots is greater than a predetermined LTCT limit value and takes over leader robot’s tasks; and the leader robot predicts the failure when the corresponding STCT value is greater than a predetermined STCT limit value and assigns the leader robot’s tasks to one of the member robots, thereby executing fault-tolerant SLAM.
[006] In yet another aspect, a non-transitory computer-readable medium having embodied thereon a computer program for executing a method for fault-tolerant SLAM in robotic clusters is provided. The method includes the steps of: receiving distributed simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) by at least a part of a robotic cluster, wherein the robotic cluster comprises a leader robot and member robots, where the member robots comprise worker robots and and a few standby robots in order among the worker robots; calculating reliability of the leader robot based on associated components while performing tasks of the distributed SLAM; determining at least one of a self-task completion time (STCT) value for each of the tasks of the leader robot by the leader robot and a leader’s task completion time (LTCT) value for each of the tasks of the leader robot by each of the worker robots when the reliability of the leader robot is less than a predefined threshold; predicting failure of the leader robot based on the determined at least one of the LTCT value and the STCT value; and performing hand-over of the tasks of the leader robot to one of the member robots upon predicting the failure of the leader robot, thereby executing fault-tolerant distributed SLAM.
[007] It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that any block diagram herein represents conceptual views of illustrative systems embodying the principles of the present subject matter. Similarly, it is appreciated that any flow charts, flow diagrams, state transition diagrams, pseudo code, and the like represent various processes which may be substantially represented in computer readable medium and so executed by a computing device or processor, whether or not such computing device or processor is explicitly shown.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES
[008] The detailed description is described with reference to the accompanying figures. In the figures, the left-most digit(s) of a reference number identifies the figure in which the reference number first appears. The same numbers are used throughout the drawings to reference like features and modules.
[009] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of a system for fault-tolerant simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) in robotic clusters, in accordance with an example embodiment.
[0010] FIG. 2 illustrates a sequence diagram of collaborating classes in a robot, in accordance with an example embodiment.
[0011] FIGS. 3A-3C illustrates a member robot taking over leader’s workflow, in accordance with an example embodiment.
[0012] FIGS. 4A-4C illustrates a leader robot assigning over leader’s workflow to a member robot, in accordance with an example embodiment.
[0013] FIG. 5 illustrates a flow diagram of a method for fault-tolerant SLAM in robotic clusters, in accordance with an example embodiment.
[0014] It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that any block diagrams herein represent conceptual views of illustrative systems and devices embodying the principles of the present subject matter. Similarly, it will be appreciated that any flow charts, flow diagrams, and the like represent various processes which may be substantially represented in computer readable medium and so executed by a computer or processor, whether or not such computer or processor is explicitly shown.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0015] The embodiments herein and the various features and advantageous details thereof are explained more fully with reference to the non-limiting embodiments that are illustrated in the accompanying drawings and detailed in the following description. The examples used herein are intended merely to facilitate an understanding of ways in which the embodiments herein may be practiced and to further enable those of skill in the art to practice the embodiments herein. Accordingly, the examples should not be construed as limiting the scope of the embodiments herein.
[0016] A technique for fault-tolerant simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) in robotic clusters is disclosed. In this technique, robotic localization and mapping SLAM is executed in a resource constrained robotic cluster such that the distributed SLAM is executed in a reliable fashion and self-healed in case of failure of active robots. To ensure fault tolerance, the robots are enabled, by time series analysis of internal components including but not limited to motors, bearings and sensors, to find their individual failure probabilities and use that to enhance cluster reliability in a distributed manner.
[0017] The methods and systems are not limited to the specific embodiments described herein. In addition, the method and system can be practiced independently and separately from other modules and methods described herein. Each device element/module and method can be used in combination with other elements/modules and other methods.
[0018] The manner, in which the system and method for fault-tolerant SLAM in robotic clusters, has been explained in details with respect to the FIGS. 1 through 5. While aspects of described methods and systems for fault-tolerant SLAM in robotic clusters can be implemented in any number of different systems, utility environments, and/or configurations, the embodiments are described in the context of the following exemplary system(s).
[0019] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of a system 100 for fault-tolerant SLAM in robotic clusters, in accordance with an example embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the system 100 includes a cloud infrastructure 102 and a robotic cluster 104 communicatively coupled with the cloud infrastructure 102. Further, the robotic cluster 104 includes a plurality of robots 106A-N. In some example, the plurality of robots include a leader robot, worker robots and a few standby robots in order among the worker robots.
[0020] The robots 106A-N include or is otherwise in communication with one or more hardware processors such as processor(s), one or more memories, and a network interface unit such as a network interface unit. In an embodiment, the processor, memory, and the network interface unit may be coupled by a system bus such as a system bus or a similar mechanism. The processor may include circuitry implementing, among others, audio and logic functions associated with the communication. For example, the processor may include, but are not limited to, one or more digital signal processors (DSPs), one or more microprocessor, one or more special-purpose computer chips, one or more field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), one or more application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), one or more computer(s), various analog to digital converters, digital to analog converters, and/or other support circuits. The processor thus may also include the functionality to encode messages and/or data or information. The processor may include, among other things, a clock, an arithmetic logic unit (ALU) and logic gates configured to support operation of the processor. Further, the processor may include functionality to execute one or more software programs, which may be stored in the memory or otherwise accessible to the processor.
[0021] The functions of the various elements shown in the figure, including any functional blocks labeled as “processor(s)”, may be provided through the use of dedicated hardware as well as hardware capable of executing software in association with appropriate software. When provided by a processor, the functions may be provided by a single dedicated processor, by a single shared processor, or by a plurality of individual processors, some of which may be shared. Moreover, explicit use of the term “processor” should not be construed to refer exclusively to hardware capable of executing software, and may implicitly include, without limitation DSP hardware, network processor, application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), FPGA, read only memory (ROM) for storing software, random access memory (RAM), and non-volatile storage. Other hardware, conventional, and/or custom, may also be included.
[0022] The interface(s) may include a variety of software and hardware interfaces, for example, interfaces for peripheral device(s), such as a keyboard, a mouse, an external memory, and a printer. The interface(s) can facilitate multiple communications within a wide variety of networks and protocol types, including wired networks, for example, local area network (LAN), cable, etc., and wireless networks, such as Wireless LAN (WLAN), cellular, or satellite.
[0023] The one or more memories such as a memory, may store any number of pieces of information, and data, used by the system to implement the functions of the system. The memory 204 may include for example, volatile memory and/or non-volatile memory. Examples of volatile memory may include, but are not limited to volatile random access memory. The non-volatile memory may additionally or alternatively comprise an electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), flash memory, hard drive, or the like. Some examples of the volatile memory includes, but are not limited to, random access memory, dynamic random access memory, static random access memory, and the like. Some example of the non-volatile memory includes, but are not limited to, hard disks, magnetic tapes, optical disks, programmable read only memory, erasable programmable read only memory, electrically erasable programmable read only memory, flash memory, and the like. The memory may be configured to store information, data, applications, instructions or the like for enabling the corresponding robot to carry out various functions in accordance with various example embodiments. Additionally or alternatively, the memory may be configured to store instructions which when executed by the processor causes the corresponding robot to behave in a manner as described in various embodiments. The memory includes routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc., which perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. The memory may also include programs or coded instructions that supplement applications and functions of the corresponding robot.
[0024] In operation, the cloud infrastructure 102 distributes and parallelizes SLAM for making its execution reliable in the robotic cluster 104. Generally, SLAM is a primary requirement for the robots 106A-N exploring unknown environments and is built-into the robot middleware. For example, in a standard robotic workflow – one robot may perform unloading from a vehicle and put in a conveyor belt (task1) and another robot picks from the belt and puts it in a rack (task2). As task1 and task2 are two different tasks, it can be assigned to two different robots. As SLAM is built-into the middleware of individual robot, it cannot be partitioned naively and parts of SLAM for one robot cannot be assigned to others. To make this workflow reliable, a modified scan based SLAM is used. A SLAM algorithm that implements Rao Blackwellized Particle Filter (RBPF) to solve the SLAM problem where each particle represents a possible robot trajectory and a map, is used. In order to speed up the map building process, it is required to parallelize the algorithm by running several instances of the algorithm in external servers. Offloading the resource intensive scan matching routine to different servers provides a key solution towards parallelization. The SLAM algorithm corrects the robot pose and importance weights of each state variable (particle) in scan matching directly, where the importance of each particle is calculated based on the likelihood of the current observation, given the predicted robot position for each particle and the weight normalization is only required for re-sampling particles. The particles are, transmitted to each participating worker by a leader robot (leader) among the participant robots of the robot cluster when it performs a scan. The particles are received by one or worker robots (workers) in the robot cluster, wherein the reception of the particles is in a serialized form. Thus, the serialized particles are deserialized by a worker robot. The deserialized details are populated in an ordered sequence in a loop. The parallelization strategy used here is that both the leader and other robots maintain full information about the particles, but processes only a set of assigned particles. This approach of distributed execution results in availability of full state information and data (map) in each of the robots 106A-N, making any of these ready for taking over in case a leader robot (e.g., 106A) fails (i.e., low data transfer). For example, there are several factors that account for an unreliable and faulty system. It includes individual robot malfunctions like motor failure, sensor failure and odometry failure, local perspectives that are globally incoherent, interference, software errors or incompleteness and communication failures. The SLAM task can execute, albeit slowly, even if all the robots 106B-N except the leader robot 106A fails. Thus it can be modeled as a 1-out-of-n: G, i.e., a parallel system. In contrast a robot fails when any one of its module fail (1-out-of-n: F) i.e., series system. For example, updates done to the original sequential SLAM algorithm (as shown in a sequential diagram of collaborating classed in a robot for modified SLAM algorithm 200 of FIG. 2) to make it reliable are as follows:
At a leader robot (in a loop):
1. Broadcast leader's odometry and scan to peers.
2. Predict self-pose from odometry using a motion model.
3. For all particles assigned to it, perform scan matching, correct pose and update weights.
4. Get corrected poses and weights for assigned particles to peers, within a timeout.
5. Merge and create complete scan match result from peers.
6. Set standby list using standby score.
7. Broadcast scan match result (pose + weight) and standby list to peers.
8. Perform weight normalization, re-sampling and map update.
At other robots (in a loop):
1. Get current pose and scan of leader robot.
2. If latest scan is not available from the leader robot till a timeout and this is the next standby, navigate physically to leader robot's last known location using the known map built so far and re-start leader's work-flow (given above).
3. If not a standby, wait for a different timeout till scan arrives.
4. Predict initial leader robot pose from odometry using a motion model.
5. For all particles assigned to it, perform scan matching, correct pose and update weights.
6. Send corrected poses and weights for assigned particles to leader.
7. Receive merged scan match result (pose + weight) and standby list from the leader robot till timeout, else take over as in step 2.
8. Perform weight normalization, resampling and map update.
9. Localize itself on the current map.
[0025] In an example implementation, the leader robot 106A and the member robots 106B-N calculate reliability based on associated components while performing the distributed SLAM. In an embodiment, reliability can be defined as the probability that the robot may function properly at a given time and can be specified as R(t)=1 - F(t), where R(t) and F(t) represents reliability and failure probability at a given time t respectively. In this embodiment, a robot calculates its reliability using an example equation:

where Ri represents reliability of ith robot, Rj represents reliability of jth module of the ith robot and M is a number of modules in the ith robot.
[0026] For example, the reliability of a module can be affected by various hazards like temperature, load and so on. Therefore, a metric used for calculating the reliability is mean time to failure (MTTF) which can be computed as:

[0027] Further, each of the member robots 106B-N computes a corresponding standby score based on the associated calculated reliability. In an example embodiment, each of the member robots 106B-N determines corresponding failure probability F(t) using the associated calculated reliability. The, the robots 106B-N computes corresponding standby score using the failure probability. In an example, a robot calculates its standby score using a following equation:
Standby score = ? t + µ F(t)
where t and F(t) represent time to yield a current task and robot failure probability calculated using time series prediction, respectively and ? and µ are constants determined by the user based on weightage given to delay and failure probability of the robot.
[0028] In an embodiment, each of worker robots (e.g., 106B-D) determines a corresponding leader’s task completion time (LTCT) value for a task when the reliability of the leader robot 106A is less than a predefined threshold. For example, an LTCT value of a worker robot increases based on a time waited by the worker robot for the leader robot to finish a task and does not get any communication from the leader robot 106A. The LTCT value is a measurement for failure determination of the leader robot 106A which is actively doing a task, by other possible worker robots 106B-D. Moreover, one of the member robots 106B-N predicts failure of the leader robot 106A (actual failure occurred) when the LTCT value of the worker robots 106B-D is greater than a predetermined LTCT limit value and takes over leader robot’s tasks. For example, the one of the member robots having least standby score takes over the leader robot’s tasks. The selected robot, aware of its own location and the leader robot's location, navigates to the position of the leader robot, assumes its pose and continues the SLAM from the next scan onwards.
[0029] In an example, consider a robotic cluster consisting of a leader robot, worker robots (WR1, WR2 and WR3) and next standby robots (SR1, SR2 and SR3). Initially, the worker robots have an LTCT value of a and the leader robots have self-task completion time (STCT) value of ß and all the robots have a standby score that is calculated from the standby score. Here the standby score is derived only from the delay to accomplish the present task and no failure probability is calculated (assumed to be zero). In state 1, as shown in the illustration 300A of FIG. 3A, the leader robot is functional and sends messages to the worker robots. In state 2, as shown in the illustration 300B of FIG. 3B, the leader robots fails and stops sending any message to the worker robots. As a result the LTCT value of the worker robots increase by a value d. With time, the LTCT value reaches a threshold value as shown in the illustration 300C of FIG. 3C, and the robot (e.g., WR1) with a lowest standby score takes over the leader's work-flow.
[0030] In another embodiment, the leader robot 106A determines a corresponding STCT value. The STCT value of the leader robot increases based on a time taken by the leader robot to perform a task. Further, the leader robot 106A predicts the failure when the corresponding STCT value is greater than a predetermined STCT limit value and assigns the leader robot’s tasks to one of the member robots having least standby score.
[0031] In an example scenario, a fault prediction module residing in the memory of a leader robot helps in calculating its failure probability. Here hardware related failures like odometry failure and laser failure are considered. Also, it is assumed that execution data of sensors or hardware like motor bearing is available by fitting additional external sensors. The fault is predicted from a time-series of execution data using a Support Vector Regression (SVR) model. The objective function of the SVR is to minimize ½ ||w||2 subjected to the following constraints:
yi- < w, xi >- b = e
< w, xi > +b - yi = e
where xi and yi denote the training data and label, respectively. The summation of inner product xi and intercept b is the predicted value should lie within the specified threshold e.
[0032] In state 1, as shown in the illustration 400A of FIG. 4B, the leader robot predicts a failure (it may be a sensor or actuator or component (e.g., motor bearing, wheel and so on) failure). As a result the STCT value is increased by a value d. After a certain time, the STCT value reaches a predetermined limit value (i.e., threshold value) and the recovery mechanism is initiated by the leader robot itself using the contract net protocol (CNP), as shown in the illustration 400B of FIG. 4B. According to the protocol, the leader robot broadcasts an announcement that includes the specification of the task to be done. On receiving the announcement the worker robots WR1-3 and standby robots SR1-3 bid using their standby score. The leader robot assigns the leader’s tasks to the robot bidding the lowest standby score.
[0033] FIG. 5 illustrates a flow diagram of a method for fault-tolerant SLAM in robotic clusters, in accordance with an example embodiment. The method 500 may be described in the general context of computer executable instructions. Generally, computer executable instructions can include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, procedures, modules, functions, etc., that perform particular functions or implement particular abstract data types. The method 500 may also be practiced in a distributed computing environment where functions are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communication network. The order in which the method 500 is described is not intended to be construed as a limitation, and any number of the described method blocks can be combined in any order to implement the method 500, or an alternative method. Furthermore, the method 500 can be implemented in any suitable hardware, software, firmware, or combination thereof. In an embodiment, the method 500 depicted in the flow chart may be executed by a system, for example, system 100 of FIG. 1.
[0034] At block 502, distributed simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) is received by at least a part of a robotic cluster. For example, the robotic cluster includes a leader robot and member robots, wherein the member robots include worker robots and and a few standby robots in order among the worker robots. Basically, the distributed SLAM is received by the leader robot and workers robot. At block 504, reliability of the leader robot is calculated based on associated components while performing tasks of the distributed SLAM. At block 506, at least one of a self-task completion time (STCT) value for each of the tasks of the leader robot by the leader robot and a leader’s task completion time (LTCT) value for each of the tasks of the leader robot by each of the worker robots is determined when the reliability of the leader robot is less than a predefined threshold. For example, an LTCT value of a worker robot increases based on a time waited by the worker robot for the leader robot to finish a task and wherein the STCT value of the leader robot increases based on a time taken by the leader robot to perform a task.
[0035] At block 508, failure of the leader robot is predicted based on the determined at least one of the LTCT value and the STCT value. In an example implementation, failure of the leader robot is predicted when the STCT value of each of the worker robots is greater than a predetermined STCT limit value. In another example implementation, failure of the leader robot is predicted when the LTCT value of the leader robot is greater than a predetermined LTCT limit value.
[0036] At block 510, hand-over of the tasks of the leader robot to one of the member robots is performed upon predicting the failure of the leader robot, thereby executing fault-tolerant distributed SLAM. In an embodiment, the leader robot’s tasks is taken over by the one of the member robots when the failure of the leader robot is predicted based on the LTCT value of each of the worker robots. In another embodiment, the leader robot’s tasks is assigned by the leader robot to the one of the member robots when the failure of the leader robot is predicted based on the STCT value of the leader robot. In these embodiments, reliability each of the member robots is calculated based on associated components while performing the distributed SLAM. Further, a standby score of each of the member robots is computed based on the associated calculated reliability. Furthermore, hand-over of the tasks of the leader robot to the one of the member robots is performed based on corresponding standby score. In an example implementation, the tasks of the leader robot are handed over to the one of the member robots having least standby score.
[0037] The written description describes the subject matter herein to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the embodiments. The scope of the subject matter embodiments is defined by the claims and may include other modifications that occur to those skilled in the art. Such other modifications are intended to be within the scope of the claims if they have similar elements that do not differ from the literal language of the claims or if they include equivalent elements with insubstantial differences from the literal language of the claims.
[0038] It is, however to be understood that the scope of the protection is extended to such a program and in addition to a computer-readable means having a message therein; such non-transitory computer-readable storage means contain program-code means for implementation of one or more steps of the method, when the program runs on a server or mobile device or any suitable programmable device. The hardware device can be any kind of device which can be programmed including e.g. any kind of computer like a server or a personal computer, or the like, or any combination thereof. The device may also include means which could be e.g. hardware means like e.g. an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or a combination of hardware and software means, e.g. an ASIC and an FPGA, or at least one microprocessor and at least one memory with software modules located therein. Thus, the means can include both hardware means and software means. The method embodiments described herein could be implemented in hardware and software. The device may also include software means. Alternatively, the embodiments may be implemented on different hardware devices, e.g. using a plurality of CPUs.
[0039] The embodiments herein can comprise hardware and software elements. The embodiments that are implemented in software include but are not limited to, firmware, resident software, microcode, etc. The functions performed by various modules described herein may be implemented in other modules or combinations of other modules. For the purposes of this description, a computer-usable or computer readable medium can be any apparatus that can comprise, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
[0040] The foregoing description of the specific implementations and embodiments will so fully reveal the general nature of the implementations and embodiments herein that others can, by applying current knowledge, readily modify and/or adapt for various applications such specific embodiments without departing from the generic concept, and, therefore, such adaptations and modifications should and are intended to be comprehended within the meaning and range of equivalents of the disclosed embodiments. It is to be understood that the phraseology or terminology employed herein is for the purpose of description and not of limitation. Therefore, while the embodiments herein have been described in terms of preferred embodiments, those skilled in the art will recognize that the embodiments herein can be practiced with modification within the spirit and scope of the embodiments as described herein.
[0041] The preceding description has been presented with reference to various embodiments. Persons having ordinary skill in the art and technology to which this application pertains will appreciate that alterations and changes in the described structures and methods of operation can be practiced without meaningfully departing from the principle, spirit and scope.