Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 46 references

HMR-ODTA: Online Diverse Task Allocation for a Team of Heterogeneous Mobile Robots

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read HMR-ODTA claims that a decentralized auction with local re-scheduling reduces late-delivery penalties by about 63% on smaller task sets and about 50% on larger ones, relative to two reimplemented methods, in simulated hospital settings.

desk verdict A genuinely new online heterogeneous pickup-and-delivery auction algorithm, but the energy model is dimensionally broken and the performance claim rests on it; needs major revision before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08419 v1 pith:ABFUIWIZ submitted 2025-05-13 cs.RO

Ashish Verma , Avinash Gautam , Tanishq Duhan , V. S. Shekhawat , Sudeept Mohan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords Multi-robottaskallocationPickupanddeliveryproblemTimewindowsHeterogeneousrobotsOnlineschedulingAuction-basedSimpleTemporalNetworkPenaltyminimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Coordinating delivery requests that arrive over time—each with a pickup point, a drop-off point, and a hard or soft deadline—is hard when the robot team is heterogeneous. This paper proposes HMR-ODTA, a decentralized auction in which every robot bids on each new request, and the bid comes from a Simple Temporal Network check of whether and where the request fits into that robot's existing schedule. The paper reports that, in 50 simulated hospital runs per setting, HMR-ODTA reduces cumulative late-delivery penalties by nearly 63% for 40–160 requests and roughly 50% for 160–280 requests compared with two reimplemented methods, EEPI and GA-MR, and also rejects fewer requests. The reason matters: fixed assignments fail when new urgent requests appear, while letting each robot re-insert requests into its own schedule keeps the team responsive without a central planner.

What carries the argument

The Simple Temporal Network (STN)—a directed graph whose edges encode allowable time differences between actions—is the load-bearing object. Each robot builds an STN over its accepted service requests and asks, for every new request, whether the request can be inserted at some position without violating deadlines, capacity, and energy limits, including detours to a charging station. The bid a robot submits is a tuple (penalty, efficiency η, remaining energy), compared lexicographically: lowest penalty wins, ties go to the least efficient robot, and further ties to the robot with lower remaining energy, reserving more capable robots for future critical requests. A round-robin modulo rule picks which robot runs each auction, keeping the system decentralized.

What would settle it

Re-run the same experiments with robot energy consumption measured on physical hardware (or a validated electro-mechanical model) instead of the Section 4.4 equations; if the penalty and rejection gaps over EEPI and GA-MR shrink below the reported 50–63% and 26–51% levels, the scheduling advantage is an artifact of the energy model rather than of the auction-and-rescheduling mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an online, decentralized auction—where each robot bids using a Simple Temporal Network feasibility check plus a composite score of penalty, efficiency, and remaining energy—can coordinate a heterogeneous robot fleet for pickup-and-delivery with time windows, and that this reduces cumulative late-delivery penalties by roughly 63% for 40–160 tasks and 50% for 160–280 tasks compared with reimplemented EEPI and GA-MR baselines. The paper also reports fewer rejected service requests at every tested load. The mechanism credited for the improvement is rescheduling: unlike the baselines, which keep assignments fixed once made, HMR-ODTA lets a robot re-insert its accepted requests into its local schedule whenever a new request arrives, so delayed or newly arriving tasks can be accommodated without rebuilding a global plan.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed advantage rests on the energy-consumption formulas in Section 4.4 being physically accurate, because those formulas decide which routes and charging detours are feasible; if they do not reflect real robot energy use, the schedules and the simulated comparison would not carry over to practice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the simulated hospital environment, HMR-ODTA completes more requests within deadlines and incurs lower cumulative lateness than EEPI and GA-MR at every tested request volume from 40 to 280.
  • The penalty reduction holds for both equal and unequal robot distributions and across deadline configurations E, 2E, [5E, 10E], and [E, 10E], with one reported non-significant case: average penalty for unequal robots with unique attributes when the deadline is 2E.
  • HMR-ODTA cuts the number of rejected hard-deadline requests as well as penalties, because a request that cannot fit one robot's current schedule may still fit another robot's schedule after that robot re-inserts it.
  • The per-request auction is computationally light, with each robot's bid computed in constant time in practice and overall complexity O(|J|mn) for |J| requests, m robot classes, and n robots per class.
  • Because the scheduler explicitly checks charging detours, the STN inserts not just a pickup and drop-off but also a possible charging stop, which is how the algorithm keeps robots from becoming stranded mid-route.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same auction-plus-STN mechanism could be extended to robot failures: a robot that becomes unavailable mid-shift could re-auction its accepted requests, which the paper leaves to future work.
  • Since the bid is only a local insertion check, an open question is how far HMR-ODTA sits from an offline optimal schedule; a competitive-ratio bound would require a formal analysis the paper does not provide.
  • The reported gains may be sensitive to the energy-consumption formulas in Section 4.4, which mix kinetic and frictional terms; correcting those equations and re-running the comparison would reveal whether the 50–63% penalty reduction is a scheduling effect or an artifact of the energy model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HMR-ODTA, a decentralized auction-based online task allocation algorithm for a team of heterogeneous mobile robots solving a multi-pickup and delivery problem with time windows (MPDPTW) in a hospital-like environment. Each robot maintains a service request list and uses a Simple Temporal Network (STN) to check feasibility and compute bids that combine penalty, efficiency, remaining energy, and completion time. New service requests are auctioned among robots, and the winning robot inserts the request into its schedule with dynamic rescheduling. The paper reports ROS/Gazebo simulations comparing HMR-ODTA with re-implemented baselines EEPI and GA-MR, claiming about 63% reduction in penalties for 40-160 tasks and about 50% for 160-280 tasks, along with lower rejection counts.

Significance. The problem is relevant and timely: online, heterogeneous, multi-robot pickup-and-delivery with hard and soft deadlines is an active area, and a decentralized auction with STN-based schedule feasibility is a reasonable architectural contribution. The authors also report 50 simulation runs per configuration and a non-parametric significance test, which is a good-faith attempt at statistical rigor. If the central claims are validated, the paper would provide a useful benchmark and algorithm for hospital/logistics multi-robot systems. However, the current validation is not sound: the energy-consumption equations used to gate schedule feasibility are dimensionally inconsistent, the complexity proof is incorrect, the tie-breaking rule in the auction is ambiguous, and the empirical comparison is not independently reproducible because the baselines are reimplemented and no code or data are provided.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.4, Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) is dimensionally inconsistent. The bracketed expression adds E1 (an energy, kg m^2/s^2), 1/2 (v_RC)^2 (m^2/s^2, no mass factor), and mu*g*v_m*t (m^2/s^2, no mass factor), and then multiplies the entire bracket by (W_RC + sum of payload masses) in kg. The resulting quantity is not an energy, and the friction coefficient also changes from mu=0.4 in Eq. (3) to mu=0.02 in Eq. (4) without comment. Since Section 5.2 uses energy considerations to decide when a charging detour is needed, and Algorithm 3 computes UsedEnergy and energyRem from these quantities, the STN feasibility checks and auction bids are not physically grounded. The authors need to either replace this with a dimensionally correct energy model, or explicitly demonstrate that all reported results are insensitive to the energy model; the current simulation evidence does not support the claimed penalty reductions.
  2. [Section 5.8] The time-complexity proof is flawed. The claim that the number of STN time nodes, 2*len(SRL), is 'constant due to constraints 7' is incorrect: Eq. (7) bounds each individual demand, not the number of tasks in an SRL, and the capacity constraint in Eq. (8) limits total payload, which still allows arbitrarily many low-demand tasks. Therefore s grows with the input, the O(s^3) Floyd-Warshall cost inside Algorithm 3 cannot be treated as O(C), and the stated overall complexity O(|J|mn) is not established. A correct bound must account for the growth of |SRL|, or the STN size must be bounded by an actual algorithmic constant.
  3. [Section 5.6 / Algorithm 4] The tie-breaking rule in the auction is described inconsistently between text and pseudocode. The text says that when penalties are equal the task should be assigned to the robot with lower eta, but the condition 'eta > new etaC' in Algorithm 4 selects a higher eta, and a later bullet similarly says 'Opting for a bid with lower remaining energy' while the code condition 'energyRem > new energyRem' selects higher remaining energy. Because tie-breaking determines which robot wins a bid and therefore affects the final assignment, the implemented behavior needs to be stated unambiguously and matched to the pseudocode.
  4. [Section 7 / Figures 3-4] The empirical comparison is reported only as means. Figures 3 and 4 plot averages over 50 runs without error bars, confidence intervals, or any dispersion measure, even though 50 runs per configuration are available. Section 7.5 mentions a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test but gives no p-values, no test statistics, and no table of results; the one non-significant case (UR-UA, DD=2E, penalty) is mentioned but not analyzed. Additionally, both baselines were re-implemented by the authors with no external code, data, or baseline benchmark results, so the comparison cannot be independently checked. The paper should show the full distributions, complete significance-test results, and make the implementations and data available.
  5. [Abstract / Tables 5-6] The abstract's headline percentages ('nearly 63%' for 40-160 tasks, 'approximately 50%' for 160-280 tasks) are not traceable to a single comparison in Tables 5-6. Depending on the deadline configuration and scenario, the reported EEPI-vs-HMR-ODTA penalty reduction for 160-280 tasks ranges from 32.94% to 85.04%, and the corresponding rejection reduction ranges widely as well. The authors should define exactly which aggregation (e.g., across all deadline settings and both scenarios) produces the abstract numbers, and report the associated variance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6.1] The text says 'octal distance between map points'; this should presumably be 'geodesic distance' or 'Euclidean distance', since the distances are computed with jump point search.
  2. [Section 7.3] The sentence 'GA-MR shows an improvement of 15.91% over GA-MR' should read 'EEPI shows an improvement of 15.91% over GA-MR'; the current wording is self-referential and confusing.
  3. [Algorithm 5] The pseudocode assigns currPos=node before popping the next node from the schedule, so currPos receives the just-completed node rather than the next destination. The variable 'update' in Line 12 is also undefined. Please correct the ordering and define the intended update condition.
  4. [Algorithm 2] The notation R_X is used both for a class index and as a set of robots, and the returned robot R_Y^X is not formally introduced. Please disambiguate the notation.
  5. [Introduction / Related Work] The GA-MR baseline is cited as [16] in the contributions list but as [14] in Section 2 and Section 6; this inconsistency should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the claimed 50–63% penalty improvement is an empirical simulation comparison against re-implemented baselines, not a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the problem formulation (Section 4) through the STN-based auction (Section 5) to the reported results (Section 7). The objective in Eq. 11 minimizes the same late-delivery penalty defined in Eq. 1 that is later reported as the headline metric, but that is a standard optimization/evaluation loop, not a circular reduction: the penalty values emerge from simulated schedules and deadlines, and the baselines EEPI and GA-MR are re-implemented and run under identical conditions rather than being derived from HMR-ODTA's own outputs. No parameter is fitted to the reported 50–63% improvement, and no prediction is a renamed input. The STN feasibility and charging logic in Section 5.2 uses the energy model of Section 4.4 as an assumed physical model with stated constants; the dimensional inconsistency of Eq. 4 and the unvalidated magnitudes are genuine correctness and validation risks, but they do not make any claimed result equivalent to its inputs by construction. The only self-citations (refs [5]–[7] in the introduction and related work) are prior terrain-coverage/exploration papers by the same group and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. Section 7.5 candidly reports one non-significant comparison (UR-UA with DD=2E), which qualifies the strength of the claim in that cell but is not evidence of circularity. The in-house re-implementation of both baselines is a potential bias concern, not a circular step: the comparison is self-contained and reproducible in principle, but the central claim would be stronger with independent baseline code or benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The algorithm's evaluation depends on several hand-chosen simulation parameters and modeling assumptions. The most fragile is the energy model, which is physically inconsistent yet determines schedule feasibility. Other assumptions, such as deterministic travel times and free depot charging, simplify the environment substantially.

free parameters (5)
  • Charging time = 300 seconds
    Fixed recharge duration chosen by hand; directly affects schedule feasibility and energy constraints.
  • Friction coefficient mu = 0.4 in Eq. 3, 0.02 in Eq. 4
    Inconsistent values chosen for the energy model; affects all energy and travel-time estimates.
  • Robot class attributes (speed, capacity, initial energy, weight) = See Table 1 (e.g., v=1.5, 1, 0.75, 0.5 m/s)
    Hand-chosen heterogeneity profile; the reported improvement margins may depend on this specific configuration.
  • Task arrival rate = 1 per 0 to 10 seconds
    Uniform random inter-arrival times chosen for the simulation; determines system load.
  • Deadline configuration = E, 2E, uniform in [5E,10E], uniform in [E,10E]
    Deadline tightness scenarios; performance comparison is made within each configuration, so results are specific to these choices.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Travel times between map nodes are deterministic and equal to JPS path length divided by robot speed.
    Used throughout the STN scheduling; ignores stochastic delays due to obstacles, traffic, or robot interactions.
  • ad hoc to paper The energy-consumption model in Eqs. 3-5 accurately predicts robot energy use.
    The equations are dimensionally inconsistent, yet they determine whether a robot can reach a depot to charge and whether a schedule is feasible.
  • domain assumption Any robot can recharge at any depot; multiple robots can recharge simultaneously with a fixed 300s duration.
    Simplifies scheduling but may not reflect real depot capacity or charger availability.
  • ad hoc to paper The robot's velocity and power consumption are constant regardless of payload.
    Eq. 4 attempts to model payload but the formula is invalid; the STN scheduling uses these values to compute arrival times.
  • domain assumption The modulo-based auctioneer selection (Algorithm 2) does not bias task allocation outcomes.
    The auctioneer's class is fixed by task ID, which could favor certain classes but is treated as neutral.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HMR-ODTA: Online Diverse Task Allocation for a Team of Heterogeneous Mobile Robots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ABFUIWIZ

@misc{pith2026250508419,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HMR-ODTA: Online Diverse Task Allocation for a Team of Heterogeneous Mobile Robots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ABFUIWIZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08419}
}
read the original abstract

Coordinating time-sensitive deliveries in environments like hospitals poses a complex challenge, particularly when managing multiple online pickup and delivery requests within strict time windows using a team of heterogeneous robots. Traditional approaches fail to address dynamic rescheduling or diverse service requirements, typically restricting robots to single-task types. This paper tackles the Multi-Pickup and Delivery Problem with Time Windows (MPDPTW), where autonomous mobile robots are capable of handling varied service requests. The objective is to minimize late delivery penalties while maximizing task completion rates. To achieve this, we propose a novel framework leveraging a heterogeneous robot team and an efficient dynamic scheduling algorithm that supports dynamic task rescheduling. Users submit requests with specific time constraints, and our decentralized algorithm, Heterogeneous Mobile Robots Online Diverse Task Allocation (HMR-ODTA), optimizes task assignments to ensure timely service while addressing delays or task rejections. Extensive simulations validate the algorithm's effectiveness. For smaller task sets (40-160 tasks), penalties were reduced by nearly 63%, while for larger sets (160-280 tasks), penalties decreased by approximately 50%. These results highlight the algorithm's effectiveness in improving task scheduling and coordination in multi-robot systems, offering a robust solution for enhancing delivery performance in structured, time-critical environments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cooperative robots and sensor networks 2015, 31–51 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18299-5 2 30

    Khamis, A., Hussein, A., Elmogy, A.: Multi-robot task allocation: A review of the state-of-the-art. Cooperative robots and sensor networks 2015, 31–51 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18299-5 2 30

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18299-5 2015

  2. [2]

    Multi-robot systems2, 87–98 (2003)

    Vail, D., Veloso, M.: Multi-robot dynamic role assignment and coordination through shared potential fields. Multi-robot systems2, 87–98 (2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    The International journal of robotics research23(9), 939– 954 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364904045564

    Gerkey, B.P., Matari´ c, M.J.: A formal analysis and taxonomy of task allocation in multi-robot systems. The International journal of robotics research23(9), 939– 954 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364904045564

    doi:10.1177/0278364904045564 2004

  4. [4]

    Intelligent Service Robotics14, 313–325 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-021-00363-w

    Sharma, K., Doriya, R.: Coordination of multi-robot path planning for warehouse application using smart approach for identifying destinations. Intelligent Service Robotics14, 313–325 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11370-021-00363-w

    work page doi:10.1007/s11370-021-00363-w 2021

  5. [5]

    Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems87, 545–564 (2017) https://doi.org/10

    Gautam, A., Jha, B., Kumar, G., Murthy, J.K., Ram, S.A., Mohan, S.: Fast: Synchronous frontier allocation for scalable online multi-robot terrain coverage. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems87, 545–564 (2017) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10846-016-0416-2

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    In: 2021 IEEE 17th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pp

    Gautam, A., Soni, A., Shekhawat, V.S., Mohan, S.: Multi-robot online terrain cov- erage under communication range restrictions–an empirical study. In: 2021 IEEE 17th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), pp. 1862–1869 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/CASE49439.2021.9551390 . IEEE

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    In: 2022 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp

    Soni, A., Dasannacharya, C., Gautam, A., Shekhawat, V.S., Mohan, S.: Multi- robot unknown area exploration using frontier trees. In: 2022 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 9934–9941 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS47612.2022.9981914 . IEEE

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    In: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, vol

    Khairnar, A., Sivashangaran, S., Eskandarian, A.: A comparison of motion plan- ning methods for autonomous ground vehicle exploration and search. In: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, vol. 87639, pp. 006–07069 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2023-112606 . American Society of Mechanical Engineers

    work page doi:10.1115/imece2023-112606 2023

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    In: 2019 5th International Conference on Optimization and Applications (ICOA), pp

    Msala, Y., Hamlich, M., Mouchtachi, A.: A new robust heterogeneous multi- robot approach based on cloud for task allocation. In: 2019 5th International Conference on Optimization and Applications (ICOA), pp. 1–4 (2019). https: //doi.org/10.1109/ICOA.2019.8727618

    2019

  2. [10]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics38(6), 3602–3621 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2022.3181948

    Luo, X., Zavlanos, M.M.: Temporal logic task allocation in heterogeneous mul- tirobot systems. IEEE Transactions on Robotics38(6), 3602–3621 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2022.3181948

    2022

  3. [11]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 104492 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2023

    Chakraa, H., Gu´ erin, F., Leclercq, E., Lefebvre, D.: Optimization techniques for multi-robot task allocation problems: Review on the state-of-the-art. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 104492 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2023. 104492 31

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Artificial intelli- gence49(1-3), 61–95 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(91)90006-6

    Dechter, R., Meiri, I., Pearl, J.: Temporal constraint networks. Artificial intelli- gence49(1-3), 61–95 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(91)90006-6

    1991 doi

  5. [13]

    IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE

    Wang, S., Liu, Y., Qiu, Y., Li, S., Zhou, J.: An efficient distributed task allocation method for maximizing task allocations of multirobot systems. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE. 2023.3281577

    2023

  6. [14]

    Intelligent Service Robotics14(5), 707–727 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11370-021-00393-4

    Martin, J.G., Frejo, J.R.D., Garc´ ıa, R.A., Camacho, E.F.: Multi-robot task allo- cation problem with multiple nonlinear criteria using branch and bound and genetic algorithms. Intelligent Service Robotics14(5), 707–727 (2021) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11370-021-00393-4

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    https://wiki.ros.org/simulator gazebo/Tutorials

    ROS.org: simulator. https://wiki.ros.org/simulator gazebo/Tutorials

  8. [16]

    Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems102, 1–13 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10846-021-01346-w

    Martin, J.G., Garc´ ıa, R.A., Camacho, E.F.: Event-milp-based task alloca- tion for heterogeneous robotic sensor network for thermosolar plants. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems102, 1–13 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10846-021-01346-w

    2021

  9. [17]

    Transportation Research Procedia4, 178–190 (2014) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.trpro.2014.11.014

    Morganti, E., Seidel, S., Blanquart, C., Dablanc, L., Lenz, B.: The impact of e- commerce on final deliveries: alternative parcel delivery services in france and germany. Transportation Research Procedia4, 178–190 (2014) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.trpro.2014.11.014

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems24(11), 13422–13435 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2023

    Bai, X., Ye, Y., Zhang, B., Ge, S.S.: Efficient package delivery task assignment for truck and high capacity drone. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems24(11), 13422–13435 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2023. 3287163

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Autonomous Intelligent Systems 1(1), 17 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s43684-021-00017-9

    Wang, H., Chen, W.: Task scheduling for transport and pick robots in logistics: A comparative study on constructive heuristics. Autonomous Intelligent Systems 1(1), 17 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s43684-021-00017-9

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles8(2), 1664–1675 (2023) https://doi.org/10

    Gong, X., Wang, T., Huang, T., Cui, Y.: Toward safe and efficient human–swarm collaboration: A hierarchical multi-agent pickup and delivery framework. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles8(2), 1664–1675 (2023) https://doi.org/10. 1109/TIV.2022.3172342

    2023

  13. [21]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics39(2), 1106–1118 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2022.3216801

    Camisa, A., Testa, A., Notarstefano, G.: Multi-robot pickup and delivery via distributed resource allocation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics39(2), 1106–1118 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2022.3216801

    2023

  14. [23]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics33(2), 346–358 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2016.2631593

    Prorok, A., Hsieh, M.A., Kumar, V.: The impact of diversity on optimal control 32 policies for heterogeneous robot swarms. IEEE Transactions on Robotics33(2), 346–358 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2016.2631593

    2017

  15. [24]

    IEEE Access12, 74327–74342 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3404823

    Ferreira, B.A., Petrovi´ c, T., Orsag, M., Mart´ ınez-de Dios, J.R., Bogdan, S.: Distributed allocation and scheduling of tasks with cross-schedule dependen- cies for heterogeneous multi-robot teams. IEEE Access12, 74327–74342 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3404823

    2024

  16. [25]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 25(6), 6061–6073 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2023.3336659

    Dai, L.-L., Pan, Q.-K., Miao, Z.-H., Suganthan, P.N., Gao, K.-Z.: Multi-objective multi-picking-robot task allocation: Mathematical model and discrete artificial bee colony algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 25(6), 6061–6073 (2024) https://doi.o...

    2024

  17. [27]

    Inter- national Transactions in Operational Research25(2), 569–597 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1145/261342.571216

    Dragomir, A.G., Nicola, D., Soriano, A., Gansterer, M.: Multidepot pickup and delivery problems in multiple regions: a typology and integrated model. Inter- national Transactions in Operational Research25(2), 569–597 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1145/261342.571216

    2018

  18. [28]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5(4), 6662–6669 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.3016285

    Sakamoto, T., Bonardi, S., Kubota, T.: A routing framework for heterogeneous multi-robot teams in exploration tasks. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5(4), 6662–6669 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.3016285

    2020

  19. [29]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115, 130–142 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2019.02.016

    Sullivan, N., Grainger, S., Cazzolato, B.: Sequential single-item auction improve- ments for heterogeneous multi-robot routing. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 115, 130–142 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2019.02.016

    2019 doi

  20. [30]

    In: 2021 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatics (SACI), pp

    Oliveira, G., Plentz, P.D.M., Carvalho, J.T.: Multi-constrained voronoi-based task allocator for smart-warehouses. In: 2021 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatics (SACI), pp. 515–520 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/SACI51354.202...

    2021

  21. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10106 (2021) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2109.10106

    Ferreira, B.A., Petrovi´ c, T., Bogdan, S.: Distributed mission planning of com- plex tasks for heterogeneous multi-robot teams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.10106 (2021) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2109.10106

    2021 doi arXiv

  22. [32]

    Robotics and Autonomous Systems58(7), 900–909 (2010) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.robot.2010.03.011

    Nanjanath, M., Gini, M.: Repeated auctions for robust task execution by a robot team. Robotics and Autonomous Systems58(7), 900–909 (2010) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.robot.2010.03.011

    2010 doi

  23. [33]

    Journal f¨ ur Betriebswirtschaft58, 81–117 (2006) 33

    Parragh, S.N., Doerner, K.F., Hartl, R.F.: A survey on pickup and delivery mod- els part ii: Transportation between pickup and delivery locations. Journal f¨ ur Betriebswirtschaft58, 81–117 (2006) 33

    2006

  24. [34]

    International Journal of Production Research54(2), 526–549 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1085655

    Yu, V.F., Lin, S.-Y.: Solving the location-routing problem with simultaneous pickup and delivery by simulated annealing. International Journal of Production Research54(2), 526–549 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2015.1085655

    2016

  25. [35]

    European Journal of Operational Research185(2), 534–551 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.007

    Xiang, Z., Chu, C., Chen, H.: The study of a dynamic dial-a-ride problem under time-dependent and stochastic environments. European Journal of Operational Research185(2), 534–551 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.007

    2008 doi

  26. [36]

    Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems107(2), 29 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-022-01803-0

    Quinton, F., Grand, C., Lesire, C.: Market approaches to the multi-robot task allocation problem: a survey. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems107(2), 29 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-022-01803-0

    2023 doi

  27. [37]

    In: Proceedings 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems

    Thrun, S.: Learning occupancy grids with forward models. In: Proceedings 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Expanding the Societal Role of Robotics in the the Next Millennium (Cat. No. 01CH37180), vol. 3, pp. 1676–1681 (2001). https://doi...

    2001 doi

  28. [38]

    https://github.com/aws-robotics/ aws-robomaker-hospital-world Accessed 2023-05-24

    World, A.R.H.: Hospital World. https://github.com/aws-robotics/ aws-robomaker-hospital-world Accessed 2023-05-24

    2023

  29. [39]

    In: 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat

    Mei, Y., Lu, Y.-H., Hu, Y.C., Lee, C.G.: Determining the fleet size of mobile robots with energy constraints. In: 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566), vol. 2, pp. 1420–1425 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/IRO...

    2004 arXiv

  30. [40]

    IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics19(2), 401– 411 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2013.2241777

    Liu, S., Sun, D.: Minimizing energy consumption of wheeled mobile robots via optimal motion planning. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics19(2), 401– 411 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2013.2241777

    2014

  31. [41]

    Algorithms15(6), 198 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.3390/a15060198

    Luo, Y., Lu, J., Qin, Q., Liu, Y.: Improved jps path optimization for mobile robots based on angle-propagation theta* algorithm. Algorithms15(6), 198 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.3390/a15060198

    2022 doi

  32. [42]

    IEEE transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics4(2), 100–107 (1968) https://doi.org/10.1109/TSSC.1968.300136

    Hart, P.E., Nilsson, N.J., Raphael, B.: A formal basis for the heuristic deter- mination of minimum cost paths. IEEE transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics4(2), 100–107 (1968) https://doi.org/10.1109/TSSC.1968.300136

    1968

  33. [43]

    In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning and Fourth International Conference on Temporal Logic (2003)

    Lin, X., Choueiry, B.Y.: A new efficient algorithm for solving the simple tempo- ral problem. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning and Fourth International Conference on Temporal Logic (2003). Citeseer

    2003

  34. [44]

    In: ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software, vol

    Quigley, M., Conley, K., Gerkey, B., Faust, J., Foote, T., Leibs, J., Wheeler, R., Ng, A.Y.,et al.: Ros: an open-source robot operating sys- tem. In: ICRA Workshop on Open Source Software, vol. 3, p. 5 (2009). Kobe, Japan. http://lars.mec.ua.pt/public/LAR%20Projects/BinPicking...

    2009

  35. [45]

    In: 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat

    Koenig, N., Howard, A.: Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator. In: 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566), vol. 3, pp. 2149–2154 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2004.1389...

    2004 arXiv

  36. [46]

    Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems98, 455–479 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-019-01081-3

    Dai, W., Lu, H., Xiao, J., Zeng, Z., Zheng, Z.: Multi-robot dynamic task allocation for exploration and destruction. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems98, 455–479 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-019-01081-3

    2020 doi

  37. [47]

    partitioned fixed- priority and edf scheduling for hard real time

    Baker, T.P.: Comparison of empirical success rates of global vs. partitioned fixed- priority and edf scheduling for hard real time. Dept. of Computer Science, Florida State University, Tallahasee, Tech. Rep. TR-050601 (2005)

    2005

  38. [48]

    IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering11(1), 1202–1213 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSE.2023.3321605 35

    Huo, X., Zhang, H., Huang, C., Wang, Z., Yan, H.: Task allocation with minimum requirements for multiple mobile robot systems: A game-theoretical approach. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering11(1), 1202–1213 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSE.2023.3321605 35

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.