Subject:
|
Bump switches and "aggression"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:57:42 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Jim Choate <RAVAGE@EINSTEIN.SSZ.stopspammersCOM>
|
Viewed:
|
1517 times
|
| |
|
|
I mentioned a 'reference platform' for the H18 group I've been working on
in a previous post, and I'm curious if anyone will share their views on
how they view bump switches and 'behavior'. I'm not interested in a
debate but rather a 'collection'. I'm interested in hearing how people think
about it. Think of it as a survey of the current state of the art. I'm not
looking for private replies to this, please. This means please send your
responce to the list you recieved it from. Thanks.
To that end, I'll share my view.
I generaly use a bump switch on my bots, in fact several. I however do not
give them each a seperate channel. I tie them all to one input and use the
bump switch acctuation to initation a 'avoidance algorithm' since
something has interfered with the current trajectory of the bot. If it's
going forward, back up. If it's turning R then turn L. If it's moving
slow, perhaps increase speed.
The current approach I'm looking for is to model the 'fight or flight'
behavior and this seems like a prime candidate. I also see it as being
very compatible with subsumption architecture and nervous network
approaches, which I think is critical.
To my thinking there are two approaches to this, really too levels of
difficulty,
- Make it deterministic, in that if a switch is bumped invert your
current trajectory axis, if going forward then reverse, if going R
then go L.
- Make it more stochastic. The first choice when a bump switch goes off
is whether to stop, reverse your current trajectory, or select a random
trajectory.
I believe the second level provides a pretty good simulation to the 'fight
or flight' approach by extending it to cover 'camouflage' strategies which
are quite prevelant in biological systems. Take rabbits for example, they
are sensitive to ground vibration. They generaly have two strategies
(assuming they aren't in heat) freeze (ie stop) or run in a (semi-)random
direction (ie zig-zag). This higher level approach is the current best
candidate we have for the reference platform. It's also important to
recognize that the 'stop' behavior must include a watchdog timer or else
it becomes very boring behavior.
-- --
Open Forge, LLC 24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, & Game Consoles
512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.) help@open-forge.com irc.open-forge.com
Hangar 18 Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux
512-451-7087 http://open-forge.org/hangar18 irc.open-forge.org
James Choate 512-451-7087 ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Bump switches and "aggression"
|
| (...) How exactly, do you want to trigger this 'fight or flight'? It seems to me that a rabbit (for example) would use both of the methods above. If it's running along, and it's nose smacks into a tree (I mean bumps into a tree) the behavior is very (...) (21 years ago, 3-Dec-03, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Bump switches and "aggression"
|
| ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> To: <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> ... (...) think (...) ### I think this is an interesting question, relating to complexity and emergent and evolutionary behavior which has been (...) (21 years ago, 3-Dec-03, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
60 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
