arxiv: v1 [cs.ro] 7 Mar 2016

Transcription

1 Stochastc Collecton and Replenshment (SCAR): Objectve Functons Andrew W Palmer, Andrew J Hll and Steven J Schedng 1 arxv: v1 [cs.ro] 7 Mar 2016 Abstract Ths paper ntroduces two objectve functons for computng the expected cost n the Stochastc Collecton and Replenshment (SCAR) scenaro. In the SCAR scenaro, multple user agents have a lmted supply of a resource that they ether use or collect, dependng on the scenaro. To enable persstent autonomy, dedcated replenshment agents travel to the user agents and replensh or collect ther supply of the resource, thus allowng them to operate ndefntely n the feld. Of the two objectve functons, one uses a Monte Carlo method, whle the other uses a sgnfcantly faster analytcal method. Approxmatons to multplcaton, dvson and nverson of Gaussan dstrbuted varables are used to facltate propagaton of probablty dstrbutons n the analytcal method when Gaussan dstrbuted parameters are used. The analytcal objectve functon s shown to have greater than 99% comparson accuracy when compared wth the Monte Carlo objectve functon whle achevng speed gans of several orders of magntude. I. INTRODUCTION Resources such as fuel, battery charge and data storage space are a necessary component of autonomous systems. However, autonomous agents have a fnte capacty for these resources and thus at some pont wll requre the resource to be replenshed, partcularly when persstent autonomy s the goal. The ams of ths paper are to ntroduce the Stochastc Collecton and Replenshment (SCAR) scenaro, and to present and compare two SCAR objectve functons a Monte Carlo method and a faster analytcal method. The SCAR scenaro conssts of two nverse problems collecton and replenshment. Collecton refers to the case where user agents n the feld are collectng a resource such as data or physcal samples, whereas the replenshment case refers to agents usng a resource such as fuel or battery charge. In the collecton case, one or more collecton agents travel to the feld agents and retreve the resource that the user agents have gathered. In the replenshment case, the replenshment agents travel to the user agents and replensh the resources of the user agents. In both cases, the am of SCAR s to allow the user agents to contnue operatng wthout returnng to base. Several replenshment scenaros exst n the lterature aeral refuellng of a fleet of planes or Unmanned Aeral Ths work has been supported by the Ro Tnto Centre for Mne Automaton and the Australan Centre for Feld Robotcs, Unversty of Sydney, Australa. 1 The authors are wth the Australan Centre for Feld Robotcs, Unversty of Sydney, Australa. Emal addresses: {a.palmer;a.hll;s.schedng}@acfr.usyd.edu.au 2013 IEEE. Personal use of ths materal s permtted. Permsson from IEEE must be obtaned for all other uses, n any current or future meda, ncludng reprntng/republshng ths materal for advertsng or promotonal purposes, creatng new collectve works, for resale or redstrbuton to servers or lsts, or reuse of any copyrghted component of ths work n other works. Vehcles (UAVs) [1], [2], [3], [4], refuellng of a constellaton of satelltes [5], [6], and rechargng of UAVs usng Unmanned Ground Vehcles (UGVs) [7]. The man collecton scenaro n the lterature s the use of a data mule to collect data from a sensor feld [8], [9], [10]. The above scenaros are formulated as an NP-hard optmsaton problem, and the methods proposed for solvng them nclude heurstcs, smulated annealng, dynamc programmng, and branch and bound. The objectve functons generally revolve around mnmsng factors such as the total tme or tardness of the schedule, and the total fuel used or total dstance travelled by the replenshment agent. The above lterature have several lmtatons. Frstly, the replenshment agents are assumed to have suffcent capacty to fully fll all of the agents. However, when persstent autonomy s consdered, t s clear that the replenshment agents themselves wll have to be replenshed at some pont. Secondly, t s assumed that each user agent s replenshed only once. Agan, t s necessary to consder replenshng the user agents multple tmes when performng persstent tasks. Fnally, the agent parameters are treated as determnstc. In a practcal system, many parameters such as speed and usage rates are stochastc n nature. Dsregardng ths uncertanty can lead to selecton of suboptmal schedules from a rsk pont of vew [11]. The SCAR scenaro ams to address the above lmtatons by ncorporatng replenshment of the replenshment agent, multple replenshments of the user agents, and uncertanty n the agent parameters. An open ssue n optmsaton of stochastc systems s estmaton of the expected cost. A popular approach n the lterature for calculatng an expected cost has been scenaro-based methods such as Monte Carlo smulaton [12], [13]. Ths s smple to mplement, but can be computatonally expensve. Gaussan quadrature ntegraton was used n [14] to generate an expected cost, whle other authors have attempted to transform the stochastc problem nto a determnstc problem usng chance constrants [15] or conservatve estmates of the uncertan parameters [16]. The man contrbuton of ths paper s the formulaton of two methods for calculatng the expected cost n a SCAR scenaro. The frst s a Monte Carlo method that uses parameter values sampled from probablty dstrbutons to estmate an expected cost, whle the second s an analytcal soluton that ncorporates the entre probablty dstrbuton. The SCAR problem s frstly defned n Secton II, and mathematcal models of the SCAR scenaro are developed n Secton III. A determnstc model s developed for use n the Monte Carlo method, and a stochastc model for use n the analytcal method. These methods are vald for any

2 probablty dstrbuton, and are compared n ths paper usng Gaussan dstrbuted varables. Secton IV ntroduces a number of approxmaton methods for workng wth Gaussan dstrbuted varables, ncludng a new approxmaton to the Inverse Gaussan Dstrbuton. A computatonal study of the objectve functons s undertaken n Secton V, followed by some concludng remarks n Secton VI. II. PROBLEM DEFINITION In the SCAR scenaro there are multple user agents, whch have a lmted capacty of a resource. In the replenshment problem, the user agents use the resource over tme, whle one or more replenshment agents travel around replenshng the supples of the user agents. To replensh a user agent, the replenshment agent must travel to the user agent, setup before begnnng replenshment, replensh the user agent, and then packup before t can travel to the next user agent. The user agent may contnue to use the resource whle beng replenshed. The nverse problem of the user agents collectng the resource s dentcal except for the drecton of the resource flow. The replenshment agents also have a lmted capacty of the resource and must perodcally travel to a replenshment pont to be replenshed. The fleet of user agents s heterogeneous, as s the fleet of replenshment agents. The parameters of the agents such as usage rate, replenshment rate, speed, setup and packup tme are stochastc. The user agents may be postoned apart from one another, and the moton of all agents may be constraned by roads or obstacles. Both user and replenshment agents can be replenshed multple tmes n a sngle schedule. Any user agent can be replenshed by at most one replenshment agent at any tme, and any replenshment agent can only servce at most one user agent at any tme. Preempton s not consdered;.e. once a replenshment agent has begun replenshng a user agent, t must contnue untl ether the user agent s fully replenshed or the replenshment agent has exhausted ts supply of the resource. User agents operate n ther own small operatonal areas such that they are unable to reach the replenshment pont. As the dstances travelled by the replenshment agent are sgnfcantly larger than the sze of these operatonal areas, any varatons n the travel tmes of the replenshment agent due to the movements of the user agents can be accounted for n the uncertanty of the setup and packup tmes of the replenshment agent. The consequence of a user agent runnng out of the resource may be ether catastrophc (for example, the loss of the agent) whch corresponds to a hard deadlne, or noncatastrophc whch corresponds to a soft deadlne. A cost s ncurred f the deadlne s not met. A hard deadlne ncurs a step cost, whle a soft deadlne yelds a lnearly ncreasng cost. A sngle replenshment agent scenaro wth soft deadlnes for the user agents has been assumed for ths paper. III. MODEL FORMULATION Ths secton presents a mathematcal model for both the determnstc and stochastc sngle replenshment agent problems. The mathematcs for the collecton problem s dentcal f the resource consdered s the free space remanng nstead of the actual resource collected. A. Parameters Each user agent,, has the followng parameters: u,max s the resource capacty u s the current resource level r s the resource usage rate The replenshment agent, a, has the followng parameters: u a,max s the resource capacty u a s the current resource level f a s the resource replenshment rate nto the user agent t s,a s the setup tme t p,a s the packup tme v a s the velocty The replenshment pont, r, has the followng parameters: t s,r s the setup tme t p,r s the packup tme f r s the resource replenshment rate nto the replenshment agent The dstance between the replenshment agent and a user agent s denoted d a, and the dstance between the replenshment agent and the replenshment pont s denoted d a,r. In the followng equatons, an upper-case varable denotes a probablty dstrbuton. Unts do not matter as long as they are consstent. B. Determnstc Equatons The cost, c, of a schedule when usng a soft deadlne s a rato between 0 and 1 whch ndcates what proporton of tme the agents are empty. A value of 0 means that none of the user agents were empty at any pont durng the schedule, whle a value of 1 means that all of the user agents were empty for the entre tme requred to complete the schedule. A schedule denotes a seres of tasks for the replenshment agents n the order to be executed. There are two possble task types replenshng a user agent, or replenshng the replenshment agent. The frst nvolves the replenshment agent travellng to the user agent, whle the second requres the replenshment agent to travel to the replenshment pont. An example schedule for a sngle-replenshment agent, fouruser agent system mght be [0, 2, r, 3, 1]. In ths schedule, the replenshment agent would replensh user agents 0 and 2 before vstng the replenshment ste, and would then replensh user agents 3 and 1. Each tme a user agent s replenshed, the tme that t was empty up untl that pont must be calculated. For each task replenshng a user agent, the tme empty n a segment, t segment,, can be calculated as: where t segment, = max(0, t b, t e, )

3 t b, s the tme at whch the replenshment agent began replenshng user agent, t e, s the tme when user agent,, wll fully deplete ts resources Once the schedule has been executed, the tme empty for each user agent must be calculated based on when t was last replenshed. So for each user agent, the tme empty at the end of the schedule, t end, s: t end, = max(0, t max t e, ) where t max s the tme that the schedule wll fnsh beng executed. For a soft deadlne, the cost of the schedule s then defned as: n n t segment, + c = =0 =0 t end, nt max (1) where n s the total number of user agents. The nt max term normalses the cost such that 0 c 1. A hard deadlne would be represented by a cost proportonal to the number of user agents that ran out of the resource. For each user agent, the tme tll empty can be calculated as: t e, = u r (2) In most cases, u = u,max. However, f the replenshment agent dd not have suffcent resources to completely replensh the user agent prevously, then u wll be lower than u,max. The tme untl a user agent s replenshed depends on when the replenshment agent last fnshed servcng a user agent. Let t f, be the tme that the replenshment agent has fnshed replenshng user agent, has packed up and s ready to travel to the locaton of the next task. Then the tme that user agent + 1 s replenshed, t b,+1, wll depend on t f, : t b,+1 = t f, + d a, v a + t s,a (3) Then t f,+1 can be calculated as: t f,+1 = t b,+1 + t r,+1 + t p,a (4) t r, s the tme that t takes to replensh user agent and depends on the current resource level, the resource usage rate and the replenshment rate: t r, = u,max u f a + t r,r f a = u,max u f a r However, f the replenshment agent does not have suffcent resources to fully replensh the user agent, then the tme to replensh the user agent wll be dependent on the resource level of the replenshment agent: u t1 t r, = mn( u a f a, u,max u f a r ) (5) The resource level n user agent,, after beng replenshed,, wll be: u t1 = mn(u,max, u t0 + t r, (f a r )) where u t0 s the resource level before beng replenshed. The resource level n the replenshment agent wll then be: u t1 a = max(0, u t0 a t r, f a ) For an r task, the total tme t f,a wll nclude the travel tme to the replenshment ste, setup and packup tmes of the replenshment ste, and the tme to replensh the replenshment agent: t f,a = t f, + d a,r v a C. Stochastc Equatons + t s,r + u a,max u a f r + t p,r (6) As noted prevously, a number of the parameters of the system are stochastc n practce, and a determnstc cost calculaton does not capture the nherent rsk of a partcular schedule. Usng just the expected values of the parameters, the cost for two dfferent schedules may be zero. Once uncertanty s taken nto account, one schedule could be found to be more rsky than the other. The uncertanty can be ncorporated by calculatng an expected cost usng the probablty dstrbutons of the parameters. The most straght-forward method to do ths s a Monte Carlo cost analyss where the determnstc cost calculaton s run multple tmes usng values sampled from the probablty dstrbutons. The qualty of the cost estmate wll mprove on average as more samples are used. However, usng a large number of samples has a sgnfcant mpact on computaton tme when runnng a schedule optmsaton. A faster method of calculatng the expected cost s to explctly calculate the probablty dstrbuton for the tme empty at each step of the schedule and calculate the expected cost from these probablty dstrbutons. The tme that the user agent s empty s gven by: T segment, = T b, T e, As the tme empty can only be 0, the expected value of the tme empty s gven by: E[T segment, ] = 0 xp(t segment, ) dx (7) where p(t segment, ) denotes the probablty densty functon of T segment,. Smlarly at the end of the schedule: T end, = T max T e, E[T end, ] = 0 xp(t end, ) dx Therefore the expected cost of the schedule for a soft deadlne s: n n E[T segment, ] + E[T end, ] E[C] = =0 ne[t max ] =0 where E[T max ] s gven by the mean value of the dstrbuton p(t max ). For a hard deadlne, the cost would reflect the (8)

4 probablty of the user agents runnng empty rather than the total tme that they are empty. Most of the followng equatons are smlar to the determnstc equatons from Secton III-B, usng probablty dstrbutons rather than explct values. Equaton (2) becomes: Equaton (3) becomes: T e, = U R T b,+1 = T f, + d a, V a + T s,a Let T m,+1 be the tme that the user agent s fnshed beng replenshed: T m,+1 = T b,+1 + T r,+1 (9) Usng (9), (4) becomes: T f,+1 = T m,+1 + T p,a (10) Equaton (5) cannot be smply modfed lke the prevous equatons as takng the mnmum between two probablty dstrbutons would lead to a dscontnuous probablty dstrbuton. Therefore, a seres of steps are requred to calculate the tme that t takes to replensh the user agent. Frstly, calculate the resource level of the user agent at tme T t1 b, : U t1 = U t0 R (T t1 b, T t0 m, ) where T t0 m, s the tme that the prevous replenshment of the user agent was fnshed at. Dependng on the choce of probablty dstrbuton, some of the dstrbuton wll extend nto the negatve part of the doman. However, a negatve level of resource does not make sense, so steps should be taken to mnmse the probablty of a negatve value. Smlarly, a resource level greater than the maxmum resource level s mpossble and should be accounted for. Secton IV-E dscusses a possble adjustment technque. A # wll be used to denote varables that have been adjusted to match the physcal constrants. The next step s to calculate the tme t wll take for the replenshment agent to replensh the user agent assumng that the replenshment agent has suffcent resource levels to acheve ths, T r, : T r, = u,max U t1# F a R Takng nto account the quantty of resource used by the user agent durng the replenshment, the amount of resource to be replenshed, Q, s gven by: Q = u,max U t1# + T r, R However, the replenshment agent may not have suffcent resources to fully replensh the user agent, so Q must be adjusted aganst U a. The actual replenshment tme can then be calculated as: T r, = Q# F a The resource level of the user agent after beng replenshed, U t2, s gven after adjustment aganst u,max by: U t2 = (U t1# + U a T r, R ) # U a s used nstead of T r, F a to ensure that the adjusted dstrbuton has an approprate shape. The resource level of the replenshment agent s then gven by: U t2 a Fnally, (6) becomes: T f,a = T f, + d a,r V a = (U t1 a Q # )# + T s,r + u a,max U a F r + T p,r (11) IV. APPROXIMATION METHODS It s assumed that the stochastc parameters can be descrbed by ndependent probablty dstrbutons. Whle any probablty dstrbuton s vald, n ths paper the parameters have been modelled wth Gaussan dstrbutons as these are relatvely easy to work wth. Addtons and subtractons of Gaussan dstrbuted varables result n a Gaussan dstrbuton, whereas other operatons such as dvson, multplcaton and nverson result n non-gaussan dstrbutons. To facltate the propagaton of the dstrbutons throughout the objectve functon, t s convenent to approxmate the non-gaussan dstrbutons as Gaussan dstrbutons. The followng subsectons dscuss these approxmaton methods. It should be noted that the probablty dstrbutons for quanttes such as the tme that the user agent was last replenshed at and the tme taken to replensh the user agent are not ndependent and there wll be some covarance between them. However, for ths paper the covarance between all calculated dstrbutons has been assumed to be zero. It wll be demonstrated later n ths paper that these are acceptable approxmatons and assumptons. A. Inverse Gaussan Dstrbuton An approxmaton of the probablty dstrbuton resultng from the nverse of a Gaussan dstrbuted varable was not found n the examned lterature. Therefore, an approxmaton was formulated through a numercal study. Consder: I = c G where I s an nverse Gaussan dstrbuted varable, G s a Gaussan dstrbuted varable descrbed by mean, µ G, and standard devaton, σ G, and c s a constant. The dstrbuton of I s then approxmately descrbed by a Gaussan dstrbuton wth mean, µ I, and standard devaton, σ I, where: µ I = C σ I = σ GC µ G µ 2 (12) G Fg. 1 shows the nverse Gaussan dstrbuton, the resultant approxmaton and the resdual error between the two dstrbutons for an ntal µ G /σ G rato of 20. The Kullback-Lebler (KL) Dvergence [17] for varous ratos s shown n Fg. 2. The KL Dvergence s a measure of the dfference between two dstrbutons, and as t nears 0, the approxmaton approaches the actual dstrbuton. Fg. 2

5 Gaussan dstrbuton and can be approxmated as per secton IV-A. For stuatons where a 2.5, the nverse Gaussan approxmaton method s used wth E treated as a constant, e = µ E. Fg. 1. Inverse Gaussan Dstrbuton and Approxmaton for µ G /σ G = 20 C. Gaussan Product Dstrbuton An approxmaton to the product of two Gaussan dstrbuted varables s presented n [19]. For a Gaussan product dstrbuton, M: M = EF Then: where µ M = µ E µ F (15) σ 2 M = σ 2 Eσ 2 F (1 + δ 2 E + δ 2 F ) (16) δ x = µ x σ x The authors note that the approxmaton mproves as δ E and δ F become large. Fg. 2. KL Dvergence for the Inverse Gaussan Approxmaton shows that the approxmaton mproves as the µ G /σ G rato ncreases. B. Gaussan Rato Dstrbuton A method for approxmatng a rato of Gaussan dstrbuted varables s gven n [18]. A rato dstrbuton, R: R = E F wth µ E, σ E, µ F, σ F and ρ = 0 can be approxmated wth a Gaussan dstrbuton where: σ R = 1 r r = σ F, a = µ E and b = µ F σ E σ E σ F a µ R = r(1.01b ) (13) a b b r2 µ 2 R (14) Ths approxmaton s only vald for a < 2.5, b > 4 [18]. As a, the rato dstrbuton approaches the nverse D. Expected Value Equaton (7) gves the expected tme empty for part of a schedule. Assumng the expected tme empty s a Gaussan dstrbuton wth µ and σ, ths becomes: E[G] = 0 x σ 2π e (x µ) 2σ 2 Solvng the defnte ntegral gves: 2 dx E[G] = µ 2 (1 + erf( µ σ 2 )) + σ e µ2 2σ 2 (17) 2π where erf s the Gauss error functon. E. Adjustng Dstrbutons Gaussan dstrbutons have a doman of (, ), and therefore there s some probablty that a sampled value wll be outsde the physcal lmts. When consderng quanttes such as resource level for example, a negatve value s not physcally possble. Smlarly, the maxmum value s constraned by the capacty of the agent. A smple method was devsed that shfts the mean and adjusts the standard devaton such that the majorty of the dstrbuton s wthn the logcal bounds. If the dstrbuton s wthn 3 standard devatons of 0, then: µ # s calculated usng (17) σ # = µ # /3 By keepng the mean 3 standard devatons away from 0, the probablty of a negatve value s 0.13%. As an example, consder a future resource level whch has been calculated as µ = 2 and σ = 10. As shown by the shaded secton n Fg. 3, 42.07% of the probablty currently les n the postve doman. The expected postve value of ths dstrbuton s calculated usng (17) as Therefore, the adjusted parameters are: µ # = and σ # = µ # /3 = 1.023

6 Fg. 3. Orgnal and Adjusted Dstrbutons The adjusted dstrbuton s shown n Fg. 3. As the ntal dstrbuton moves further nto the negatve part of the doman, the adjusted values wll both approach 0. The followng steps should be used to adjust aganst the maxmum level of the resource: Subtract the resource level from the maxmum resource level Perform the adjustment on the resultant dstrbuton Subtract the adjusted dstrbuton from the maxmum resource level Note that ths s just one possble method for adjustng the dstrbuton. Usng other dstrbutons such as the Gamma dstrbuton whch does not go below 0 may provde a better approxmaton. However, the dffculty of workng wth both Gaussan and non-gaussan dstrbutons then arses. V. COMPUTATIONAL STUDY To test the relatve performance of the objectve functons, a Monte Carlo analyss was performed. For each randomly generated schedule, the expected cost was calculated usng both a Monte Carlo approach wth the equatons detaled n Secton III-B, and an analytcal approach usng the equatons detaled n Secton III-C combned wth the approxmaton methods detaled n Secton IV. Each Monte Carlo cost was calculated usng 1000 samples from each of the parameter s probablty dstrbutons as a compromse between accuracy and computaton tme. Ths trade-off s shown n Fg. 4. The scenaro conssted of a sngle replenshment agent, a homogeneous set of 6 user agents wth soft deadlnes, and a sngle replenshment pont. The dstances between the user agents and the replenshment pont are shown n Fg. 5. The replenshment agent starts at the replenshment pont. The parameters of the agents and the replenshment pont are detaled n Tables I, II and III. A random selecton of 90,000 schedules of between 5 and 10 tasks was generated wth the only lmtaton beng that consecutve tasks could not be the same. A schedule Fg. 4. Average absolute error versus Monte Carlo samples. Calculaton tme shown as a gude sample pont marked. Fg. 5. Layout showng the locaton of the Replenshment Pont (RP) and User Agents of [0,1,0,1,2] would be vald, whle a schedule of [0,0,1,1,2] would not. The sample of 90,000 schedules represents around 0.1% of the possble schedules, and ths number was chosen to lmt the run tme of the Monte Carlo analyss. One thrd of the schedules were run wth all agents startng at empty, one thrd wth all agents startng at half capacty, and the fnal thrd wth all agents startng at full capacty. Fg. 6 shows that the analytcal objectve functon provdes a close approxmaton to the Monte Carlo generated cost. A lnear trend lne was ftted to the data wth an equaton of y = x and an R 2 value of (an R 2 value close to 1 ndcates a good ft). For each of the ntal condtons, the mean and standard devaton of the analytcal costs mnus the Monte Carlo costs s gven n Table IV. Fg. 7 shows the dfferences plotted aganst the Monte Carlo cost. The error generally decreases as the cost approaches 1. Some of ths error can TABLE I REPLENISHMENT AGENT PARAMETERS Parameter Mean Standard Devaton u max (unts) F (unts/s) T s (s) T p (s) 20 5 V (m/s)

7 TABLE II USER AGENT PARAMETERS Parameter Mean Standard Devaton u max (unts) R (unts/s) TABLE III REPLENISHMENT POINT PARAMETERS Parameter Mean Standard Devaton T s (s) T p (s) 10 1 F (unts/s) 20 1 be attrbuted to the use of only 1000 teratons for the Monte Carlo cost functon. As shown n Fg. 4, ths error s on average around The rest of the error s lkely due to the approxmatons and assumptons from Secton IV that were used to calculate the analytcal cost. For example, the assumpton that the probablty dstrbutons are ndependent s not necessarly vald. However, based on these results, the effects are arguably neglgble. Whle these measures show the consstency between the two methods, the prmary role of the objectve functon s to dscrmnate between good and bad schedules. To test the accuracy of the analytcal objectve functon, over 5 bllon comparsons were made between schedules. For two schedules A and B, a correct result s recorded f both the Monte Carlo method and analytcal method agree on whch of A and B s better. Comparsons where the Monte Carlo cost for A and B were both equal to 0 were not ncluded as the analytcal method wll return a very small but non-zero number for these schedules. The comparsons were run on the results from each set of ntal condtons ndvdually as well as on the entre set of results. The results of these comparsons are gven n Table V. Fg. 7. Analytcal Cost mnus Monte Carlo Cost versus Monte Carlo Cost for 6 User Agents The weghted average accuracy usng the ndvdual results s 99.00%. The accuracy when the ntal condtons are full s lower than for the other ntal condtons. Table VI shows that the mean dfference n cost between schedules for the ncorrect comparsons s very small n comparson to the overall mean dfference for the full ntal condtons. Whle t sn t 100% accurate, for the cases n whch t produces ncorrect results the cost dfferences are possbly small enough that the schedules could be consdered effectvely dentcal. If all of the ntal condtons are consdered together, the accuracy s 99.66%. Ths s a slghtly unfar comparson as the ntal condtons sgnfcantly nfluence the cost. However, the result hghlghts the dscrmnaton accuracy of the method, n partcular for cases of more extreme cost varaton. A smlar study was performed on a larger scenaro nvolvng a heterogeneous set of 20 user agents and schedule lengths of between 16 and 20 tasks. Table VII shows the error TABLE IV ANALYTICAL COST MINUS MONTE CARLO COST FOR 6 USER AGENTS Intal Mean Standard Condtons ( 10 3 ) Devaton ( 10 3 ) Empty Half full Full TABLE V COMPARISON ACCURACY FOR 6 USER AGENTS Fg. 6. Analytcal Cost versus Monte Carlo Cost Intal Number of Correct Condtons Comparsons Empty % Half full % Full % All %

8 TABLE VI MEAN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOLUTIONS FOR FULL INITIAL CONDITIONS Monte Carlo Analytcal ( 10 3 ) ( 10 3 ) All comparsons Incorrect comparsons between the analytcal cost and Monte Carlo cost. Wth the ncreased number of user agents and tasks, the mean error has ncreased slghtly whle the standard devaton has overall decreased. Table VIII shows that the comparson accuracy for the empty, half full and full cases has decreased by at most 0.81%. The weghted average accuracy s 98.8%, whle the overall accuracy has not changed from 99.66%. The man advantage of the analytcal objectve functon s the computaton tme. Compared to the Monte Carlo method, the analytcal method can be several orders of magntude faster. Usng a schedule wth 10 tasks as an example, the Monte Carlo method usng 1000 samples took 665ms to calculate the cost, whle the analytcal method took only 2ms. These tmes were calculated usng the same hardware and both methods were mplemented n Python by the same programmer. VI. CONCLUSIONS Ths paper ntroduced a framework for the SCAR scenaro. Methods for approxmatng Gaussan probablty dstrbutons were dscussed and a new method of approxmatng the nverse Gaussan dstrbuton was presented. These were used to quckly calculate an analytcal expected cost of a schedule. A computatonal study between the analytcal objectve functon and a Monte Carlo generated expected cost showed that the analytcal objectve functon was over TABLE VII ANALYTICAL COST MINUS MONTE CARLO COST FOR 20 USER AGENTS Intal Mean Standard Condtons ( 10 3 ) Devaton ( 10 3 ) Empty Half full Full TABLE VIII COMPARISON ACCURACY FOR 20 USER AGENTS Intal Number of Correct Condtons Comparsons Empty % Half full % Full % All % 99% accurate whle computng several orders of magntude faster n comparson to the Monte Carlo method. In future research, the new objectve functon wll be used n conjuncton wth combnatoral optmsaton technques such as smulated annealng and branch and bound to mprove the qualty of results and speed of computaton. Future work could nclude accountng for the covarance between dstrbutons and performng a senstvty analyss on the analytcal method. Possble extensons to ths work nclude usng and collectng multple resources such as fuel and data at the same tme, movng the operatonal areas of the user agents at uncertan rates, and consderng multple replenshment agents. REFERENCES [1] Z. Jn, T. Shma, and C. Schumacher, Optmal schedulng for refuelng multple autonomous aeral vehcles, IEEE Transactons on Robotcs, vol. 22, no. 4, pp , Aug [2], Schedulng and sequence reshuffle for autonomous aeral refuelng of multple UAVs, 2006 Amercan Control Conference, p. 6 pp., [3] S. Kaplan and G. Rabad, Exact and heurstc algorthms for the aeral refuelng parallel machne schedulng problem wth due dateto-deadlne wndow and ready tmes, Computers & Industral Engneerng, vol. 62, no. 1, pp , Feb [4], Smulated annealng and metaheurstc for randomzed prorty search algorthms for the aeral refuellng parallel machne schedulng problem wth due date-to-deadlne wndows and release tmes, Engneerng Optmzaton, vol. 45, no. 1, pp , [5] H. Shen and P. Tsotras, Optmal Schedulng for Servcng Multple Satelltes, n AIAA/AAS Astrodynamcs Specalsts Conference, 2002, pp [6] P. Tsotras and A. De Nally, A Comparson Between Peer-to-Peer and Sngle-Spacecraft Refuelng Strateges, n Infotech at Aerospace, Crystal Cty, Dstrct of Columba, [7] N. Mathew, S. Smth, and S. Waslander, A graph-based approach to mult-robot rendezvous for rechargng n persstent tasks, n IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotcs and Automaton, 2013, pp [8] O. Tekdas and V. Isler, Usng moble robots to harvest data from sensor felds, Wreless Communcatons, IEEE, vol. 16, no. 1, pp , [9] D. Bhadaura, O. Tekdas, and V. Isler, Robotc data mules for collectng data over sparse sensor felds, Journal of Feld Robotcs, vol. 28, no. 3, pp , [10] O. Tekdas, D. Bhadaura, and V. Isler, Effcent data collecton from wreless nodes under the two-rng communcaton model, The Internatonal Journal of Robotcs Research, vol. 31, no. 6, pp , Mar [11] S. Kundersma, R. Grupen, and A. Barto, Varatonal Bayesan optmzaton for runtme rsksenstve control, Robotcs: Scence and Systems, [12] M. Bassett, J. Pekny, and G. Reklats, Usng detaled schedulng to obtan realstc operatng polces for a batch processng faclty, Industral Engneerng and Chemcal Research, vol. 36, pp , [13] X. Ln, S. L. Janak, and C. a. Floudas, A new robust optmzaton approach for schedulng under uncertanty:, Computers & Chemcal Engneerng, vol. 28, no. 6-7, pp , Jun [14] M. G. Ierapetrtou and E. N. Pstkopoulos, Global optmzaton for stochastc plannng, schedulng and desgn problems, n Global Optmzaton n Engneerng Desgn, 1996, pp [15] S. Orçun, I. K. Altnel, and O. Hortaçsu, Schedulng of batch processes wth operatonal uncertantes, Computers & chemcal engneerng, vol. 20, no. 96, pp. 2 7, 1996.

9 [16] D. Bertsmas and M. Sm, Robust dscrete optmzaton and network flows, Mathematcal Programmng, vol. 98, no. 1-3, pp , Sep [17] S. Kullback and R. Lebler, On nformaton and suffcency, The Annals of Mathematcal Statstcs, [18] G. Marsagla, Ratos of normal varables, Journal of Statstcal Software, vol. 16, no. 4, [19] R. Ware and F. Lad, Approxmatng the dstrbuton for sums of products of normal varables, The Unversty of Queensland, Tech. Rep. 1978, 2003.