# Workshop on Robot Competitions

David Obdržálek, Richard Balogh, Artur Lugmayr

► To cite this version:

David Obdržálek, Richard Balogh, Artur Lugmayr. Workshop on Robot Competitions. Esteban Clua; Licinio Roque; Artur Lugmayr; Pauliina Tuomi. 17th International Conference on Entertainment Computing (ICEC), Sep 2018, Poznan, Poland. Springer International Publishing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, LNCS-11112, pp.324-326, 2018, Entertainment Computing – ICEC 2018. 10.1007/978-3-319-99426-0_38. http-02128635

HAL Id: hal-02128635

https://inria.hal.science/hal-02128635

Submitted on 14 May 2019

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Workshop on Robot Competitions

David Obdržálek¹, Richard Balogh², and Artur Lugmayr³

¹ Charles University, Czech Republic
[david.obdrzalek@mff.cuni.cz](mailto:david.obdrzalek@mff.cuni.cz)

² Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava,
[richard.balogh@stuba.sk](mailto:richard.balogh@stuba.sk)

³ Curtin University, Australia
[artur.lugmayr@curtin.edu.au](mailto:artur.lugmayr@curtin.edu.au)

**Abstract.** Robot competitions are more and more used as a tool for education as well as an entertainment activity. This workshop brings together organizers, participants, teachers, and other people interested to share best practices, discuss issues and possibly improve their work.

**Keywords:** Robot competition · Entertainment robotics · Educational robotics.

## 1 Introduction

Robot competitions are existing already for more than 40 years [4]. Currently, dozens of competitions are organized every month around the world and are well respected for their help in education and research (see e.g. [1,2,3,4,5,6]). However, except of a few well-known like RoboCup or FLL, most of them are local and the organizers are not cooperating or exchanging experience.

For more than 40 years [4] to now, dozens of robotics competitions are running each month all around the world.

At the early beginnings, the main task was just to construct a robot. Today, massive data processing from sensors is required and very complex and sophisticated algorithms for robot decisions are involved [2].

Irreplaceable role of the competitions is in promotion and motivation for STEM areas of the study. Student competitions motivate students to produce the best possible design and therefore force them to learn and utilize all the necessary tools and techniques required to achieve a good performance [6]. Students are learning by doing, they immediately see the importance of some theoretical lectures, and can see the results of their effort. Moreover they often work in teams, besides the technical side of the project they learn how to manage resources, time and energy.

To mention both sides of the coin, it is an expensive method of teaching and consumes much more student's, and teacher's time. More consultations are required and the teacher should be gifted by some manager skills. There is also a principal problem of each competition – there is just one winner and several
losers. Some education psychologists point out that competitions are therefore
harmful to many students' self-esteem [6].

Increasing role of the robot competitions is to support the research and bench-
marking. Typically, the research results are reported for a specific robotic system
and a self-chosen set of tasks performed in the laboratory of its authors. Quite
common technique used is "proof by video", showing the robotic system work-
ing once and not showing its problems and alternative scenarios during the less
controlled conditions. But when carefully prepared, competitions can also be
considered as benchmarks for objective performance assessment [1]. It is possi-
ble to make them more scientifically grounded and thus more suitable for the
objective benchmarking. To achieve this, standardization is one of the require-
ments. As one of the successful examples we can mention the AAAI Mobile
Robot Competition where the competition platform for the Urban Search and
Rescue task was provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) [5].

In order to move the research borders even faster, some competitions organ-
izers require to share the technical information about the winning systems. The
teams are required to release a detailed technical description after the competi-
tion. It is even more useful, when the competition is accompanied by technical
conference, where the underlying methods are discussed [3].

Let us summarize some of the benefits of the robotics competitions [2]:

- they promote interest in robotic studies and research among students,

- they help to compare scientific results, and exchange experiences,

- they establish new contacts between students, schools and industrial com-
panies,

- ideas are often applied also in ‘useful’ projects,

- they serve as a very good educational tool, widening students’ knowledge.

- Last but not least, competitions create media interest and may even generate additional funds from external sources [4].

2 Workshop Description

2.1 Objectives

The main objectives of this workshop are to gather organizers of different robot
competition events, competition participants, teachers, and other interested peo-
ple from various environments to:

- foster establishing of a network of organizers and their events to support participants exchanges and to motivate them to attend also other than local events,

- connect the workshop participants to share best practices, discuss issues and possibly improve their work.
References

1. Amigoni, F., Bonarini, A., Fontana, G., Matteucci, M., Schiaffonati, V.: Benchmarking through competitions. In: European Robotics Forum–Workshop on Robot Competitions: Benchmarking, Technology Transfer, and Education. vol. 604 (2013)

2. Balogh, R.: A survey of robotic competitions. I am a robot – competitor. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 2(2), 144–160 (2005), http://intechweb.org/volume.php?issn=1729-8806&v=2&n=2

3. Behnke, S.: Robot competitions-ideal benchmarks for robotics research. In: Proc. of IROS-2006 Workshop on Benchmarks in Robotics Research. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (2006)

4. Braunl, T.: Research relevance of mobile robot competitions. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 6(4), 32–37 (1999)

5. Casper, J., Micire, M., Hyams, J., Murphy, R.: A case study of how mobile robot competitions promote future research. In: Robot Soccer World Cup. pp. 123–132. Springer (2001)

6. Manseur, R.: Hardware competitions in engineering education. In: Frontiers in Education Conference, 2000. FIE 2000. 30th Annual. vol. 2, pp. F3C–5. IEEE (2000)