# Proposal of an Automated Mission Manager for Cooperative Autonomous Underwater Vehicles
## 6 Results
### Starting a Mission  
From the MTRR perspective, the start of a mission begins when it receives a new mission plan from the MMT. When this happens, the MTRR performs the activities described in Section 4.1. For debugging purposes, the MTRR also recorded logs of the mission plan that just consisted of parsing the mission and logging it into a log file for further verification. The time registered for each sub-activity, as well as the total time required for the starting mission activity, is shown in Table 4. The time for parsing the actions assigned to each vehicle in the mission plan and to publish the first assigned action for each one is included as \(t_{\mathit{pub}_{\mathit{action}}}\). The time for validating the mission plan, (re)loading the MTRR configuration, and checking if there are AUVs in the mission is included as \(t_{\mathit{other}}\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Mission** & **Start Time** & \begin{tabular}{c} **High Level** \\ **Actions** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Low Level** \\ **Actions** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Total** \\ **Actions** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Assigned Vehicles (Codename)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Type of** \\ **Mission** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
34 & 13:41:14 & 3 & 16 & 19 & MAROB & Real \\
35 & 14:44:52 & 3 & 16 & 19 & MAROB & Real \\
36 & 15:11:33 & 12 & 50 & 62 & NTNU, PORTO1, PORTO2, MAROB & Real \\
37 & 10:36:45 & 3 & 8 & 11 & MAROB & Real \\
38 & 10:59:09 & 12 & 0 & 12 & NTNU, PORTO1, PORTO2, MAROB & Real \\
39 & 11:15:00 & 12 & 0 & 12 & NTNU, PORTO1, PORTO2, MAROB & Real \\
40 & 11:36:15 & 3 & 8 & 11 & MAROB & Real \\
41 & 11:38:50 & 3 & 8 & 11 & MAROB & Real \\
42 & 11:55:27 & 12 & 0 & 12 & NTNU, PORTO1, PORTO2, MAROB & Real \\
43 & 12:11:50 & 12 & 0 & 12 & NTNU, PORTO1, PORTO2, MAROB & Real \\
44 & 14:17:02 & 3 & 8 & 11 & MAROB & Real \\
45 & 14:36:24 & 12 & 0 & 12 & NTNU, PORTO1, PORTO2, MAROB & Real \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._  
The graph depicted in Figure 26 seems to suggest a possible correlation between the mission plan length (\(l_{plan}\)) and the time required to start it (\(t_{startMission}\)). Figure 27 represents a scatterplot for the relationship between both. The scatterplot also suggests a definite positive correlation between \(l_{plan}\) and \(t_{startMission}\). However, as shown in Figure 28, both sets of data do not seem to follow a normal distribution. Figure 28: **(a)** Boxplot for the Mission Plan Length (\(l_{plan}\)). The median is completely displaced to the lower quartile, and there are also a couple of outliers; **(b)** boxplot for the time required to start a mission (\(t_{startMission}\)). Figure 27: Relation between the length of the mission plan and the time required to start it. In the first case, we can see that the whiskers for \(l_{plan}\) are of approximate equal length. But the median is too close to the lower quartile, and we also have a couple of outliers. In the second case, for \(t_{startMission}\), we can see that the distance between the lower quartile and the lower whisker is shorter than the upper one, and the median is also displaced from the center. Therefore, a Spearman's correlation was run, instead of Pearson's, to determine the relationship between the 45 mission plan lengths and the total time required for starting each mission. As a result, we have ascertained that there is a strong positive monotonic correlation between these two values (\(\rho_{s}=0.79,\ n=45,\ p<0.001\)). To better understand the contribution of each sub-activity to the total time required for starting a mission, Figure 29 shows the Pareto chart with the average distribution of time for each sub-activity.