As complex autonomous robotic systems become more widespread, the goals of transparent and reusable Artificial Intelligence (AI) become more important . In this paper we analyse how the principles behind Behavior Trees (BTs), an increasingly popular tree-structured control architecture, are applicable to these goals. Using structured programming as a guide, we analyse the BT principles of reactiveness and modularity in a formal framework of action selection. Proceeding from these principles, we review a number of challenging use-cases of BTs in the literature, and show that reasoning via these principles leads to compatible solutions. Extending these arguments, we introduce a new class of control architectures we call generalised BTs or k-BTs and show how they can extend the applicability of BTs to some of the aforementioned challenging BT use-cases while preserving the BT principles . We compare BTs to a number of other control architectures within this framework, and show which forms of decision-making can and cannot be equivalently represented by BTs. This allows us to construct a hierarchy of architectures and to show how BTs fit into such a hierarchy .
As complex autonomous robotic systems become more widespread, the need for transparent and reusable Artificial Intelligence (AI) designs becomes more apparent . In this paper we analyse how the principles behind Behavior Trees (BTs), an increasingly popular tree-structured control architecture, are applicable to these goals. Using structured programming as a guide, we analyse the BT principles of reactiveness and modularity in a formal framework of action selection. Proceeding from these principles, we review a number of challenging use cases of BTs in the literature, and show that reasoning via these principles leads to compatible solutions. Extending these arguments, we introduce a new class of control architectures we call generalised BTs or k-BTs and show how they can extend the applicability of BTs to some of the aforementioned challenging BT use cases while preserving the BT principles .
R
goals of
need for
R
become more important
designs becomes more apparent
R
use-cases
use cases
R
use-cases
use cases
D
. We compare BTs to a number of other control architectures within this framework, and show which forms of decision-making can and cannot be equivalently represented by BTs. This allows us to construct a hierarchy of architectures and to show how BTs fit into such a hierarchy