Model-Based Reinforcement Learning for Heterogeneous Multi-Robot Task Assignment Under Distribution Shifts
Authors: Daniel Garces, Sara Castro, Adrian Haimovich, Byron Crowe, Stephanie Gil
Organizations: John A. Paulson School Of Engineering And Applied Sciences, Harvard University, 150 Western Avenue, Boston, 02134, MA, USA · Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, Boston, 02215, MA, USA · Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, 02215, MA, USA · Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, 94305, CA, USA
Heterogeneous multi-robot service systems must assign requests to compatible robots, construct feasible schedules, and adapt as new tasks arrive online. Historical data can help anticipate future demand, but relying too heavily on inaccurate predictions can degrade performance under distribution shifts. We develop a prediction-aware adaptive rollout framework for heterogeneous multi-robot task assignment with scheduled and real-time requests. The problem is formulated as a finite-horizon stochastic dynamic program incorporating robot-task compatibility, ordered service requirements, routing constraints, service windows, and end-of-horizon return requirements. The proposed policy evaluates current assignments using sampled future request scenarios while restricting immediate commitments to requests already observed. To enable online use, the framework combines pruned candidate controls, wait actions, and an interaction-aware base policy for efficient future-cost estimation. Robustness to forecast error is provided by adaptively reweighting predicted requests based on recent prediction mismatch and selectively re-optimizing assigned but unstarted requests. We also introduce a historical-data-driven procedure for selecting the heterogeneous fleet composition before deployment. In a case study using real nursing-task requests from hospital inpatient floors, the proposed approach achieves near-complete service and reduces serviced-request wait times relative to reactive, token-passing, prediction-positioning, and myopic greedy baselines, with the largest improvements in tail-delay metrics.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the proposed prediction-aware adaptive rollout framework for heterogeneous multi-robot task assignment. Local temporal point process models generate sampled future request scenarios, which are filtered to remove requests that are already observed or scheduled. Recent forecast errors are used to dynamically reweight predicted requests, producing context-dependent prediction-confidence scores and weighted future-cost estimates. Newly observed urgent requests can trigger re-optimization by returning eligible assigned but unstarted requests to the pending set. The rollout-based assignment module evaluates candidate assignments for observed and re-optimized requests using the weighted future-cost estimates and selects schedules for the heterogeneous robot team.
Figure 2: Schematic of the neural temporal point process used for future-request generation. Past request events are represented as a sequence of timed marks and encoded into a history-dependent representation. This representation parameterizes conditional distributions over future event times and request marks. Samples from these distributions are then converted into graph-grounded request tuples for rollout simulation.
Figure 3: Reservation-table check used by the interaction-aware base policy. A candidate service interval is computed from the robot’s estimated arrival time and the request execution duration. If the interval overlaps an existing reservation at the same service node, it is shifted to the earliest available interval that satisfies the request’s timing constraints. The resulting interval determines the estimated completion time used to compare compatible robot assignments.
Figure 4: Environment-generation pipeline used in the case study. Starting from an architectural floor plan, we construct a simplified three-dimensional representation of the hospital floor and then extract a two-dimensional navigation map for robot simulation and planning. The resulting map defines the traversable workspace used to build the graph representation, compute travel-time heuristics, and assign service locations for scheduled, observed, and predicted requests.
Figure 5: Example traversal graph used in the case-study simulations. Waypoint nodes and feasible local motion edges are overlaid on the hospital navigation map, with zoomed regions showing graph connectivity in representative corridor and intersection areas. The resulting graph supports shortest-path travel-time estimation and graph-constrained routing for task assignment and scheduling.
Figure 6: Example weekly delivery-request arrival rates used to select evaluation periods. The empirical mean is shown by the dotted blue line, and the dashed lines mark the Laney-adjusted upper and lower control limits. Weeks exceeding these limits are identified as abnormal high- or low-demand periods and are used to test the robustness of the proposed planner under demand shifts.
Floor
High-demand weeks
Medium-demand weeks
Low-demand weeks
2
2025-W06, 2025-W08
2024-W44, 2025-W14
2024-W27, 2024-W28
3
2025-W05, 2025-W10
2024-W44, 2025-W14
2024-W46, 2025-W02
7
2024-W39, 2024-W40
2024-W44, 2025-W14
2024-W46, 2025-W26
9
2024-W43, 2025-W06
2024-W44, 2025-W14
2025-W19, 2025-W21
Total requests
36,948
30,824
25,300
Table 1: Summary of the hospital-floor test set. The table reports the selected high-, medium-, and low-demand weeks for each floor. The final row gives the total number of requests in each demand level aggregated across all task types, selected weeks, and floors.
Figure 7: Comparison of temporal point process (TPP) models for monitoring-request prediction using the OTD metric. Each stacked bar reports mean OTD for one model configuration, decomposed into timing, request-type, deletion, and insertion components. Error bars indicate variability across evaluation samples. Lower values indicate better agreement between predicted and observed request sequences, while smaller deletion and insertion components correspond to fewer missed or spurious predicted events. TPP model names and references are given at the beginning of Section 5.3 . In the model labels, (+) denotes the use of enhanced marks, (C) denotes conditioning on previous-day information, and (C)(+) denotes the use of both enhanced mark and previous day conditioning.
Figure 8: Comparison of temporal point process (TPP) models for medication-delivery prediction using the OTD metric. Each stacked bar reports mean OTD for one model configuration, decomposed into timing, request-type, deletion, and insertion components. Error bars indicate variability across evaluation samples. Lower values indicate better agreement between predicted and observed request sequences, while smaller deletion and insertion components correspond to fewer missed or spurious predicted events.TPP model names and references are given at the beginning of Section 5.3 . In the model labels, (+) denotes the use of enhanced marks, (C) denotes conditioning on previous-day information, and (C)(+) denotes the use of both enhanced mark and previous day conditioning.
Figure 9: Day-wise robot requirements obtained during team-size initialization. For each historical day, the sizing routine increases the number of monitoring or delivery robots until all requests are feasibly served. The histograms summarize the resulting feasible robot counts across historical days and are used to initialize the heterogeneous team composition at the desired empirical percentile.
Phase
Monitoring robots
Delivery robots
Histogram initialization
6
2
Joint historical verification
6
3
Table 2: Selected heterogeneous team composition.
Policy
High demand
Medium demand
Low demand
Serviced
Rejected
Serviced
Rejected
Serviced
Rejected
Fleet Manager
36,948
0
30,824
0
25,300
0
Token Passing
36,920
28
30,824
0
25,300
0
Token Passing with Task Swaps
36,920
28
30,824
0
25,300
0
Token Passing with Deadlines
36,948
0
30,824
0
25,300
0
Deadline-Aware Token Passing with Task Swaps
36,948
0
30,824
0
25,300
0
Table 3: Service-level results by demand regime. Each entry reports serviced and rejected requests for the corresponding policy and load level.
Figure 10: Comparison of request wait times across assignment policies during the highest-demand evaluation weeks. The left panel reports the distribution of daily mean wait times for serviced requests, and the right panel reports the distribution of daily 95 -th percentile wait times for serviced requests. Each box summarizes performance across evaluation instances, with lower values indicating shorter delays. Abbreviated policy labels correspond to the assignment policies defined in Section 5.5.1 .
Figure 11: Comparison of request wait times across assignment policies during medium-demand evaluation weeks. The left panel reports the distribution of daily mean wait times for serviced requests, and the right panel reports the distribution of daily 95 -th percentile wait times for serviced requests. Each box summarizes performance across evaluation instances, with lower values indicating shorter delays. Abbreviated policy labels correspond to the assignment policies defined in Section 5.5.1 .
Figure 12: Comparison of request wait times across assignment policies during the lowest-demand evaluation weeks. The left panel reports the distribution of daily mean wait times for serviced requests, and the right panel reports the distribution of daily (95)-th percentile wait times for serviced requests. Each box summarizes performance across evaluation instances, with lower values indicating shorter delays. Abbreviated policy labels correspond to the assignment policies defined in Section 5.5.1 .
Figure 13: Planning time per request-triggered decision across the evaluated assignment policies. Each box plot summarizes the computation time required to process a decision during the evaluation runs. Lower values indicate faster online decision making. The proposed adaptive rollout policy requires more computation than myopic and token-passing baselines because it evaluates candidate assignments through sampled future scenarios, but its median planning time remains within the operational lead time of the case-study setting. Abbreviated policy labels correspond to the assignment policies defined in Section 5.5.1 .
Policy
High demand
Medium demand
Low demand
Mean
Std.
Mean
Std.
Mean
Std.
Rollout without adaptation
49.25
90.02
34.23
78.21
25.65
68.72
Rollout with re-optimization only
46.78
86.88
32.18
74.08
24.36
65.97
Rollout with prediction reweighting only
49.39
90.49
33.70
77.25
25.17
67.69
Proposed adaptive rollout
46.01
85.41
31.88
73.54
24.28
65.91
Table 4: Ablation study of the adaptive rollout components. All variants use the same rollout framework and include future scheduled requests in the future-cost estimate. The table reports the mean and standard deviation of request wait times, in seconds, for each demand level.
Figure 14: Planning time per request-triggered decision across the ablation policies. Each box plot shows the distribution of computation time required to process a decision during the evaluation runs. Lower values indicate faster online decision making.
Most multi-robot task allocation methods rely on communication to resolve conflicts and reach consistent assignments. In environments with limited bandwidth, degraded infrastructure, or adversarial interference, existing approaches degrade sharply. We introduce a learning-based framework that achieves high-quality task allocation without any robot-to-robot communication. The key idea is that robots coordinate implicitly by predicting teammates' bids: if each robot can anticipate competition for a task, it can adjust its choices accordingly. Our method predicts bid distributions to correct systematic errors in analytical mean-field approximations. While analytical predictions assume idealized conditions (uniform distributions, known bid functions), our learned approach adapts to task clustering and spatial heterogeneity. Inspired by Smart Predict-then-Optimize (SPO), we train predictors end-to-end to minimize Task Allocation Regret rather than prediction error. To scale to large swarms, we develop a mean-field approximation where each robot predicts the distribution of competing bids rather than individual bids, reducing complexity from O(NT) to O(T). We call our approach FORMICA: Field-Oriented Regret-Minimizing Implicit Coordination Algorithm. Experiments show FORMICA substantially outperforms a natural analytical baseline. In scenarios with 16 robots and 64 tasks, our approach improves system reward by 17% and approaches the optimal MILP solution. When deployed on larger scenarios (256 robots, 4096 tasks), the same model improves performance by 7%, demonstrating strong generalization. Training requires only 21 seconds on a laptop, enabling rapid adaptation to new environments.
Antonio Lopez, Jack Muirhead, Carlo Pinciroli
Dept. of Robotics Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester MA 01609, USA
Autonomous Surface Vehicles (ASVs) have been increasingly deployed to perform different kinds of maritime tasks in recent years, which motivates the need for a reliable task allocation policy that can adapt to heterogeneous tasks and maritime disturbances. In this work, we formulate a multi-robot task allocation problem in which a team of ASVs with heterogeneous capabilities needs to complete tasks of different types and appearance times under unknown stochastic spatio-temporal uncertainties from maritime disturbances. We propose a decentralized Reinforcement Learning (RL) based policy network that is trained to be robust towards uncertainty-induced observation deviations, and is able to perform individual decision making that leads to efficient execution behaviors toward heterogeneous task requirements. We evaluate the proposed policy and four baseline methods in simulated experiments with varied proportions of different tasks types, numbers of tasks, robot species and robots per species. Experiment results show that our proposed policy achieves the lowest makespan and can be deployed to address scenarios with 100 robots and 400 tasks.
Xi Lin, Yaxuan Li, Paul Szenher +1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology, 1 Castle Point Terrace, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
We study online task allocation for multi-robot, multi-queue systems with asymmetric stochastic arrivals and switching delays. We formulate the problem in discrete time: each location can host at most one robot per slot, servicing a task consumes one slot, switching between locations incurs a one-slot travel delay, and arrivals at locations are independent Bernoulli processes with heterogeneous rates. Building on our previous structural result that optimal policies are of exhaustive type, we formulate a discounted-cost Markov decision process and develop an exhaustive-assignment actor-critic policy architecture that enforces exhaustive service by construction and learns only the next-queue allocation for idle robots. Unlike the exhaustive-serve-longest (ESL) queue rule, whose optimality is known only under symmetry, the proposed policy adapts to asymmetry in arrival rates. Across different server-location ratios, loads, and asymmetric arrival profiles, the proposed policy consistently achieves lower discounted holding cost and smaller mean queue length than the ESL baseline, while remaining near-optimal on instances where an optimal benchmark is available. These results show that structure-aware actor-critic methods provide an effective approach for real-time multi-robot scheduling.
Mohammad Merati, H. M. Sabbir Ahmad, Wenchao Li +1
Divisions of Systems Engineering, Boston University, 8 St Mary’s St, Boston, MA 02215, United States. · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Boston University, 8 St Mary’s St, Boston, MA 02215, United States.