Artificial Intelligence Lab

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Complete Motion Planning
Advertisements

Probabilistic Roadmaps. The complexity of the robot’s free space is overwhelming.
PRM and Multi-Space Planning Problems : How to handle many motion planning queries? Jean-Claude Latombe Computer Science Department Stanford University.
Sampling Techniques for Probabilistic Roadmap Planners
Probabilistic Path Planner by Someshwar Marepalli Pratik Desai Ashutosh Sahu Gaurav jain.
By Lydia E. Kavraki, Petr Svestka, Jean-Claude Latombe, Mark H. Overmars Emre Dirican
NUS CS5247 The Gaussian Sampling Strategy for Probalistic Roadmap Planners Valdrie Boor, Mark H. Overmars, A. Frank van der Stappen, 1999 Wai.
Sampling From the Medial Axis Presented by Rahul Biswas April 23, 2003 CS326A: Motion Planning.
Sampling Strategies for PRMs modified from slides of T.V.N. Sri Ram.
Sampling Strategies By David Johnson. Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM) [Kavraki, Svetska, Latombe, Overmars, 1996] start configuration goal configuration.
Presented By: Aninoy Mahapatra
Probabilistic Roadmap
A Comparative Study of Probabilistic Roadmap Planners Roland Geraerts Mark Overmars.
4/15/2017 Using Gaussian Process Regression for Efficient Motion Planning in Environments with Deformable Objects Barbara Frank, Cyrill Stachniss, Nichola.
Probabilistic Roadmap Methods (PRMs)
Randomized Motion Planning for Car-like Robots with C-PRM Guang Song and Nancy M. Amato Department of Computer Science Texas A&M University College Station,
Sampling and Connection Strategies for PRM Planners Jean-Claude Latombe Computer Science Department Stanford University.
1 Last lecture  Configuration Space Free-Space and C-Space Obstacles Minkowski Sums.
David Hsu, Robert Kindel, Jean- Claude Latombe, Stephen Rock Presented by: Haomiao Huang Vijay Pradeep Randomized Kinodynamic Motion Planning with Moving.
1 On the Probabilistic Foundations of Probabilistic Roadmaps Jean-Claude Latombe Stanford University joint work with David Hsu and Hanna Kurniawati National.
“Visibility-based Probabilistic Roadmaps for Motion Planning” Siméon, Laumond, Nissoux Presentation by: Mathieu Bredif CS326A: Paper Review Winter 2004.
Sampling Strategies for Narrow Passages Presented by Rahul Biswas April 21, 2003 CS326A: Motion Planning.
CS 326 A: Motion Planning Probabilistic Roadmaps Basic Techniques.
“Visibility-based Probabilistic Roadmaps for Motion Planning” Siméon, Laumond, Nissoux Presentation by: Eric Ng CS326A: Paper Review Spring 2003.
Finding Narrow Passages with Probabilistic Roadmaps: The Small-Step Retraction Method Presented by: Deborah Meduna and Michael Vitus by: Saha, Latombe,
1 Probabilistic Roadmaps CS 326A: Motion Planning.
1 Single Robot Motion Planning - II Liang-Jun Zhang COMP Sep 24, 2008.
CS 326A: Motion Planning ai.stanford.edu/~latombe/cs326/2007/index.htm Probabilistic Roadmaps: Sampling Strategies.
On Delaying Collision Checking in PRM Planning--Application to Multi-Robot Coordination Gildardo Sanchez & Jean-Claude Latombe Presented by Chris Varma.
1 On the Probabilistic Foundations of Probabilistic Roadmaps D. Hsu, J.C. Latombe, H. Kurniawati. On the Probabilistic Foundations of Probabilistic Roadmap.
1 Finding “Narrow Passages” with Probabilistic Roadmaps: The Small-Step Retraction Method Mitul Saha and Jean-Claude Latombe Research supported by NSF,
Sampling Strategies for Narrow Passages Presented by Irena Pashchenko CS326A, Winter 2004.
CS 326A: Motion Planning ai.stanford.edu/~latombe/cs326/2007/index.htm Probabilistic Roadmaps: Basic Techniques.
Probabilistic Roadmaps for Path Planning in High-Dimensional Configuration Spaces Kavraki, Svestka, Latombe, Overmars 1996 Presented by Dongkyu, Choi.
Exact Collision Checking of Robot Paths Fabian Schwarzer Mitul Saha Jean-Claude Latombe Computer Science Department Stanford University.
Laboratory for Perceptual Robotics – Department of Computer Science Whole-Body Collision-Free Motion Planning Brendan Burns Laboratory for Perceptual Robotics.
CS 326 A: Motion Planning Probabilistic Roadmaps Sampling and Connection Strategies.
1 Path Planning in Expansive C-Spaces D. HsuJ. –C. LatombeR. Motwani Prepared for CS326A, Spring 2003 By Xiaoshan (Shan) Pan.
Sampling Strategies for Probabilistic Roadmaps Random Sampling for capturing the connectivity of the C-space:
NUS CS 5247 David Hsu1 Last lecture  Multiple-query PRM  Lazy PRM (single-query PRM)
Randomized Motion Planning for Car-like Robots with C-PRM Guang Song, Nancy M. Amato Department of Computer Science Texas A&M University College Station,
A General Framework for Sampling on the Medial Axis of the Free Space Jyh-Ming Lien, Shawna Thomas, Nancy Amato {neilien,
Path Planning in Expansive C-Spaces D. HsuJ.-C. LatombeR. Motwani CS Dept., Stanford University, 1997.
Sampling and Connection Strategies for PRM Planners Jean-Claude Latombe Computer Science Department Stanford University Abridged and Modified Version (D.H.)
CS 326A: Motion Planning Probabilistic Roadmaps: Sampling and Connection Strategies.
CS 326 A: Motion Planning Probabilistic Roadmaps Basic Techniques.
Probabilistic Roadmaps for Path Planning in High-Dimensional Configuration Spaces Kavraki, Svestka, Latombe, Overmars 1996 Presented by Chris Allocco.
Motion Planning for Robotic Manipulation of Deformable Linear Objects (DLOs) Mitul Saha, Pekka Isto, and Jean-Claude Latombe Research supported by NSF,
Probabilistic Roadmaps for Path Planning in High-Dimensional Configuration Spaces Lydia E. Kavraki Petr Švetka Jean-Claude Latombe Mark H. Overmars Presented.
A Randomized Approach to Robot Path Planning Based on Lazy Evaluation Robert Bohlin, Lydia E. Kavraki (2001) Presented by: Robbie Paolini.
Probabilistic Roadmaps for Path Planning in High-Dimensional Configuration Spaces (1996) L. Kavraki, P. Švestka, J.-C. Latombe, M. Overmars.
Narrow Passage Problem in PRM Amirhossein Habibian Robotic Lab, University of Tehran Advanced Robotic Presentation.
Motion Planning in Games Mark Overmars Utrecht University.
On Delaying Collision Checking in PRM Planning – Application to Multi-Robot Coordination By: Gildardo Sanchez and Jean-Claude Latombe Presented by: Michael.
Deterministic Sampling Methods for Spheres and SO(3) Anna Yershova Steven M. LaValle Dept. of Computer Science University of Illinois Urbana, IL, USA.
Sampling-Based Planners. The complexity of the robot’s free space is overwhelming.
NUS CS5247 Using a PRM Planner to Compare Centralized and Decoupled Planning for Multi-Robot Systems By Gildardo Sánchez and Jean-Claude Latombe In Proc.
NUS CS 5247 David Hsu Sampling Narrow Passages. NUS CS 5247 David Hsu2 Narrow passages.
Filtering Sampling Strategies: Gaussian Sampling and Bridge Test Valerie Boor, Mark H. Overmars and A. Frank van der Stappen Presented by Qi-xing Huang.
Lecture 4: Improving the Quality of Motion Paths Software Workshop: High-Quality Motion Paths for Robots (and Other Creatures) TAs: Barak Raveh,
Motion Planning CS121 – Winter Basic Problem Are two given points connected by a path?
Instructor Prof. Shih-Chung Kang 2008 Spring
CS 326A: Motion Planning Probabilistic Roadmaps for Path Planning in High-Dimensional Configuration Spaces (1996) L. Kavraki, P. Švestka, J.-C. Latombe,
Last lecture Configuration Space Free-Space and C-Space Obstacles
Probabilistic Roadmap Motion Planners
Presented By: Aninoy Mahapatra
Sampling and Connection Strategies for Probabilistic Roadmaps
Path Planning using Ant Colony Optimisation
Motion Planning CS121 – Winter 2003 Motion Planning.
Configuration Space of an Articulated Robot
Presentation transcript:

Artificial Intelligence Lab Finding “Narrow Passages” with Probabilistic Roadmaps: The Small-Step Retraction Method Mitul Saha and Jean-Claude Latombe Hello/Hi, My name is Mitul and I am from Stanford AI lab. Research supported by NSF, ABB and GM Artificial Intelligence Lab Stanford University

Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM) milestone local path Roadmap components goal configuration start configuration We have the problem of finding a collision free paths between start and goal configurations. The configuration space is usually unknown as it would take exponential amount of time to build one. Instead we construct a roadmap to capture/represent/approximate the freespace of the robot. Then paths are found by query-ing the roadmap. c-obstacle free-space Configuration-space components [Kavraki, Svetska, Latombe, Overmars, 1996]

PRM planners solve complicated problems Environment with Complex Geometry and robots with large number of DOFs Can find a path from a fraction of seconds to few minutes IF c-space is FREE from narrow passages Without explicitly computing the configuration space of the robot Complex geometries: obstacles: 43530 polygons Robot: 4053 polygons High dimensional

Main Issue: “Narrow Passages” low density of free samples high density of free samples narrow passage free samples It is difficult to capture the free space associated with the narrow passages Because in the narrow passage, volume associated with the free space is relatively low. colliding samples colliding local path The efficiency of PRM planners drops dramatically in spaces with narrow passages

Main Issue: “Narrow Passages” Problems with “narrow passages” are commonly encountered Narrow passage problems are not fictitious!! Narrow passages are quite common in path planning problems. For example this is a very Common industrial problem where the robot must place its bulky end-effector or welding gun Deep inside the car through the opening in the door window. A typical collision free path would Go through configurations which have very low clearance between the window edges and the welding Gun. In industrial scenarios consideration of compactness during design of workcells gives rise to narrow Passages in the configuration space of the operating robots.

Main Issue: “Narrow Passages” ? Proposed strategies: Filtering strategies, e.g., Gaussian sampling [Boor et al. ‘99] and bridge test [Hsu et al. ‘03]  rely heavily on rejection sampling Retraction strategies, e.g., [Wilmart et al. ‘99][Lien et al. ‘03]  waste time moving many configurations out of collision Narrow passages pose a difficult challenging to PRM based motion planning. The intriguing nature of “Narrow passages” has attracted a lot of attention in the PRM based motion planning community. A lot of interesting techniques have been proposed. They can be classified into two techniques: Filtering and Retraction strategies. Filtering strategies consist of over-sampling c-space and retaining much fewer collision-free Confs which are more likely to be narrow passages. Due to heavy rejection sampling, they have a significant overhead in running time. Hence they can be inefficient for problems without Difficult narrow passages. We do not reject samples, instead we increase the density of samples in narrow passages By retracting barely colliding confs into narrow passages. Retraction based methods retract colliding configurations into the free space. We have observed that Attempting to retracting deeply embedded confs can make the planner inefficient. We only retract barely colliding samples. They are relatively easier to retract than deeply embedded colliding confs And significantly improve the density of free samples in the narrow passages.

Motivating Observation easy narrow passages difficult planning time We observed that slightly widening difficult narrow passages dramatically improves the efficiency of PRM planning. We also observe not much gain for easy narrow passages, but anyway we do not add significant overhead. decreasing width of the narrow passage

Small-Step Retraction Method free space c-obstacle start goal Roadmap construction and repair fattened free space widened passage Fattening (1) (2 & 3) Slightly fatten the robot’s free space Construct a roadmap in fattened free space Repair the roadmap into original free space

Small-Step Retraction Method free space c-obstacle start goal Roadmap construction and repair Fattening widened passage fattened free space Free space can be “indirectly” fattened by reducing the scale of the geometries (usually of the robot) in the 3D workcell with respect to their medial axis -This can be pushed into the pre-processing phase

Small-Step Retraction Method free space c-obstacle start goal fattened free space widened passage Roadmap construction and repair Fattening start Repair during construction Pessimist Strategy Optimist Strategy goal Repair after construction fattened free space

Small-Step Retraction Method free space c-obstacle start goal fattened free space widened passage Roadmap construction and repair Fattening start Optimist may fail due to “false passages” but Pessimist is probabilistically complete Hence Optimist is less reliable, but much faster due to its lazy strategy Repair during construction Pessimist Strategy Optimist Strategy goal Repair after construction fattened free space

Small-Step Retraction Method free space c-obstacle start goal fattened free space widened passage Roadmap construction and repair Fattening start Repair during construction Pessimist Strategy Integrated planner: 1. Try Optimist for N time. 2. If Optimist fails, then run Pessimist Optimist Strategy goal Repair after construction fattened free space

Upto 3 orders of magnitude improvement in the planning time Quantitative Results Fattening “preserves” topology/ connectivity of the free space Fattening “alters” the topology/ connectivity of the free space (h) (a) (b) (c) Alpha 1.1 (g) Alpha 1.0 (d) (f) (e) Time SSRP (secs) SBL (g) 386 572 (h) 3365 >100000 Time SSRP (secs) SBL (a) 9.4 12295 (b) 32 5955 (c) 2.1 41 (d) 492 863 (e) 65 631 (f) 13588 >100000 Our planner A recent PRM planner SBL: an efficient and recent single query planner All times are in seconds Gains upto 3 order or magnitudes seen Upto 3 orders of magnitude improvement in the planning time was observed

Quantitative Results Test environments “without” narrow passages SSRP and SBL have similar performance In test environments without narrow passages, SSRP is as efficient as SBL. This is also a significant achievement because previous planners designed for problems with narrow passages have significant overheads, which makes them inefficient for problems without narrow passages. Recall that we repair only barely colliding configurations and hence do not have significant overhead. (i) (j) Time SSRP SBL (i) 1.68 1.60 (j) 2.59 2.40

Conclusion SSRP is very efficient at finding narrow passages and still works well when there is none The main drawback is that there is an additional pre-computation step

Finding “Narrow Passages” with Probabilistic Roadmaps: The Small-Step Retraction Method Hello/Hi, My name is Mitul and I am from Stanford AI lab.