Decentralized multi-robot belief space planning in unknown environments via identification and efficient re-evaluation of impacted paths

Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Issue: Online Decision Making in Multi-Robot Coordination

Abstract

In this paper we develop a new approach for decentralized multi-robot belief space planning in high-dimensional state spaces while operating in unknown environments. State of the art approaches often address related problems within a sampling based motion planning paradigm, where robots generate candidate paths and are to choose the best paths according to a given objective function. As exhaustive evaluation of all candidate path combinations from different robots is computationally intractable, a commonly used (sub-optimal) framework is for each robot, at each time epoch, to evaluate its own candidate paths while only considering the best paths announced by other robots. Yet, even this approach can become computationally expensive, especially for high-dimensional state spaces and for numerous candidate paths that need to be evaluated. In particular, upon an update in the announced path from one of the robots, state of the art approaches re-evaluate belief evolution for all candidate paths and do so from scratch. In this work we develop a framework to identify and efficiently update only those paths that are actually impacted as a result of an update in the announced path. Our approach is based on appropriately propagating belief evolution along impacted paths while employing insights from factor graph and incremental smoothing for efficient inference that is required for evaluating the utility of each impacted path. We demonstrate our approach in a synthetic simulation.

Keywords

Multi-robot planning Belief space planning Multi-robot SLAM Active collaborative perception 

References

  1. Agha-Mohammadi, A.-A., Chakravorty, S., & Amato, N. M. (2014). Firm: Sampling-based feedback motion planning under motion uncertainty and imperfect measurements. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 33, 268–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agha-mohammadi, A. A., Agarwal, S., Chakravorty, S., & Amato, N. M. (2015). Simultaneous localization and planning for physical mobile robots via enabling dynamic replanning in belief space. arXiv:1510.07380.
  3. Agha-Mohammadi, A. A., Agarwal, S., Mahadevan, A., Chakravorty, S., Tomkins, D., Denny, J., et al. (2014). Robust online belief space planning in changing environments: Application to physical mobile robots. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (pp. 149–156).Google Scholar
  4. Amato, C., Konidaris, G., Anders, A., Cruz, G., How, J. P., & Kaelbling, L. P. (2016). Policy search for multi-robot coordination under uncertainty. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 35(14), 1760–1778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atanasov, N., Le Ny, J., Daniilidis, K., Pappas, G. J. (2015). Decentralized active information acquisition: Theory and application to multi-robot slam. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, D., Givan, R., Immerman, N., & Zilberstein, S. (2002). The complexity of decentralized control of markov decision processes. Mathematics of operations research, 27(4), 819–840.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bry, A., Roy, N. (2011). Rapidly-exploring random belief trees for motion planning under uncertainty. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (pp. 723–730).Google Scholar
  8. Chaves, S. M., Kim, A., Eustice, R. M. (2014). Opportunistic sampling-based planning for active visual slam. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (pp. 3073–3080). IEEE.Google Scholar
  9. Cunningham, A., Indelman, V., Dellaert, F. (2013). DDF-SAM 2.0: Consistent distributed smoothing and mapping. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Karlsruhe, Germany.Google Scholar
  10. Dellaert, F. (2012). Factor graphs and GTSAM: A hands-on introduction. Technical Report GT-RIM-CP&R-2012-002, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  11. Farhi, E. I., Indelman, V. (2017) Towards efficient inference update through planning via jip - joint inference and belief space planning. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).Google Scholar
  12. Golub, G. H., & Plemmons, R. J. (1980). Large-scale geodetic least-squares adjustment by dissection and orthogonal decomposition. Linear Algebra and Its Applications, 34, 3–28.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Hollinger, G. A., & Sukhatme, G. S. (2014). Sampling-based robotic information gathering algorithms. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 33, 1271–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Indelman, V. (2015a). Towards cooperative multi-robot belief space planning in unknown environments. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of Robotics Research (ISRR).Google Scholar
  15. Indelman, V. (2015b) Towards multi-robot active collaborative state estimation via belief space planning. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).Google Scholar
  16. Indelman, V., Carlone, L., & Dellaert, F. (2015). Planning in the continuous domain: a generalized belief space approach for autonomous navigation in unknown environments. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 34(7), 849–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Indelman, V., Gurfil, P., Rivlin, E., & Rotstein, H. (2012). Graph-based distributed cooperative navigation for a general multi-robot measurement model. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 31(9), 1057–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Indelman, V., Wiliams, S., Kaess, M., & Dellaert, F. (2013). Information fusion in navigation systems via factor graph based incremental smoothing. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 61(8), 721–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Indelman, V. (2017). Cooperative multi-robot belief space planning for autonomous navigation in unknown environments. Autonomous Robots. doi:10.1007/s10514-017-9620-6.
  20. Kaess, M., Johannsson, H., Roberts, R., Ila, V., Leonard, J., & Dellaert, F. (2012). iSAM2: Incremental smoothing and mapping using the Bayes tree. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 31, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karaman, S., & Frazzoli, E. (2011). Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 30(7), 846–894.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Kavraki, L. E., Svestka, P., Latombe, J.-C., & Overmars, M. H. (1996). Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 12(4), 566–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kopitkov, D., Indelman, V. (2016). Computationally efficient decision making under uncertainty in high-dimensional state spaces. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).Google Scholar
  24. Kopitkov, D., & Indelman, V. (2017). Computationally efficient belief space planning via augmented matrix determinant lemma and re-use of calculations. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L), 2(2), 506–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kurniawati, H., Hsu, D., Lee, W. S. (2008). Sarsop: Efficient point-based pomdp planning by approximating optimally reachable belief spaces. In Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) (vol. 2008).Google Scholar
  26. LaValle, S. M., & Kuffner, J. J. (2001). Randomized kinodynamic planning. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 20(5), 378–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levine, D., Luders, B., & How, J. P. (2013). Information-theoretic motion planning for constrained sensor networks. Journal of Aerospace Information Systems, 10(10), 476–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olson, E., & Agarwal, P. (2013). Inference on networks of mixtures for robust robot mapping. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 32(7), 826–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Papadimitriou, C., & Tsitsiklis, J. (1987). The complexity of markov decision processes. Mathematics of Operations Research, 12(3), 441–450.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Pathak, S., Thomas, A., Feniger, A., & Indelman, V. (2016). Robust active perception via data-association aware belief space planning. arXiv:1606.05124.
  31. Platt, R., Tedrake, R., Kaelbling, L.P., & Lozano-Pérez, T. (2010). Belief space planning assuming maximum likelihood observations. In Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) (pp. 587–593). Zaragoza, Spain.Google Scholar
  32. Prentice, S., & Roy, N. (2009). The belief roadmap: Efficient planning in belief space by factoring the covariance. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 28, 1448–1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Regev, T., & Indelman, V. (2016). Multi-robot decentralized belief space planning in unknown environments via efficient re-evaluation of impacted paths. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).Google Scholar
  34. Stachniss, C., Grisetti, G., & Burgard, W. (2005). Information gain-based exploration using rao-blackwellized particle filters. In Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) (pp. 65–72).Google Scholar
  35. Van Den Berg, J., Patil, S., & Alterovitz, R. (2012). Motion planning under uncertainty using iterative local optimization in belief space. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 31(11), 1263–1278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnion - Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Aerospace EngineeringTechnion - Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations