Informed Asymptotically Near-Optimal Planning for Field Robots with Dynamics

Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics book series (SPAR, volume 5)

Abstract

Recent progress in sampling-based planning has provided performance guarantees in terms of optimizing trajectory cost even in the presence of significant dynamics. The STABLE_SPARSE_RRT (SST) algorithm has these desirable path quality properties and achieves computational efficiency by maintaining a sparse set of state-space samples. The current paper focuses on field robotics, where workspace information can be used to effectively guide the search process of a planner. In particular, the computational performance of SST is improved by utilizing appropriate heuristics. The workspace information guides the exploration process of the planner and focuses it on the useful subset of the state space. The resulting Informed- SST is evaluated in scenarios involving either ground vehicles or quadrotors. This includes testing for a physically-simulated vehicle over uneven terrain, which is a computationally expensive planning problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Ai-Omari, M.A.R., Jaradat, M.A., Jarrah, M.: Integrated simulation platform for indoor quadrotor applications. In: 2013 9th International Symposium on Mechatronics and its Applications (ISMA) (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bekris, K., Kavraki, L.: Informed and probabilistically complete search for motion planning under differential constraints. In: First International Symposium on Search Techniques in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (STAIR), Chicago, IL (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Choudhury, S., Gammell, J.D., Barfoot, T.D., Srinivasa, S.S., Scherer, S.: Regionally accelerated batch informed trees (rabit*): A framework to integrate local information into optimal path planning. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4207–4214. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clement, L., Kelly, J., Barfoot, T.D.: Monocular visual teach and repeat aided by local ground planarity. In: Field and Service Robotics, pp. 547–561. Springer (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen, B.J., Chitta, S., Likhachev, M.: Search-based planning for manipulation with motion primitives. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2902–2908. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coumans, E.: Bullet Physics Engine. http://bulletphysics.org (2012)
  7. 7.
    Diankov, R., Kuffner, J.: Randomized statistical path planning. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2007. IROS 2007, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fang, Z., Yang, S., Jain, S., Dubey, G., Roth, S., Maeta, S., Nuske, S., Zhang, Y., Scherer, S.: Robust autonomous flight in constrained and visually degraded shipboard environments. J. Field Robot. 34(1), 25–52 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferguson, D., Howard, T.M., Likhachev, M.: Motion planning in urban environments: Part II. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2008. IROS 2008, pp. 1070–1076. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferguson, D., Stentz, A.: Using interpolation to improve path planning: the field d* algorithm. J. Field Robot. 23(2), 79–101 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gammell, J.D., Srinivasa, S.S., Barfoot, T.D.: Informed rrt*: optimal sampling-based path planning focused via direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic. arXiv:1404.2334 (2014)
  12. 12.
    Hollinger, G.A., Sukhatme, G.S.: Sampling-based robotic information gathering algorithms. Int. J. Robot. Res. 33(9), 1271–1287 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Inotsume, H., Creager, C., Wettergreen, D., Whittaker, W.R.L.: Finding routes for efficient and successful slope ascent for exploration rovers. In: The International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (i-SAIRAS) 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Islam, F., Narayanan, V., Likhachev, M.: Dynamic multi-heuristic A. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2376–2382. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalisiak, M., van de Panne, M.: RRT-blossom: RRT with a local flood-fill behavior. In: Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006, pp. 1237–1242. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karaman, S., Frazzoli, E.: Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. Int. J. Robot. Res. 30(7), 846–894 (2011)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kavraki, L.E., Svestka, P., Latombe, J.C., Overmars, M.H.: Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 12(4), 566–580 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kunz, T., Stilman, M.: Kinodynamic RRTs with fixed time step and best-input extension are not probabilistically complete. In: Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XI, pp. 233–244. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    LaValle, S., Kuffner, J.: Randomized kinodynamic planning. IJRR 20(5), 378–400 (2001)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li, Y., Littlefield, Z., Bekris, K.E.: Sparse methods for efficient asymptotically optimal kinodynamic planning. In: Workshop on Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics (WAFR) (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li, Y., Littlefield, Z., Bekris, K.E.: Asymptotically optimal sampling-based kinodynamic planning. Int. J. Robot. Res. 35(5), 528–564 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Likhachev, M., Ferguson, D.: Planning long dynamically-feasible maneuvers for autonomous vehicles. Int. J. Robot. Res. (IJRR) 28, 933–945 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Likhachev, M., Stentz, A.: R* search. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). Citeseer (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Littlefield, Z., Klimenko, D., Kurniawati, H., Bekris, K.E.: The importance of a suitable distance function in belief-space planning. In: International Symposium on Robotic Research (ISRR) (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nash, A., Daniel, K., Koenig, S., Felner, A.: Theta*: any-angle path planning on grids. In: AAAI, pp. 1177–1183 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pereira, A.A., Binney, J., Hollinger, G.A., Sukhatme, G.S.: Risk-aware path planning for autonomous underwater vehicles using predictive ocean models. J. Field Robot. 30(5), 741–762 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Persson, S.M., Sharf, I.: Sampling-based A* algorithm for robot path-planning. Int. J. Robot. Res. 33(13), 1683–1708 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pivtoraiko, M., Kelly, A.: Kinodynamic motion planning with state lattice motion primitives. In: 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 2172–2179. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pivtoraiko, M., Knepper, R.A., Kelly, A.: Differentially constrained mobile robot motion planning in state lattices. J. Field Robot. 26(3), 308–333 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Posa, M., Kuindersma, S., Tedrake, R.: Optimization and stabilization of trajectories for constrained dynamical systems. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1366–1373. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wells, A., Plaku, E.: Adaptive sampling-based motion planning for mobile robots with differential constraints. In: Conference Towards Autonomous Robotic Systems, pp. 283–295. Springer (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ziegler, J., Stiller, C.: Spatiotemporal state lattices for fast trajectory planning in dynamic on-road driving scenarios. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2009. IROS 2009, pp. 1879–1884. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zucker, M., Ratliff, N., Dragan, A.D., Pivtoraiko, M., Klingensmith, M., Dellin, C.M., Bagnell, J.A., Srinivasa, S.S.: CHOMP: covariant Hamiltonian optimization for motion planning. Int. J. Robot. Res. 32(9–10), 1164–1193 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations