Motion Planning via Manifold Samples

  • Oren Salzman
  • Michael Hemmer
  • Barak Raveh
  • Dan Halperin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6942)

Abstract

We present a general and modular algorithmic framework for path planning of robots. Our framework combines geometric methods for exact and complete analysis of low-dimensional configuration spaces, together with sampling-based approaches that are appropriate for higher dimensions. We suggest taking samples that are entire low-dimensional manifolds of the configuration space. These samples capture the connectivity of the configuration space much better than isolated point samples. Geometric algorithms then provide powerful primitive operations for complete analysis of the low-dimensional manifolds. We have implemented our framework for the concrete case of a polygonal robot translating and rotating amidst polygonal obstacles. To this end, we have developed a primitive operation for the analysis of an appropriate set of manifolds using arrangements of curves of rational functions. This modular integration of several carefully engineered components has lead to a significant speedup over the PRM sampling-based algorithm, which represents an approach that is prevalent in practice.

Keywords

Motion Planning Motion Planning Problem Polygonal Obstacle Trait Class Free Space Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Choset, H., Burgard, W., Hutchinson, S., Kantor, G., Kavraki, L.E., Lynch, K., Thrun, S.: Principles of Robot Motion: Theory, Algorithms, and Implementation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Latombe, J.C.: Robot Motion Planning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1991)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    LaValle, S.M.: Planning Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reif, J.H.: Complexity of the mover’s problem and generalizations. In: FOCS, pp. 421–427. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (1979)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lozano-Perez, T.: Spatial planning: A configuration space approach. MIT AI Memo 605 (1980)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwartz, J.T., Sharir, M.: On the “piano movers” problem: II. General techniques for computing topological properties of real algebraic manifolds. Advances in Applied Mathematics 4(3), 298–351 (1983)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basu, S., Pollack, R., Roy, M.F.: Algorithms in Real Algebraic Geometry. Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canny, J.F.: Complexity of Robot Motion Planning (ACM Doctoral Dissertation Award). MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chazelle, B., Edelsbrunner, H., Guibas, L.J., Sharir, M.: A singly exponential stratification scheme for real semi-algebraic varieties and its applications. Theoretical Computer Science 84(1), 77–105 (1991)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aronov, B., Sharir, M.: On translational motion planning of a convex polyhedron in 3-space. SIAM J. Comput. 26(6), 1785–1803 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Avnaim, F., Boissonnat, J., Faverjon, B.: A practical exact motion planning algorithm for polygonal object amidst polygonal obstacles. In: Boissonnat, J.-D., Laumond, J.-P. (eds.) Geometry and Robotics. LNCS, vol. 391, pp. 67–86. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halperin, D., Sharir, M.: A near-quadratic algorithm for planning the motion of a polygon in a polygonal environment. Disc. Comput. Geom. 16(2), 121–134 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz, J.T., Sharir, M.: On the “piano movers” problem: I. The case of a two-dimensional rigid polygonal body moving amidst polygonal barriers. Commun. Pure appl. Math. 35, 345–398 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharir, M.: Algorithmic Motion Planning. In: Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry, 2nd edn., CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fogel, E., Halperin, D.: Exact and efficient construction of Minkowski sums of convex polyhedra with applications. CAD 39(11), 929–940 (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hachenberger, P.: Exact Minkowksi sums of polyhedra and exact and efficient decomposition of polyhedra into convex pieces. Algorithmica 55(2), 329–345 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wein, R.: Exact and efficient construction of planar minkowski sums using the convolution method. In: Azar, Y., Erlebach, T. (eds.) ESA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4168, pp. 829–840. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kavraki, L.E., Kolountzakis, M.N., Latombe, J.C.: Analysis of probabilistic roadmaps for path planning. IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat. 14(1), 166–171 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuffner, J.J., Lavalle, S.M.: RRT-Connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning. In: ICRA, pp. 995–1001. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ladd, A.M., Kavraki, L.E.: Generalizing the analysis of PRM. In: ICRA, pp. 2120–2125. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hirsch, S., Halperin, D.: Hybrid motion planning: Coordinating two discs moving among polygonal obstacles in the plane. In: WAFR 2002, pp. 225–241 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang, L., Kim, Y.J., Manocha, D.: A hybrid approach for complete motion planning. In: IROS, pp. 7–14 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Berg, M., Cheong, O., van Kreveld, M., Overmars, M.: Computational Geometry: Algorithms and Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lien, J.M.: Hybrid motion planning using Minkowski sums. In: RSS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yang, J., Sacks, E.: RRT path planner with 3 DOF local planner. In: ICRA, pp. 145–149. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salzman, O., Hemmer, M., Raveh, B., Halperin, D.: Motion planning via manifold samples. In: arXiv:1107.0803 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Siek, J.G., Lee, L.-Q., Lumsdaine, A.: The Boost Graph Library: User Guide and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The CGAL Project: CGAL User and Reference Manual. 3.7 edn. CGAL Editorial Board (2010), http://www.cgal.org/
  29. 29.
    Canny, J., Donald, B., Ressler, E.K.: A rational rotation method for robust geometric algorithms. In: SoCG 1992, pp. 251–260. ACM, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Austern, M.H.: Generic Programming and the STL. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berberich, E., Hemmer, M., Kerber, M.: A generic algebraic kernel for non-linear geometric applications. In: SoCG 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Plaku, E., Bekris, K.E., Kavraki, L.E.: OOPS for motion planning: An online open-source programming system. In: ICRA, pp. 3711–3716. IEEE, Los Alamitos (April 2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mayer, N., Fogel, E., Halperin, D.: Fast and robust retrieval of Minkowski sums of rotating convex polyhedra in 3-space. In: SPM, pp. 1–10 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Berberich, E., Fogel, E., Halperin, D., Mehlhorn, K., Wein, R.: Arrangements on parametric surfaces I: General framework and infrastructure. Mathematics in Computer Science 4(1), 45–66 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oren Salzman
    • 1
  • Michael Hemmer
    • 1
  • Barak Raveh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dan Halperin
    • 1
  1. 1.Tel-Aviv UniversityIsrael
  2. 2.Hebrew UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations