Advertisement

Team IHMC’s Lessons Learned from the DARPA Robotics Challenge: Finding Data in the Rubble

  • Matthew Johnson
  • Brandon Shrewsbury
  • Sylvain Bertrand
  • Duncan Calvert
  • Tingfan Wu
  • Daniel Duran
  • Douglas Stephen
  • Nathan Mertins
  • John Carff
  • William Rifenburgh
  • Jesper Smith
  • Chris Schmidt-Wetekam
  • Davide Faconti
  • Alex Graber-Tilton
  • Nicolas Eyssette
  • Tobias Meier
  • Igor Kalkov
  • Travis Craig
  • Nick Payton
  • Stephen McCrory
  • Georg Wiedebach
  • Brooke Layton
  • Peter Neuhaus
  • Jerry Pratt
Chapter
Part of the Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics book series (STAR, volume 121)

Abstract

This article presents a retrospective analysis of Team IHMC’s experience throughout the DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC), where we took first or second place overall in each of the three phases. As an extremely demanding challenge typical of DARPA, the DRC required rapid research and development to push the boundaries of robotics and set a new benchmark for complex robotic behavior. We present how we addressed each of the eight tasks of the DRC and review our performance in the Finals. While the ambitious competition schedule limited extensive experimentation, we will review the data we collected during the approximately three years of our participation. We discuss some of the significant lessons learned that contributed to our success in the DRC. These include hardware lessons, software lessons, and human-robot integration lessons. We describe refinements to the Coactive Design methodology that helped our designers connect human-machine interaction theory to both implementation and empirical data. This approach helped our team focus our limited resources on the issues most critical to success. In addition to helping readers understand our experiences in developing on a Boston Dynamics Atlas robot for the DRC, we hope this article will provide insights that apply more widely to robotics development and design of human-machine systems.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank DARPA for sponsoring the Robotics Challenge and encouraging the advancement of robotics capabilities. We would also like to thank DARPA for the funding provided to IHMC to compete in the competition. We also thank Boston Dynamics for providing Atlas, which has been a solid and reliable robotic platform. Lastly, we would like to acknowledge our sponsors Atlassian and Amazon. Atlassian also provided an embedded engineer to ensure our agile practices were effectively applied using their Atlassian software tools.

References

  1. Bradshaw, J. M., Hoffman, R. R., Woods, D. D., & Johnson, M. (2013). The seven deadly myths of “Autonomous Systems”. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 28, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. DeDonato, M., et al. (2015). Human-in-the-loop control of a humanoid robot for disaster response: A report from the DARPA robotics challenge trials. Journal of Field Robotics, 32, 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fallon, M., et al. (2015). An architecture for online affordance-based perception and whole-body planning. Journal of Field Robotics, 32, 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hebert, P., et al. (2015). Mobile manipulation and mobility as manipulation—design and algorithms of RoboSimian. Journal of Field Robotics, 32, 255–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Johnson, M., et al. (2014a). Coactive design: Designing support for interdependence in joint activity. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3(1), 2014.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnson, M., et al. (2014b). Seven cardinal virtues of human-machine teamwork: examples from the DARPA robotic challenge. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 29, 74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson, M., et al. (2015). Team IHMC’s lessons learned from the DARPA robotics challenge trials. Journal of Field Robotics, 32, 192–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Koolen, T., et al. (2012). Capturability-based analysis and control of legged locomotion, Part 1: Theory and application to three simple gait models. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 31, 1094–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koolen, T. et al., (2013). Summary of Team IHMC’s virtual robotics challenge entry. s.l., s.n. (pp. 307–314).Google Scholar
  10. Pomerleau, F., Colas, F., Siegwart, R., & Magnenat, S. (2013). Comparing ICP variants on real-world data sets. Autonomous Robots, 34, 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Smith, J., Stephen, D., Lesman, A. & Pratt, J. (2014). Real-time control of humanoid robots using OpenJDK. s.l., s.n. (p. 29).Google Scholar
  12. Stentz, A., et al. (2015). Chimp, the cmu highly intelligent mobile platform. Journal of Field Robotics, 32, 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Yanco, H. A., et al. (2015). Analysis of human-robot interaction at the darpa robotics challenge trials. Journal of Field Robotics, 32, 420–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Johnson
    • 1
  • Brandon Shrewsbury
    • 1
  • Sylvain Bertrand
    • 1
  • Duncan Calvert
    • 1
  • Tingfan Wu
    • 1
  • Daniel Duran
    • 1
  • Douglas Stephen
    • 1
  • Nathan Mertins
    • 1
  • John Carff
    • 1
  • William Rifenburgh
    • 1
  • Jesper Smith
    • 1
  • Chris Schmidt-Wetekam
    • 1
  • Davide Faconti
    • 1
  • Alex Graber-Tilton
    • 1
  • Nicolas Eyssette
    • 1
  • Tobias Meier
    • 1
  • Igor Kalkov
    • 1
  • Travis Craig
    • 1
  • Nick Payton
    • 1
  • Stephen McCrory
    • 1
  • Georg Wiedebach
    • 1
  • Brooke Layton
    • 1
  • Peter Neuhaus
    • 1
  • Jerry Pratt
    • 1
  1. 1.IHMCPensacolaUSA

Personalised recommendations