- 145 Views
- Updated On :

Administration. Feedback on assignment Late Policy Some Matlab Sample Code makeRobot.m, moveRobot.m. Introduction to Motion Planning. CSE350/450-011 16 Sep 03. Class Objectives. Cell decomposition procedures for motion planning Review exact approaches from last week

Related searches for

Download Presentation
## PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - ostinmannual

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

Administration

- Feedback on assignment
- Late Policy
- Some Matlab Sample Code
- makeRobot.m, moveRobot.m

Class Objectives

- Cell decomposition procedures for motion planning
- Review exact approaches from last week
- Introduce approximating approaches
- A* Algorithm

- Introduction to potential field approaches to motion planning

Supporting References

- Motion Planning
- “Motion Planning Using Potential Fields”, R. Beard & T. McClain, BYU, 2003 *** PRINT THIS OUT FOR NEXT TIME ***
- “Robot Motion Planning”, J.C. Latombe, 1991

The Basic Motion Planning Problem

Given an initial robot position and orientation in a potentially cluttered workspace, how should the robot move in order to reach an objective pose?

Planning Approaches

- Roadmap Approach:
- Visibility Graph Methods

- Cell Decomposition:
- Exact Decomposition
- Approximate: Uniform discretization & quadtree approaches

- Potential Fields

The Visibility Graph Method (cont’d)

We can find the shortest path

using Dijkstra’s Algorithm

GOAL

Path

START

12

10

11

9

7

6

5

4

2

3

1

8

Exact Cell Decomposition MethodGOAL

START

1) Decompose Region Into Cells

12

10

11

9

7

6

5

4

2

3

1

8

Exact Cell Decomposition Method (cont’d)GOAL

START

2) Construct Adjacency Graph

12

1

2

7

6

9

Exact Cell Decomposition Method (cont’d)GOAL

START

- Construct Channel from shortest cell path
- (via Depth-First-Search)

Exact Cell Decomposition Method (cont’d)

GOAL

START

4) Construct Motion Path P from channel cell borders

- Perform cell tessellation of configuration space C
- Uniform or quadtree

- Generate the cell graph G(V,E)
- Each cell in Cfree corresponds to a vertex in V
- Two vertices vi,vj V are connected by an edge eij if they are adjacent (8-connected for exact)
- Edges are weighted by Euclidean distance

- Find the shortest path from vinit to vgoal

- Continuity of trajectory a function of resolution
- Computational complexity increases dramatically with resolution
- Inexactness. Is this cell an obstacle or in Cfree?

r

Neighbors

Cell Decomposition Issues- Explores G(V,E) iteratively by following paths originating at the initial robot position vinit
- For each OPEN node, only keep track of its minimum weight path from vinit
- The set of all such paths forms a spanning treeT Gof the vertices OPEN so far
- Define a cost function f(v) = g(v) + h(v) where
- g(v) is the distance from vinit to v
- h(v) is a heuristic estimate of the distance from v to vgoal

- Define a cost function k(v1,v2) = g(v1) + distance(v1,v2)

- Define a list OPEN with the following operations
- insert(OPEN, v) inserts node v into the list
- delete(OPEN, v) removes node v from the list
- minF(OPEN) returns the node v of minimum weight f(v) from OPEN, and removes it from the list
- isMember(OPEN, v) returns TRUE if v is in the list, false otherwise
- isEmpty(OPEN) returns TRUE if the list is empty, false otherwise

- Define the following operations over our spanning tree T
- insert(T, v2, v1) inserts node v2 into the tree with ancestor v1
- delete(T, v) removes node v from the tree

A* - The Algorithm (Latombe, 1991)

function A*(G, vinit, vgoal, h, k)

insert(T, vinit, nil); % vinit is the tree root

insert(OPEN, vinit);

while isEmpty(OPEN)==FALSE

v = minF(OPEN); % optimal node from f(v) metric

if v==vgoal

break;

end

for vPlus adjacent(v) % All of the cells adjacent to cell v

if vPlus is NOT visited

insert(T, vPlus, v); % Expansion of spanning tree

insert(OPEN, vPlus);

else if g(vPlus)>g(v)+k(v,vPlus) % Better way to reach vPlus if true

delete(T, vPlus);

insert(T, vPlus, v); % Change ancestor to reflect better path

if isMember(OPEN, vPlus)

delete(OPEN, vPlus);

end

insert(OPEN, vPlus); % Change f(v) value to reflect better path

end

end

end % End while loop

if v==vgoal

return the path constructed from vgoal to vinit in T

else

return failure; % We didn’t find a valid path

end

- The algorithm requires an admissible heuristich(v)
where h*(v) is the optimal path distance from v to vgoal

- For admissible h(v) A* is guaranteed to generate a minimum cost path from vinit to vgoal for the given cell decomposition
- QUESTION: What would be a reasonable function choice for h(v)?
- When h(v)=0 (a “non-informed” heuristic), A* reduces to our friend Dijkstra’s Algorithm

- PROS
- Applicable to general obstacle geometries
- With A*, provides shorter paths than exact decomposition

- CONS
- Performance a function of discretization resolution (δ)
- Inefficiencies
- Lost paths
- Undetected collisions

- Number of graph vertices |V| grows with δ2 and A* runs in O(|V|2) time -> O(δ4) running time

- Performance a function of discretization resolution (δ)

- Introduced by Khatib [1986] initially as a real-time collision avoidance module, and later extended to motion planning
- Robot motion is influenced by an artificial potential field – a force field if you will – induced by the goal and obstacles in C
- The field is modeled by a potential functionU(x,y) over C
- Motion policy control law is akin to gradient descent on the potential function
- A shortcoming of the approach is the lack of performance guarantees: the robot can become trapped in local minima
- Koditschek’s extension introduced the concept of a “navigation function” - a local-minima free potential function

Example Application: collision avoidance module, and later extended to motion planningTarget Tracking with Obstacle Avoidance

The Idea… collision avoidance module, and later extended to motion planning

GOAL

- In 2D, the gradient of a function collision avoidance module, and later extended to motion planningf is defined as
- The gradient points in the direction where the derivative has the largest value (the greatest rate of increase in the value of f)
- The gradient descent optimization algorithm searches in the opposite direction of the gradient to find the minimum of a function
- Potential field methods employ a similar approach

- Potential fields can live in continuous space collision avoidance module, and later extended to motion planning
- No cell decomposition issues

- Local method
- Implicit trajectory generation
- Prior knowledge of obstacle positions not required

- The bad: Weaker performance guarantees

- Generating potential functions for motion control collision avoidance module, and later extended to motion planning
- PRINT OUT COPY OF POTENTIAL FIELD NOTES by R. Beard (they’re on the web page).

Download Presentation

Connecting to Server..