Reactive and Potential Field Planners

1 / 41

# Reactive and Potential Field Planners - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Reactive and Potential Field Planners. David Johnson. Previously. Use geometric reasoning to build path in environment Visibility graphs Cell decompositions Use robot controls to generate forces to follow path Such complete knowledge of environment is rare May need to react to sensor data.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

## PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Reactive and Potential Field Planners' - tavi

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

### Reactive and Potential Field Planners

David Johnson

Previously
• Use geometric reasoning to build path in environment
• Visibility graphs
• Cell decompositions
• Use robot controls to generate forces to follow path
• Such complete knowledge of environment is rare
• May need to react to sensor data
A Simple Approach for Unknown Environments
• Bug algorithms
• Highlights the sort of approach needed for simple robots with simple sensors
• From the text – but find the errata chapter online
Bug Algorithms

Assumptions:

• The robot is modeled as a point
• The obstacles are bounded and are finite
• The robot senses perfectly its position and can measure traveled distance
• The robot can perfectly detect contacts and their orientations
• The robot can compute the direction to the goal and the distance between two points, and has small amount of memory

Finish

Start

Finish

Start

Bug-0 Algorithm

Bug-0

Repeat:

• If the goal is attained then stop
• If contact is made with an obstacle then follow the obstacle’s boundary (toward the left) until heading toward the goal is possible again.
Bug-1 Algorithm

Bug-1:

Repeat:

• If the goal is attained then stop
• If contact is made with an obstacle then circumnavigate the obstacle (by wall-following), remember the closest point Li to the goal, and return to this point by the shortest wall-following path

L2

Finish

L1

Start

Bug-2 Algorithm

Bug-2:

Repeat:

• Head toward the goal along the goal-line
• If the goal is attained then stop
• If a hit point is reached then follow the obstacle’s boundary (toward the left) until the goal-line is crossed at a leave point closer to the goal than the previous hit point

Finish

leave point

hit point

goal-line

Start

Bug-2 does better than Bug-1

Bug-1 does better than Bug-2

Finish

Start

Which one --- Bug-1 or Bug-2 --- does better?

Finish

Start

Bug1

Exhaustive search

Optimal leave point

Performs better with complex obstacles

Bug2

Opportunistic (greedy) search

Performs better with simple obstacles

Bug1 vs. Bug2
Kinds of sensors for Bug
• Tactile sensing
• Infinite number?
• Goal beacon
• Measure distance through
• Signal strength
• Time-of-flight
• Phase
• Wheel encoders
• Orientation
Potential Field Planners
• Can use range information better
• Also tangent bug planner in text
• Can also be used in known environment
• Fast
• Reactive to local data
• Rather than
• generate forces from path – old approach
• generate path from forces!
Basic Idea
• Model physics of robot
• Attract to goal
• Repulse from obstacles
Basic Idea
• Originally was described in terms of potentials
• Potential energy is energy at a position (or configuration)
• integral of force
• Force is derivative of potential energy
Potential Field Path Planning
• Potential function guides the robot as if it were a particle moving in a gradient field.
• Analogy: robot is positively charged particle, moving towards negative charge goal
• Obstacles have “repulsive” positive charge
Potential functions can be viewed as a landscape
• Robot moves from high-value to low-value

Using a “downhill” path (i.e negative of the gradient).

• This is known as gradient descent –follow a functional surface until you reach its minimum
• Really, an extremum
What kind of potentials/forces to use?
• Want to
• minimize travel time
• have stability at goal
• not crash
Attract to goal
• Force is linear with distance
• Like the spring force
Repulse from Obstacles
• 1/dist^2
• What is that force law like?
Some solutions to local minima
• Build graph from local minima
• Search graph
• Random pertubation to escape
• Make sure you don’t push into obstacle
• Change parameters to get unstuck
• Might not work
• Build potential field with only one minimum
Rotational and Random Fields
• Not gradients of potential functions
• Adding a rotational field around obstacles
• Breaks symmetry
• Avoids some local minima
• Guides robot around groups of obstacles
• A random field gets the robot unstuck.
• Avoids some local minima.
• A potential field leading to a given goal, with no local minima to get stuck in.
• For any point p, N(p) is the minimum cost of any path to the goal.
• Use a wavefront algorithm, propagating from the goal to the current location.
• An active point updates costs of its 8 neighbors.
• A point becomes active if its cost decreases.
• Continue to the robot’s current position.
Sphere Worlds
• World in which Navigation Problem is solved
• compact, connected subset of En
• boundary formed by disjoint union of finite number of spheres
• valid sphere world provided obstacle closures are contained within the workspace
MATLAB Simulation

Kappa = 3

Target

Potential Field Level Curves

Obstacle

Kappa = 3

Target

Obstacle

Sphere World: 5 Obstacles

Kappa = 5.6

No local minima