Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
158 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

LEA*: An A* Variant Algorithm with Improved Edge Efficiency for Robot Motion Planning (2309.10722v1)

Published 19 Sep 2023 in cs.RO and cs.AI

Abstract: In this work, we introduce a new graph search algorithm, lazy edged based A* (LEA*), for robot motion planning. By using an edge queue and exploiting the idea of lazy search, LEA* is optimally vertex efficient similar to A*, and has improved edge efficiency compared to A*. LEA* is simple and easy to implement with minimum modification to A*, resulting in a very small overhead compared to previous lazy search algorithms. We also explore the effect of inflated heuristics, which results in the weighted LEA* (wLEA*). We show that the edge efficiency of wLEA* becomes close to LazySP and, thus is near-optimal. We test LEA* and wLEA* on 2D planning problems and planning of a 7-DOF manipulator. We perform a thorough comparison with previous algorithms by considering sparse, medium, and cluttered random worlds and small, medium, and large graph sizes. Our results show that LEA* and wLEA* are the fastest algorithms to find the plan compared to previous algorithms.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (17)
  1. L. E. Kavraki, P. Svestka, J. C. Latombe, and M. H. Overmars, “Probabilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 566–580, 1996.
  2. R. Bohlin and L. E. Kavraki, “Path planning using lazy PRM,” in Proceedings ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings, vol. 1, (San Francisco, CA), pp. 521–528, April 24-28, 2000.
  3. J. D. Gammell, T. D. Barfoot, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Batch Informed Trees (BIT*): Informed asymptotically optimal anytime search,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 543–567, 2020.
  4. P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, “A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,” IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 100–107, 1968.
  5. S. M. LaValle, Planning algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
  6. B. Cohen, M. Phillips, and M. Likhachev, “Planning single-arm manipulations with N-arm robots,” in Robotics: Science and Systems, (Berkeley, CA), July 13-17, 2014.
  7. C. Dellin and S. Srinivasa, “A unifying formalism for shortest path problems with expensive edge evaluations via lazy best-first search over paths with edge selectors,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 26, (London, UK), pp. 459–467, June 12-17, 2016.
  8. A. Mandalika, O. Salzman, and S. Srinivasa, “Lazy receding horizon A* for efficient path planning in graphs with expensive-to-evaluate edges,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 28, (Delft, The Netherlands), pp. 476–484, June 24-29 2018.
  9. S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, pp. 846–894, June 2011.
  10. M. Likhachev and D. Ferguson, “Planning long dynamically feasible maneuvers for autonomous vehicles,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 933–945, 2009.
  11. M. Pivtoraiko, R. A. Knepper, and A. Kelly, “Differentially constrained mobile robot motion planning in state lattices,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 308–333, 2009.
  12. S. Liu, N. Atanasov, K. Mohta, and V. Kumar, “Search-based motion planning for quadrotors using linear quadratic minimum time control,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), (Vancouver, Canada), pp. 2872–2879, September 24–28, 2017.
  13. K. Hauser, “Lazy collision checking in asymptotically-optimal motion planning,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), (Seattle, WA), pp. 2951–2957, May 25-30, 2015.
  14. A. Mandalika, S. Choudhury, O. Salzman, and S. Srinivasa, “Generalized lazy search for robot motion planning: Interleaving search and edge evaluation via event-based toggles,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 29, (Berkeley, CA), pp. 745–753, July 11-15, 2019.
  15. J. Lim, S. Srinivasa, and P. Tsiotras, “Lazy lifelong planning for efficient replanning in graphs with expensive edge evaluation,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), (Kyoto, Japan), pp. 8778–8783, October 23-27, 2022.
  16. S. Koenig, M. Likhachev, and D. Furcy, “Lifelong planning A*,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 155, no. 1, pp. 93–146, 2004.
  17. E. Coumans and Y. Bai, “Pybullet, a python module for physics simulation for games, robotics and machine learning.” http://pybullet.org, 2016–2021.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now