Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
125 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Deep Learning for Optimization of Trajectories for Quadrotors (2309.15191v2)

Published 26 Sep 2023 in cs.RO

Abstract: This paper presents a novel learning-based trajectory planning framework for quadrotors that combines model-based optimization techniques with deep learning. Specifically, we formulate the trajectory optimization problem as a quadratic programming (QP) problem with dynamic and collision-free constraints using piecewise trajectory segments through safe flight corridors [1]. We train neural networks to directly learn the time allocation for each segment to generate optimal smooth and fast trajectories. Furthermore, the constrained optimization problem is applied as a separate implicit layer for backpropagation in the network, for which the differential loss function can be obtained. We introduce an additional penalty function to penalize time allocations which result in solutions that violate the constraints to accelerate the training process and increase the success rate of the original optimization problem. To this end, we enable a flexible number of sequences of piece-wise trajectories by adding an extra end-of-sentence token during training. We illustrate the performance of the proposed method via extensive simulation and experimentation and show that it works in real time in diverse, cluttered environments.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (38)
  1. S. Liu, M. Watterson, K. Mohta, K. Sun, S. Bhattacharya, C. J. Taylor, and V. Kumar, “Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight corridors in 3-d complex environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1688–1695, 2017.
  2. Y. Tao, Y. Wu, B. Li, F. Cladera, A. Zhou, D. Thakur, and V. Kumar, “Seer: Safe efficient exploration for aerial robots using learning to predict information gain,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 1235–1241.
  3. D. Mellinger and V. Kumar, “Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2011, pp. 2520–2525.
  4. R. Penicka, Y. Song, E. Kaufmann, and D. Scaramuzza, “Learning minimum-time flight in cluttered environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7209–7216, 2022.
  5. S. Ross, N. Melik-Barkhudarov, K. S. Shankar, A. Wendel, D. Dey, J. A. Bagnell, and M. Hebert, “Learning monocular reactive uav control in cluttered natural environments,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2013, pp. 1765–1772.
  6. A. Loquercio, E. Kaufmann, R. Ranftl, M. Müller, V. Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Learning high-speed flight in the wild,” Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 59, p. eabg5810, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/scirobotics.abg5810
  7. J. Chen, T. Liu, and S. Shen, “Online generation of collision-free trajectories for quadrotor flight in unknown cluttered environments,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016, pp. 1476–1483.
  8. C. Richter, A. Bry, and N. Roy, “Polynomial trajectory planning for aggressive quadrotor flight in dense indoor environments,” in Robotics Research: The 16th International Symposium ISRR.   Springer, 2016, pp. 649–666.
  9. J. Tordesillas and J. P. How, “FASTER: Fast and safe trajectory planner for navigation in unknown environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2021.
  10. I. Spasojevic, V. Murali, and S. Karaman, “Perception-aware time optimal path parameterization for quadrotors,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2020, pp. 3213–3219.
  11. Z. Wang, X. Zhou, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Geometrically constrained trajectory optimization for multicopters,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 3259–3278, 2022.
  12. A. Bry, C. Richter, A. Bachrach, and N. Roy, “Aggressive flight of fixed-wing and quadrotor aircraft in dense indoor environments,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 969–1002, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364914558129
  13. F. Gao, W. Wu, J. Pan, B. Zhou, and S. Shen, “Optimal time allocation for quadrotor trajectory generation,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2018, pp. 4715–4722.
  14. W. Sun, G. Tang, and K. Hauser, “Fast uav trajectory optimization using bilevel optimization with analytical gradients,” in 2020 American Control Conference (ACC), 2020, pp. 82–87.
  15. P. Foehn, A. Romero, and D. Scaramuzza, “Time-optimal planning for quadrotor waypoint flight,” Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 56, p. eabh1221, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/scirobotics.abh1221
  16. B. Amos and J. Z. Kolter, “Optnet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70, ser. ICML’17.   JMLR.org, 2017, p. 136–145.
  17. M. M. de Almeida and M. Akella, “New numerically stable solutions for minimum-snap quadcopter aggressive maneuvers,” in 2017 American Control Conference (ACC), 2017, pp. 1322–1327.
  18. D. Burke, A. Chapman, and I. Shames, “Generating minimum-snap quadrotor trajectories really fast,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 1487–1492.
  19. M. Burri, H. Oleynikova, M. W. Achtelik, and R. Siegwart, “Real-time visual-inertial mapping, re-localization and planning onboard mavs in unknown environments,” in 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2015, pp. 1872–1878.
  20. S. Liu, N. Atanasov, K. Mohta, and V. Kumar, “Search-based motion planning for quadrotors using linear quadratic minimum time control,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2017, pp. 2872–2879.
  21. R. Penicka and D. Scaramuzza, “Minimum-time quadrotor waypoint flight in cluttered environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5719–5726, 2022.
  22. J. Bobrow, S. Dubowsky, and J. Gibson, “Time-optimal control of robotic manipulators along specified paths,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 3–17, 1985. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/027836498500400301
  23. S. Bansal, V. Tolani, S. Gupta, J. Malik, and C. Tomlin, “Combining optimal control and learning for visual navigation in novel environments,” in Proceedings of the Conference on Robot Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, L. P. Kaelbling, D. Kragic, and K. Sugiura, Eds., vol. 100.   PMLR, 30 Oct–01 Nov 2020, pp. 420–429. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v100/bansal20a.html
  24. A. Faust, O. Ramirez, M. Fiser, K. Oslund, A. Francis, J. Davidson, and L. Tapia, “Prm-rl: Long-range robotic navigation tasks by combining reinforcement learning and sampling-based planning,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Brisbane, Australia, 2018, pp. 5113–5120. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.03937
  25. G. Tang, W. Sun, and K. Hauser, “Learning trajectories for real- time optimal control of quadrotors,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2018, pp. 3620–3625.
  26. F. Yang, C. Wang, C. Cadena, and M. Hutter, “iplanner: Imperative path planning,” in Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.11434.pdf
  27. G. Ryou, E. Tal, and S. Karaman, “Real-time generation of time-optimal quadrotor trajectories with semi-supervised seq2seq learning,” in Proceedings of The 6th Conference on Robot Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, K. Liu, D. Kulic, and J. Ichnowski, Eds., vol. 205.   PMLR, 14–18 Dec 2023, pp. 1860–1870. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v205/ryou23a.html
  28. A. Agrawal, B. Amos, S. Barratt, S. Boyd, S. Diamond, and J. Z. Kolter, “Differentiable convex optimization layers,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019.
  29. N. Jaquier, Y. Zhou, J. Starke, and T. Asfour, “Learning to sequence and blend robot skills via differentiable optimization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 8431–8438, 2022.
  30. P. Donti, D. Rolnick, and J. Z. Kolter, “Dc3: A learning method for optimization with hard constraints,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021.
  31. G. Négiar, M. W. Mahoney, and A. Krishnapriyan, “Learning differentiable solvers for systems with hard constraints,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=vdv6CmGksr0
  32. T. Frerix, M. Nießner, and D. Cremers, “Homogeneous linear inequality constraints for neural network activations,” in 2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 2020, pp. 3229–3234.
  33. I. Sutskever, O. Vinyals, and Q. V. Le, “Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 2, ser. NIPS’14.   Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2014, p. 3104–3112.
  34. K. Chaney, F. Cladera, Z. Wang, A. Bisulco, M. A. Hsieh, C. Korpela, V. Kumar, C. J. Taylor, and K. Daniilidis, “M3ed: Multi-robot, multi-sensor, multi-environment event dataset,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops, June 2023, pp. 4015–4022.
  35. J. D. Gammell, S. S. Srinivasa, and T. D. Barfoot, “Informed rrt*: Optimal sampling-based path planning focused via direct sampling of an admissible ellipsoidal heuristic,” in 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2014, pp. 2997–3004.
  36. B. Stellato, G. Banjac, P. Goulart, A. Bemporad, and S. Boyd, “OSQP: an operator splitting solver for quadratic programs,” Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 637–672, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12532-020-00179-2
  37. D. C. Liu and J. Nocedal, “On the limited memory bfgs method for large scale optimization,” Mathematical programming, vol. 45, no. 1-3, pp. 503–528, 1989.
  38. S. G. Johnson, “The NLopt nonlinear-optimization package,” https://github.com/stevengj/nlopt, 2007.
Citations (2)

Summary

  • The paper introduces AllocNet, a neural network integrated with quadratic programming to optimally allocate time for quadrotor trajectory segments.
  • It employs differentiable implicit layers and penalty functions to flexibly handle variable trajectory segments under dynamic and collision constraints.
  • Real-world tests confirm reduced control effort and computation time, demonstrating the method's efficiency and practical applicability in autonomous operations.

Deep Learning for Optimization of Trajectories for Quadrotors

The paper presents a comprehensive paper on the integration of deep learning with model-based optimization techniques for trajectory planning of quadrotors. The authors propose a novel framework that treats the trajectory optimization problem as a quadratic programming (QP) problem, subject to dynamic and collision constraints, using piecewise trajectory segments delineated within safe flight corridors. This innovative approach enhances both the computational efficiency and feasibility of online trajectory generation by leveraging neural networks to learn optimal time allocation for each segment.

Summary of Contributions and Methodology

The paper primarily addresses the challenge of time allocation in trajectory optimization, a task that lacks formalized solutions and thus typically relies on heuristic-driven decoupling. The proposed method integrates a neural network within the quadratic programming framework, applying a differentiable implicit layer for backpropagation to improve training efficacy. Furthermore, a penalty function is introduced to expedite training and increase the QP problem's success rate by penalizing infeasible time allocations.

Key contributions of this work include:

  1. Neural Network Architecture: The authors introduce AllocNet, designed to infer optimal time allocations directly from state and corridor constraints. This neural network outputs the time allocations necessary for trajectory segment optimization.
  2. Flexible Framework: Incorporating an end-of-sentence token in the network training allows for handling variable sequence lengths in trajectory segments, improving flexibility and adaptability.
  3. Real-world Deployment: The framework demonstrates high performance in diverse environments, validated through both simulation and real-world deployment scenarios. This indicates not only the robustness but also the real-time applicability of the proposed solution.

Strong Numerical Results

The experimental results presented validate the efficiency of the proposed method. The method achieves lower control efforts and maintains high success rates across various test environments compared to existing benchmarks. Notably, computation time is significantly reduced, allowing the framework to be implemented in real-time scenarios.

Implications and Future Directions

From a practical perspective, the deployment of such a framework in real-world quadrotor operations could have substantial implications in fields such as agriculture, industrial inspection, and customer service, where autonomous micro aerial vehicles (MAVs) are increasingly prevalent. By ensuring efficient and reliable trajectory planning, this approach could enhance the operational autonomy and safety of MAVs in complex environments.

Theoretically, this research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on the intersection of deep learning and optimization problems. Specifically, it demonstrates how deep learning can effectively handle complex constraints and dynamics in trajectory planning, providing a promising direction for future research in this domain.

Future work could explore the integration of dynamic pathfinding methods for corridor generation and further optimization of the quadratic programming solver to enhance the framework's scalability and adaptability to even more challenging scenarios.

In conclusion, this paper provides a structured methodology for integrating deep learning into trajectory optimization for quadrotors, offering both theoretical insights and practical solutions to a problem of significant complexity and relevance in autonomous systems.

Github Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com