Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
133 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 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

LeTO: Learning Constrained Visuomotor Policy with Differentiable Trajectory Optimization (2401.17500v3)

Published 30 Jan 2024 in cs.RO and cs.AI

Abstract: This paper introduces LeTO, a method for learning constrained visuomotor policy with differentiable trajectory optimization. Our approach integrates a differentiable optimization layer into the neural network. By formulating the optimization layer as a trajectory optimization problem, we enable the model to end-to-end generate actions in a safe and constraint-controlled fashion without extra modules. Our method allows for the introduction of constraint information during the training process, thereby balancing the training objectives of satisfying constraints, smoothing the trajectories, and minimizing errors with demonstrations. This ``gray box" method marries optimization-based safety and interpretability with powerful representational abilities of neural networks. We quantitatively evaluate LeTO in simulation and in the real robot. The results demonstrate that LeTO performs well in both simulated and real-world tasks. In addition, it is capable of generating trajectories that are less uncertain, higher quality, and smoother compared to existing imitation learning methods. Therefore, it is shown that LeTO provides a practical example of how to achieve the integration of neural networks with trajectory optimization. We release our code at https://github.com/ZhengtongXu/LeTO.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (30)
  1. D. A. Pomerleau, “Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 1, 1988.
  2. T. Z. Zhao, V. Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn, “Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13705, 2023.
  3. D. Jarrett, I. Bica, and M. van der Schaar, “Strictly batch imitation learning by energy-based distribution matching,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 7354–7365, 2020.
  4. P. Florence, C. Lynch, A. Zeng, O. A. Ramirez, A. Wahid, L. Downs, A. Wong, J. Lee, I. Mordatch, and J. Tompson, “Implicit behavioral cloning,” in Conference on Robot Learning.   PMLR, 2022, pp. 158–168.
  5. C. Chi, S. Feng, Y. Du, Z. Xu, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, and S. Song, “Diffusion policy: Visuomotor policy learning via action diffusion,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023.
  6. C. Chi, B. Burchfiel, E. Cousineau, S. Feng, and S. Song, “Iterative Residual Policy: for goal-conditioned dynamic manipulation of deformable objects,” in in Proc. of Robot.: Sci. and Syst, 2022.
  7. A. Mandlekar, D. Xu, J. Wong, S. Nasiriany, C. Wang, R. Kulkarni, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, Y. Zhu, and R. Martín-Martín, “What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation,” in Proc. Conf. Robot Learn., 2022, pp. 1678–1690.
  8. M. Zucker, N. Ratliff, A. D. Dragan, M. Pivtoraiko, M. Klingensmith, C. M. Dellin, J. A. Bagnell, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Chomp: Covariant hamiltonian optimization for motion planning,” The International journal of robotics research, vol. 32, no. 9-10, pp. 1164–1193, 2013.
  9. J. Schulman, Y. Duan, J. Ho, A. Lee, I. Awwal, H. Bradlow, J. Pan, S. Patil, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel, “Motion planning with sequential convex optimization and convex collision checking,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1251–1270, 2014.
  10. D. Mellinger and V. Kumar, “Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors,” in 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation.   IEEE, 2011, pp. 2520–2525.
  11. X. Zhang, A. Liniger, and F. Borrelli, “Optimization-based collision avoidance,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 972–983, 2020.
  12. T. Zhang, Z. McCarthy, O. Jow, D. Lee, X. Chen, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel, “Deep imitation learning for complex manipulation tasks from virtual reality teleoperation,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2018, pp. 5628–5635.
  13. P. Florence, L. Manuelli, and R. Tedrake, “Self-supervised correspondence in visuomotor policy learning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 492–499, 2019.
  14. M. Bojarski, D. Del Testa, D. Dworakowski, B. Firner, B. Flepp, P. Goyal, L. D. Jackel, M. Monfort, U. Muller, J. Zhang et al., “End to end learning for self-driving cars,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.07316, 2016.
  15. S. Ross, G. Gordon, and D. Bagnell, “A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning,” in Proceedings of the fourteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics.   JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2011, pp. 627–635.
  16. R. Rahmatizadeh, P. Abolghasemi, L. Bölöni, and S. Levine, “Vision-based multi-task manipulation for inexpensive robots using end-to-end learning from demonstration,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2018, pp. 3758–3765.
  17. J. Wu, X. Sun, A. Zeng, S. Song, J. Lee, S. Rusinkiewicz, and T. Funkhouser, “Spatial action maps for mobile manipulation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09141, 2020.
  18. A. Zeng, P. Florence, J. Tompson, S. Welker, J. Chien, M. Attarian, T. Armstrong, I. Krasin, D. Duong, V. Sindhwani et al., “Transporter networks: Rearranging the visual world for robotic manipulation,” in Conference on Robot Learning.   PMLR, 2021, pp. 726–747.
  19. Y. Avigal, L. Berscheid, T. Asfour, T. Kröger, and K. Goldberg, “Speedfolding: Learning efficient bimanual folding of garments,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–8.
  20. N. M. Shafiullah, Z. Cui, A. A. Altanzaya, and L. Pinto, “Behavior transformers: Cloning k𝑘kitalic_k modes with one stone,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 22 955–22 968, 2022.
  21. S. Pfrommer, M. Halm, and M. Posa, “ContactNets: Learning Discontinuous Contact Dynamics with Smooth, Implicit Representations,” in The Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2020. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v155/pfrommer21a.html
  22. B. Bianchini, M. Halm, N. Matni, and M. Posa, “Generalization bounded implicit learning of nearly discontinuous functions,” in Proceedings of The 4th Annual Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference (L4DC), ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, R. Firoozi, N. Mehr, E. Yel, R. Antonova, J. Bohg, M. Schwager, and M. Kochenderfer, Eds., vol. 168.   PMLR, 23–24 Jun 2022, pp. 1112–1124. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v168/bianchini22a.html
  23. B. Amos, I. Jimenez, J. Sacks, B. Boots, and J. Z. Kolter, “Differentiable mpc for end-to-end planning and control,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018.
  24. M. Retchin, B. Amos, S. Brunton, and S. Song, “Koopman constrained policy optimization: A koopman operator theoretic method for differentiable optimal control in robotics,” in ICML 2023 Workshop on Differentiable Almost Everything: Differentiable Relaxations, Algorithms, Operators, and Simulators, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=3W7vPqWCeM
  25. W. Xiao, R. Hasani, X. Li, and D. Rus, “Barriernet: A safety-guaranteed layer for neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.11277, 2021.
  26. C. Diehl, J. Adamek, M. Krüger, F. Hoffmann, and T. Bertram, “Differentiable constrained imitation learning for robot motion planning and control,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11796, 2022.
  27. P. Karkus, B. Ivanovic, S. Mannor, and M. Pavone, “Diffstack: A differentiable and modular control stack for autonomous vehicles,” in Conference on Robot Learning.   PMLR, 2023, pp. 2170–2180.
  28. A. Mandlekar, D. Xu, R. Martín-Martín, S. Savarese, and L. Fei-Fei, “Learning to generalize across long-horizon tasks from human demonstrations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06085, 2020.
  29. A. Mandlekar, F. Ramos, B. Boots, S. Savarese, L. Fei-Fei, A. Garg, and D. Fox, “Iris: Implicit reinforcement without interaction at scale for learning control from offline robot manipulation data,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2020, pp. 4414–4420.
  30. B. Amos and J. Z. Kolter, “OptNet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks,” in Proc. 34th Int. Conf. Mach. Learn., 2017, pp. 136–145.

Summary

  • The paper introduces a differentiable optimization layer that integrates directly with neural policies to enforce constraints during training.
  • It generates safe, smooth actions by embedding trajectory optimization, thereby reducing uncertainty and improving manipulation performance.
  • Experimental results in simulation and real-world settings validate high success rates and enhanced trajectory quality compared to traditional methods.

Overview of LeTO: Learning Constrained Visuomotor Policy with Differentiable Trajectory Optimization

The paper presents a novel method called LeTO, aimed at enhancing visuomotor policy learning through the integration of differentiable trajectory optimization into neural network architectures. This methodological approach addresses a significant gap between the representational strength of neural networks and the safety and interpretability provided by optimization-based methods, particularly in the domain of robotic manipulation. The pervasive challenge in imitation learning, which often results in uncertain and non-smooth trajectories, is effectively mitigated by LeTO through constrained action generation.

Core Contributions and Methodology

LeTO's primary innovation is the embedding of a differentiable optimization layer within the policy learning architecture. This layer is modeled as a trajectory optimization problem, allowing the system to generate safe and smooth actions by adhering to specified constraints. The approach is described as "gray box," effectively blending the black-box nature of neural networks with the transparency of optimization constraints.

Key contributions include:

  1. Differentiable Optimization Layer: This layer enables the policy to generate actions constrained by parameters during training, ensuring adherence to the path, velocity, and acceleration limits. It requires no additional modules to control the trajectory, providing a seamless end-to-end learning process.
  2. Safe and Constraint-Compliant Actions: The policies learned via LeTO naturally incorporate constraints into action generation, enhancing both the safety and smoothness of trajectories.
  3. Evaluation: In simulations, LeTO demonstrates a comparable success rate to state-of-the-art imitation learning methods like diffusion policies, with noticeable improvements in trajectory quality. On real-world tasks where constraints are critical, the policy shows enhanced robustness and safety features. This is particularly noteworthy in the absence of catastrophic failures or system instability, a common issue with traditional imitation learning methods.

Experimental Validation

The experiment results indicate that LeTO consistently generates high-quality, smooth trajectories while maintaining a high success rate in both simulated and real-world robotic tasks. The method outperforms others like LSTM-GMM and IBC in both categories, showing less uncertainty in the generated paths and fewer violations of predefined safety constraints.

  • Simulation Results: LeTO achieves a success rate on par with diffusion policy but stands out in generating less uncertain and more refined trajectories.
  • Real-world Experiments: It effectively handles tasks with critical constraints, demonstrating superior performance compared to state-of-the-art methods under practical conditions.

Implications for AI and Robotics

The integration of differentiable optimization into policy learning opens new avenues for safer deployment of AI in real-world applications, especially where model interpretability is crucial. This development suggests a shift towards methodologies that combine the strengths of model-based and model-free approaches, offering a robust framework for tackling complex manipulation tasks in stochastic environments.

Future Directions: The research paves the way for further exploration into more computationally efficient differentiable solvers. Additionally, it suggests potential integration with reinforcement learning frameworks, which could further enhance adaptive learning capabilities in dynamic environments where real-time constraints must be adhered to without compromising on policy performance.

In conclusion, LeTO provides a significant advancement in combining neural networks with trajectory optimization, providing a pathway for creating visuomotor policies that are both effective and safe, emphasizing the importance of integrating domain knowledge into AI systems through optimized learning frameworks.

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