Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 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

Physics-informed Neural Motion Planning on Constraint Manifolds (2403.05765v1)

Published 9 Mar 2024 in cs.RO and cs.LG

Abstract: Constrained Motion Planning (CMP) aims to find a collision-free path between the given start and goal configurations on the kinematic constraint manifolds. These problems appear in various scenarios ranging from object manipulation to legged-robot locomotion. However, the zero-volume nature of manifolds makes the CMP problem challenging, and the state-of-the-art methods still take several seconds to find a path and require a computationally expansive path dataset for imitation learning. Recently, physics-informed motion planning methods have emerged that directly solve the Eikonal equation through neural networks for motion planning and do not require expert demonstrations for learning. Inspired by these approaches, we propose the first physics-informed CMP framework that solves the Eikonal equation on the constraint manifolds and trains neural function for CMP without expert data. Our results show that the proposed approach efficiently solves various CMP problems in both simulation and real-world, including object manipulation under orientation constraints and door opening with a high-dimensional 6-DOF robot manipulator. In these complex settings, our method exhibits high success rates and finds paths in sub-seconds, which is many times faster than the state-of-the-art CMP methods.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (31)
  1. C. G. Atkeson, B. P. W. Babu, N. Banerjee, D. Berenson, C. P. Bove, X. Cui, M. DeDonato, R. Du, S. Feng, P. Franklin, et al., “No falls, no resets: Reliable humanoid behavior in the darpa robotics challenge,” in 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids).   IEEE, 2015, pp. 623–630.
  2. D. Berenson, S. Srinivasa, and J. Kuffner, “Task space regions: A framework for pose-constrained manipulation planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1435–1460, 2011.
  3. D. Berenson, S. S. Srinivasa, D. Ferguson, and J. J. Kuffner, “Manipulation planning on constraint manifolds,” in 2009 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation.   IEEE, 2009, pp. 625–632.
  4. R. Bonalli, A. Bylard, A. Cauligi, T. Lew, and M. Pavone, “Trajectory optimization on manifolds: A theoretically-guaranteed embedded sequential convex programming approach,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07654, 2019.
  5. R. Bordalba, L. Ros, and J. M. Porta, “Randomized kinodynamic planning for constrained systems,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2018, pp. 7079–7086.
  6. K. Crane, C. Weischedel, and M. Wardetzky, “Geodesics in heat: A new approach to computing distance based on heat flow,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1–11, 2013.
  7. A. D. Dragan, N. D. Ratliff, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Manipulation planning with goal sets using constrained trajectory optimization,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.   IEEE, 2011, pp. 4582–4588.
  8. P. Englert, I. M. R. Fernández, R. K. Ramachandran, and G. S. Sukhatme, “Sampling-based motion planning on sequenced manifolds,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.02027, 2020.
  9. K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770–778.
  10. L. Jaillet and J. M. Porta, “Path planning with loop closure constraints using an atlas-based rrt,” in Robotics Research: The 15th International Symposium ISRR.   Springer, 2017, pp. 345–362.
  11. ——, “Asymptotically-optimal path planning on manifolds,” in Robotics: Science and Systems, vol. 8, 2013, p. 145.
  12. M. Johnson, B. Shrewsbury, S. Bertrand, T. Wu, D. Duran, M. Floyd, P. Abeles, D. Stephen, N. Mertins, A. Lesman, et al., “Team ihmc’s lessons learned from the darpa robotics challenge trials,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 192–208, 2015.
  13. P. Kicki, P. Liu, D. Tateo, H. Bou-Ammar, K. Walas, P. Skrzypczyński, and J. Peters, “Fast kinodynamic planning on the constraint manifold with deep neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04330, 2023.
  14. B. Kim, T. T. Um, C. Suh, and F. C. Park, “Tangent bundle rrt: A randomized algorithm for constrained motion planning,” Robotica, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 202–225, 2016.
  15. Z. Kingston, M. Moll, and L. E. Kavraki, “Exploring implicit spaces for constrained sampling-based planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 38, no. 10-11, pp. 1151–1178, 2019.
  16. J. J. Kuffner and S. M. LaValle, “Rrt-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning,” in Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37065), vol. 2.   IEEE, 2000, pp. 995–1001.
  17. L. E. K. J.-C. Latombe, “Probabilistic roadmaps for robot path planning,” Pratical motion planning in robotics: current aproaches and future challenges, pp. 33–53, 1998.
  18. S. M. LaValle, “Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning,” 1998. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14744621
  19. T. S. Lembono, E. Pignat, J. Jankowski, and S. Calinon, “Learning constrained distributions of robot configurations with generative adversarial network,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 4233–4240, 2021.
  20. P. Liu, D. Tateo, H. B. Ammar, and J. Peters, “Robot reinforcement learning on the constraint manifold,” in Conference on Robot Learning.   PMLR, 2022, pp. 1357–1366.
  21. R. Ni and A. H. Qureshi, “NTFields: Neural time fields for physics-informed robot motion planning,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023.
  22. ——, “Progressive learning for physics-informed neural motion planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00616, 2023.
  23. A. H. Qureshi, J. Dong, A. Choe, and M. C. Yip, “Neural manipulation planning on constraint manifolds,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 6089–6096, 2020.
  24. A. H. Qureshi, J. Dong, A. Baig, and M. C. Yip, “Constrained motion planning networks x,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 868–886, 2021.
  25. M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,” Journal of Computational physics, vol. 378, pp. 686–707, 2019.
  26. N. Ratliff, M. Zucker, J. A. Bagnell, and S. Srinivasa, “Chomp: Gradient optimization techniques for efficient motion planning,” in 2009 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation.   IEEE, 2009, pp. 489–494.
  27. 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.
  28. J. D. Smith, K. Azizzadenesheli, and Z. E. Ross, “Eikonet: Solving the eikonal equation with deep neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 10 685–10 696, 2020.
  29. M. Stilman, “Task constrained motion planning in robot joint space,” in 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.   IEEE, 2007, pp. 3074–3081.
  30. G. Sutanto, I. R. Fernández, P. Englert, R. K. Ramachandran, and G. Sukhatme, “Learning equality constraints for motion planning on manifolds,” in Conference on Robot Learning.   PMLR, 2021, pp. 2292–2305.
  31. Z. Yao and K. Gupta, “Path planning with general end-effector constraints: Using task space to guide configuration space search,” in 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.   IEEE, 2005, pp. 1875–1880.
Citations (2)

Summary

  • The paper introduces C-NTFields, the first PINN-based CMP solution that integrates the Eikonal equation for efficient motion planning on constraint manifolds.
  • It leverages manifold configuration sampling and a novel speed model to ensure collision-free, kinematically compliant trajectories across complex robotic tasks.
  • Empirical results show significant reductions in planning time and higher success rates compared to state-of-the-art methods without needing large expert trajectory datasets.

Analyzing Physics-Informed Neural Motion Planning on Constraint Manifolds

The paper presents a pioneering framework in the domain of Constrained Motion Planning (CMP) by introducing a physics-informed neural approach that operates efficiently on constraint manifolds. The CMP problem is imperative in robotics, addressing scenarios where movements are restricted by complex kinematic constraints, such as object manipulation and robot locomotion. Traditional methods have struggled with the intrinsic zero-volume nature of these manifolds, making solutions computationally expensive and time-consuming. This paper's approach uniquely leverages Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) to overcome these challenges without the need for extensive expert demonstration data.

Problem Context and Existing Solutions

CMP is tasked with finding a collision-free path for a robot that adheres to given kinematic constraints, imposed by manifolds of zero volume in configuration space. Previous solutions often rely on optimization, sampling, or imitation learning approaches. Optimization methods risk local minima while sampling-based methods can be computationally prohibitive due to random sampling requirements. Modern learning-based approaches like CoMPNetX require large datasets of expert trajectories, which are obtained from classical planners, adding a significant computational burden to the process.

Methodological Innovations

The authors propose the first PINN-based CMP solution, termed Constrained-Neural Time Fields (C-NTFields), which integrates the Eikonal equation within constraint manifold planning. This approach stands out by not requiring pre-collected motion paths for training, thus significantly reducing computational overhead in data preparation. Key components of the methodology include:

  1. Manifold Configuration Sampling: A strategy that directly samples configurations on the constraint manifolds using Task Space Regions (TSRs). This process ensures samples respect kinematic constraints naturally, avoiding complex projection operations.
  2. Speed Definition on Manifolds: A novel speed model is defined, which assigns high speeds to collision-free manifold configurations while reducing speed for off-manifold or obstacle-bound configurations. This model incorporates smooth decays of speed using an exponential function, more suited for manifold constraints compared to the clip function in previous methods.
  3. Eikonal Equation with Viscosity: The progressive learning of an extended Eikonal framework incorporating a unique viscosity term to ensure a well-posed problem formulation. This is crucial in environments where the low-dimensional manifolds introduce potential ambiguity in the path planning solutions.
  4. Neural Network Architecture: The architecture utilizes high-frequency Fourier embeddings and ResNet-style encodings to represent complex environment configurations and propagates symmetric properties of motion using an innovative symmetry operator.
  5. Training and Planning: The training process employs a progressive speed scheduling technique to mitigate convergence challenges, using an isotropic loss function to align predicted and true speeds. The inference stage uses bidirectional updates to progressively converge the start and goal configurations along the manifold in minimal time.

Results and Implications

Empirical evaluations across complex environments, including high-dimensional 6-DOF robotic manipulations and real-world tasks like door opening and object handling, underscore the efficacy of the proposed method. Results indicate significantly lower path planning times compared to state-of-the-art methods, with improvements in maintaining close adherence to constraint manifolds. The method also shows robustness against the intricacies introduced by thin manifolds, maintaining high success rates.

Future Prospects

The proposed approach opens avenues for further exploration into multi-modal constraints commonly present in more dynamic robotics tasks such as legged locomotion. Extending the current framework to account for these constraints may enhance its applicability to broader classes of CMP problems. Additionally, the elimination of extensive expert datasets in training offers a promising outlook for democratizing access to advanced robotic planning systems, fostering innovation across both academic and industry applications.

Conclusion

This paper makes a significant contribution to the field of CMP by integrating physics-informed principles with neural computation, offering a highly efficient and data-agnostic framework for motion planning on constrained manifolds. Through robust theoretical formulations and practical demonstrations, the research sets a new benchmark in the field of time-efficient and constraint-compliant motion planning methodologies.

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