Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
125 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
53 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 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

Sailing Through Point Clouds: Safe Navigation Using Point Cloud Based Control Barrier Functions (2403.18206v2)

Published 27 Mar 2024 in cs.RO

Abstract: The capability to navigate safely in an unstructured environment is crucial when deploying robotic systems in real-world scenarios. Recently, control barrier function (CBF) based approaches have been highly effective in synthesizing safety-critical controllers. In this work, we propose a novel CBF-based local planner comprised of two components: Vessel and Mariner. The Vessel is a novel scaling factor based CBF formulation that synthesizes CBFs using only point cloud data. The Mariner is a CBF-based preview control framework that is used to mitigate getting stuck in spurious equilibria during navigation. To demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed approach, we first compare the proposed point cloud based CBF formulation with other point cloud based CBF formulations. Then, we demonstrate the performance of our proposed approach and its integration with global planners using experimental studies on the Unitree B1 and Unitree Go2 quadruped robots in various environments.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (26)
  1. Z. Jian, Z. Yan, X. Lei, Z. Lu, B. Lan, X. Wang, and B. Liang, “Dynamic control barrier function-based model predictive control to safety-critical obstacle-avoidance of mobile robot,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, London, United Kingdom, May 2023, pp. 3679–3685.
  2. H. U. Unlu, V. M. Gonçalves, D. Chaikalis, A. Tzes, and F. Khorrami, “A control barrier function-based motion planning scheme for a quadruped robot,” in Procceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Yokohama, Japan, May 2024, (To appear).
  3. B. Dai, P. Krishnamurthy, A. Papanicolaou, and F. Khorrami, “State constrained stochastic optimal control for continuous and hybrid dynamical systems using DFBSDE,” Automatica, vol. 155, p. 111146, 2023.
  4. B. Dai, P. Krishnamurthy, A. Papanicolaou, and F. Khorrami, “State constrained stochastic optimal control using LSTMs,” in Proceedings of the American Control Conference, New Orleans, LA, May 2021, pp. 1294–1299.
  5. S. Wei, P. Krishnamurthy, and F. Khorrami, “Confidence-aware safe and stable control of control-affine systems,” CoRR, vol. abs/2403.09067, 2024.
  6. A. D. Ames, S. Coogan, M. Egerstedt, G. Notomista, K. Sreenath, and P. Tabuada, “Control barrier functions: Theory and applications,” in Proceedings of the European Control Conference, Naples, Italy, June 2019, pp. 3420–3431.
  7. V. M. Gonçalves, P. Krishnamurthy, A. Tzes, and F. Khorrami, “Using circulation to mitigate spurious equilibria in control barrier function,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Singapore, Singapore, December 2023, pp. 1770–1775.
  8. A. Thirugnanam, J. Zeng, and K. Sreenath, “Safety-critical control and planning for obstacle avoidance between polytopes with control barrier functions,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Philadelphia, PA, May 2022, pp. 286–292.
  9. J. Zeng, B. Zhang, and K. Sreenath, “Safety-critical model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier function,” in Proceedings of the American Control Conference, New Orleans, LA, May 2021, pp. 3882–3889.
  10. B. Dai, P. Krishnamurthy, and F. Khorrami, “Learning a better control barrier function,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Cancún, Mexico, December 2022, pp. 945–950.
  11. B. Dai, H. Huang, P. Krishnamurthy, and F. Khorrami, “Data-efficient control barrier function refinement,” in Proceedings of the American Control Conference, San Diego, CA, May 2023, pp. 3675–3680.
  12. B. Dai, R. Khorrambakht, P. Krishnamurthy, V. Gonçalves, A. Tzes, and F. Khorrami, “Safe navigation and obstacle avoidance using differentiable optimization based control barrier functions,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 5376–5383, 2023.
  13. B. Dai, R. Khorrambakht, P. Krishnamurthy, and F. Khorrami, “Differentiable optimization based time-varying control barrier functions for dynamic obstacle avoidance,” CoRR, vol. abs/2309.17226, 2023.
  14. S. Wei, B. Dai, R. Khorrambakht, P. Krishnamurthy, and F. Khorrami, “Diffocclusion: Differentiable optimization based control barrier functions for occlusion-free visual servoing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 3235–3242, 2024.
  15. C. J. Ong and E. G. Gilbert, “Growth distances: new measures for object separation and penetration,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 888–903, 1996.
  16. E. G. Gilbert and C. J. Ong, “New distances for the separation and penetration of objects,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Diego, CA, May 1994, pp. 579–586.
  17. K. Tracy, T. A. Howell, and Z. Manchester, “Differentiable collision detection for a set of convex primitives,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, London, United Kingdom, May 2023, pp. 3663–3670.
  18. D. Fox, W. Burgard, and S. Thrun, “Controlling synchro-drive robots with the dynamic window approach to collision avoidance,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Osaka, Japan, November 1996, pp. 1280–1287.
  19. S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,” International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, 2011.
  20. A. Meduri, P. Shah, J. Viereck, M. Khadiv, I. Havoutis, and L. Righetti, “Biconmp: A nonlinear model predictive control framework for whole body motion planning,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 905–922, 2023.
  21. S. Macenski and I. Jambrecic, “SLAM toolbox: SLAM for the dynamic world,” Journal of Open Source Software, vol. 6, no. 61, p. 2783, 2021.
  22. M. Macklin, “Warp: A high-performance Python framework for GPU simulation and graphics,” March 2022, NVIDIA GPU Technology Conference.
  23. L. G. Khachiyan, “A polynomial algorithm in linear programming,” Doklady Akademii Nauk, vol. 244, no. 5, pp. 1093–1096, 1979.
  24. M. Ester, H. Kriegel, J. Sander, and X. Xu, “A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Portland, OR, August 1996, pp. 226–231.
  25. J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “Casadi: a software framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control,” Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2019.
  26. I. A. Sucan, M. Moll, and L. E. Kavraki, “The open motion planning library,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 72–82, 2012.
Citations (3)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

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

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

Tweets