Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 168 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 48 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 28 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 25 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 122 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 188 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 464 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Certifying Bimanual RRT Motion Plans in a Second (2310.16603v2)

Published 25 Oct 2023 in cs.RO and cs.CG

Abstract: We present an efficient method for certifying non-collision for piecewise-polynomial motion plans in algebraic reparametrizations of configuration space. Such motion plans include those generated by popular randomized methods including RRTs and PRMs, as well as those generated by many methods in trajectory optimization. Based on Sums-of-Squares optimization, our method provides exact, rigorous certificates of non-collision; it can never falsely claim that a motion plan containing collisions is collision-free. We demonstrate that our formulation is practical for real world deployment, certifying the safety of a twelve degree of freedom motion plan in just over a second. Moreover, the method is capable of discriminating the safety or lack thereof of two motion plans which differ by only millimeters.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (25)
  1. S. Cameron, “A study of the clash detection problem in robotics,” in Proceedings. 1985 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, pp. 488–493.
  2. L. He and J. van den Berg, “Efficient exact collision-checking of 3-d rigid body motions using linear transformations and distance computations in workspace,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2059–2064.
  3. M. Lin and S. Gottschalk, “Collision detection between geometric models: A survey,” in Proc. of IMA conference on mathematics of surfaces, vol. 1, 1998, pp. 602–608.
  4. P. M. Hubbard, “Collision detection for interactive graphics applications,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 218–230, 1995.
  5. M. I. Shamos and D. Hoey, “Geometric intersection problems,” in 17th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.   IEEE, 1976, pp. 208–215.
  6. M. C. Lin, D. Manocha, and Y. J. Kim, “Collision and proximity queries,” in Handbook of discrete and computational geometry.   Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017, pp. 1029–1056.
  7. J. Pan, S. Chitta, and D. Manocha, “Fcl: A general purpose library for collision and proximity queries,” in 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2012, pp. 3859–3866.
  8. S. Tarbouriech and W. Suleiman, “On bisection continuous collision checking method: Spherical joints and minimum distance to obstacles,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2018, pp. 7613–7619.
  9. P. Jiménez, F. Thomas, and C. Torras, “3d collision detection: a survey,” Computers & Graphics, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 269–285, 2001.
  10. C. L. Jackins and S. L. Tanimoto, “Oct-trees and their use in representing three-dimensional objects,” Computer Graphics and Image Processing, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 249–270, 1980.
  11. M. Tang, Y. J. Kim, and D. Manocha, “Ccq: Efficient local planning using connection collision query,” in Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics IX: Selected Contributions of the Ninth International Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics.   Springer, 2011, pp. 229–247.
  12. J. Pan, L. Zhang, D. Manocha, and U. Hill, “Collision-free and curvature-continuous path smoothing in cluttered environments,” Robotics: science and systems VII, vol. 17, p. 233, 2012.
  13. F. Schwarzer, M. Saha, and J.-C. Latombe, “Exact collision checking of robot paths,” in Algorithmic foundations of robotics V.   Springer, 2004, pp. 25–41.
  14. X. Zhang, S. Redon, M. Lee, and Y. J. Kim, “Continuous collision detection for articulated models using taylor models and temporal culling,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 15–es, 2007.
  15. J. Canny, “Collision detection for moving polyhedra,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, no. 2, pp. 200–209, 1986.
  16. A. Schweikard, “Polynomial time collision detection for manipulator paths specified by joint motions,” IEEE Transactions on robotics and automation, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 865–870, 1991.
  17. H. Dai, A. Amice, P. Werner, A. Zhang, and R. Tedrake, “Certified polyhedral decompositions of collision-free configuration space,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12219, 2023.
  18. C. W. Wampler and A. J. Sommese, “Numerical algebraic geometry and algebraic kinematics,” Acta Numerica, vol. 20, 2011.
  19. A. Amice, H. Dai, P. Werner, A. Zhang, and R. Tedrake, “Finding and optimizing certified, collision-free regions in configuration space for robot manipulators,” in Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XV: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics.   Springer, 2022, pp. 328–348.
  20. T. Roh and L. Vandenberghe, “Discrete transforms, semidefinite programming, and sum-of-squares representations of nonnegative polynomials,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 939–964, 2006.
  21. M.-D. Choi, T.-Y. Lam, and B. Reznick, “Real zeros of positive semidefinite forms. i,” Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 171, pp. 1–26, 1980.
  22. K. Mamou and F. Ghorbel, “A simple and efficient approach for 3d mesh approximate convex decomposition,” in 2009 16th IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP), 2009, pp. 3501–3504.
  23. R. Tedrake and the Drake Development Team, “Drake: Model-based design and verification for robotics,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://drake.mit.edu
  24. S. Redon, M. C. Lin, D. Manocha, and Y. J. Kim, “Fast continuous collision detection for articulated models,” 2005.
  25. C. Yuan, “Polynomial structure in semidefinite relaxations and non-convex formulations,” Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2022.
Citations (4)

Summary

  • The paper introduces a novel SOS optimization method to provide rigorous, collision-free certificates for bimanual RRT motion plans.
  • It leverages algebraic reparametrizations and convex optimization to achieve precise non-collision guarantees with millimeter-level accuracy.
  • Results validate the approach by certifying a 12-DOF motion plan in just over one second, enhancing robotic safety in dynamic environments.

Overview of "Certifying Bimanual RRT Motion Plans in a Second"

This paper introduces a novel method for certifying the safety of motion plans in robotics, specifically focusing on non-collision guarantees for piecewise-polynomial paths within configuration space reparametrizations. It addresses a key challenge in robotic motion planning: ensuring a motion plan is collision-free for all configurations along its path, not just at sampled points. The authors leverage Sums-of-Squares (SOS) optimization to provide rigorous non-collision certificates with strong correctness guarantees.

Methods

The proposed framework utilizes SOS programming to certify that robotic motion plans are free from collisions. This approach involves algebraic reparametrizations of the configuration space, enabling the use of polynomial motion paths within algorithms commonly used in trajectory optimization, such as Rapidly-exploring Random Trees (RRT) and Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM).

The certification process involves formulating non-collision as a convex optimization problem, using the concept of separating hyperplanes in configuration space. The mathematics leverages the positive semidefinite properties of matrices and vector-matrix formulations to provide numerical certificates that are both efficient and exact.

Key Results

A primary contribution of the paper is demonstrating that the proposed certification method is viable for real-world deployment. The authors provide evidence by certifying the safety of a 12-DOF motion plan in just over a second. Notably, their method discriminates between motion plans with minor spatial differences, accurately identifying potential collisions with millimeter-level precision.

Practical and Theoretical Implications

The certification of non-collision has major implications for the safety and reliability of robotic systems, particularly in environments where precision and safety are paramount, such as in collaborative industrial settings or surgical robotics. By providing guarantees on safety, roboticists can better ensure that their systems are robust to motion planning errors or inaccuracies in modeling environmental interactions.

Speculation on Future Developments

As the field progresses, it is possible that advancements in both computational efficiency and SOS optimization techniques could allow for even faster certification across more complex and higher-dimensional robotic systems. Additionally, future work might explore integration of these certification methods with real-time motion planning algorithms to continually ensure safety as plans are generated and executed.

In conclusion, the paper presents a robust approach to certifying motion plans in robotic systems, addressing critical challenges in ensuring collision-free operation with precision and efficiency. The use of SOS programming in this context provides theoretically sound assurances that enhance the safety of robotic maneuvers within dynamic and potential collision-prone environments.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

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

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 4 tweets and received 50 likes.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper:

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