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

PhysORD: A Neuro-Symbolic Approach for Physics-infused Motion Prediction in Off-road Driving (2404.01596v3)

Published 2 Apr 2024 in cs.RO and cs.AI

Abstract: Motion prediction is critical for autonomous off-road driving, however, it presents significantly more challenges than on-road driving because of the complex interaction between the vehicle and the terrain. Traditional physics-based approaches encounter difficulties in accurately modeling dynamic systems and external disturbance. In contrast, data-driven neural networks require extensive datasets and struggle with explicitly capturing the fundamental physical laws, which can easily lead to poor generalization. By merging the advantages of both methods, neuro-symbolic approaches present a promising direction. These methods embed physical laws into neural models, potentially significantly improving generalization capabilities. However, no prior works were evaluated in real-world settings for off-road driving. To bridge this gap, we present PhysORD, a neural-symbolic approach integrating the conservation law, i.e., the Euler-Lagrange equation, into data-driven neural models for motion prediction in off-road driving. Our experiments showed that PhysORD can accurately predict vehicle motion and tolerate external disturbance by modeling uncertainties. The learned dynamics model achieves 46.7% higher accuracy using only 3.1% of the parameters compared to data-driven methods, demonstrating the data efficiency and superior generalization ability of our neural-symbolic method.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (26)
  1. S. Grigorescu, B. Trasnea, T. Cocias, and G. Macesanu, “A survey of deep learning techniques for autonomous driving,” Journal of field robotics, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 362–386, 2020.
  2. V. Lefkopoulos, M. Menner, A. Domahidi, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Interaction-aware motion prediction for autonomous driving: A multiple model kalman filtering scheme,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 80–87, 2020.
  3. S. Su, C. Hao, C. Weaver, C. Tang, W. Zhan, and M. Tomizuka, “Double-iterative gaussian process regression for modeling error compensation in autonomous racing,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 7940–7947, 2023.
  4. S. Triest, M. Sivaprakasam, S. J. Wang, W. Wang, A. M. Johnson, and S. Scherer, “Tartandrive: A large-scale dataset for learning off-road dynamics models,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 2546–2552.
  5. M. Sivaprakasam, P. Maheshwari, M. G. Castro, S. Triest, M. Nye, S. Willits, A. Saba, W. Wang, and S. Scherer, “Tartandrive 2.0: More modalities and better infrastructure to further self-supervised learning research in off-road driving tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01913, 2024.
  6. R. Hadsell, P. Sermanet, J. Ben, A. Erkan, M. Scoffier, K. Kavukcuoglu, U. Muller, and Y. LeCun, “Learning long-range vision for autonomous off-road driving,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 120–144, 2009.
  7. K. Viswanath, K. Singh, P. Jiang, P. Sujit, and S. Saripalli, “Offseg: A semantic segmentation framework for off-road driving,” in 2021 IEEE 17th international conference on automation science and engineering (CASE).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 354–359.
  8. X. Cai, M. Everett, L. Sharma, P. R. Osteen, and J. P. How, “Probabilistic traversability model for risk-aware motion planning in off-road environments,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, pp. 11 297–11 304.
  9. P. Maheshwari, W. Wang, S. Triest, M. Sivaprakasam, S. Aich, J. G. Rogers III, J. M. Gregory, and S. Scherer, “Piaug–physics informed augmentation for learning vehicle dynamics for off-road navigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00815, 2023.
  10. A. Ailon, N. Berman, and S. Arogeti, “On controllability and trajectory tracking of a kinematic vehicle model,” Automatica, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 889–896, 2005.
  11. P. Polack, F. Altché, B. d’Andréa Novel, and A. de La Fortelle, “Guaranteeing consistency in a motion planning and control architecture using a kinematic bicycle model,” in 2018 Annual American Control Conference (ACC).   IEEE, pp. 3981–3987.
  12. R. E. Kalman, “A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems,” 1960.
  13. D. Hafner, T. Lillicrap, J. Ba, and M. Norouzi, “Dream to control: Learning behaviors by latent imagination,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019.
  14. J.-F. Tremblay, T. Manderson, A. Noca, G. Dudek, and D. Meger, “Multimodal dynamics modeling for off-road autonomous vehicles,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 1796–1802.
  15. R. T. Chen, Y. Rubanova, J. Bettencourt, and D. K. Duvenaud, “Neural ordinary differential equations,” Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS), vol. 31, 2018.
  16. S. Greydanus, M. Dzamba, and J. Yosinski, “Hamiltonian neural networks,” Advances in neural information processing systems (NeurIPS), vol. 32, 2019.
  17. S. Saemundsson, A. Terenin, K. Hofmann, and M. Deisenroth, “Variational integrator networks for physically structured embeddings,” in International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS).   PMLR, 2020, pp. 3078–3087.
  18. V. Duruisseaux, T. P. Duong, M. Leok, and N. Atanasov, “Lie group forced variational integrator networks for learning and control of robot systems,” in Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference (L4DC).   PMLR, 2023, pp. 731–744.
  19. M. Lutter, C. Ritter, and J. Peters, “Deep lagrangian networks: Using physics as model prior for deep learning,” in International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018.
  20. A. Havens and G. Chowdhary, “Forced variational integrator networks for prediction and control of mechanical systems,” in Learning for Dynamics and Control (L4DC).   PMLR, 2021, pp. 1142–1153.
  21. 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.
  22. D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, “Learning representations by back-propagating errors,” nature, vol. 323, no. 6088, pp. 533–536, 1986.
  23. S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, “Long short-term memory,” Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735–1780, 1997.
  24. K. Cho, B. Van Merriënboer, C. Gulcehre, D. Bahdanau, F. Bougares, H. Schwenk, and Y. Bengio, “Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1078, 2014.
  25. J. Xu, Q. Luo, K. Xu, X. Xiao, S. Yu, J. Hu, J. Miao, and J. Wang, “An automated learning-based procedure for large-scale vehicle dynamics modeling on baidu apollo platform,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 5049–5056.
  26. C. Wang, D. Gao, K. Xu, J. Geng, Y. Hu, Y. Qiu, B. Li, F. Yang, B. Moon, A. Pandey, Aryan, J. Xu, T. Wu, H. He, D. Huang, Z. Ren, S. Zhao, T. Fu, P. Reddy, X. Lin, W. Wang, J. Shi, R. Talak, K. Cao, Y. Du, H. Wang, H. Yu, S. Wang, S. Chen, A. Kashyap, R. Bandaru, K. Dantu, J. Wu, L. Xie, L. Carlone, M. Hutter, and S. Scherer, “PyPose: A library for robot learning with physics-based optimization,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.15428.pdf
Citations (4)

Summary

  • The paper introduces a novel neuro-symbolic integration that embeds Euler-Lagrange equations within neural architectures to enhance off-road motion prediction.
  • It achieves a 46.7% improvement in prediction accuracy and reduces model parameters by 96.9% on the real-world TartanDrive dataset.
  • The approach significantly boosts training efficiency and maintains trajectory fidelity when predicting complex off-road maneuvers.

Analysis of PhysORD: A Neuro-Symbolic Approach for Off-Road Motion Prediction

The paper presents PhysORD, a novel approach to motion prediction specifically designed for autonomous off-road driving contexts. The research focuses on overcoming the limitations of traditional physics-based models and data-driven neural networks by integrating neuro-symbolic methodologies. PhysORD fuses the Euler-Lagrange equation—a conservation law from classical mechanics—with neural network models to enhance the predictive capabilities of autonomous systems within challenging off-road conditions.

Key Contributions

PhysORD leverages the integration of physics-infused methods into neural models to tackle the predictive challenges posed by the highly dynamic and uncertain off-road environments. The primary contributions of the paper are as follows:

  1. Neuro-Symbolic Integration: PhysORD synthesizes physical understanding via symbolic reasoning with the adaptability of neural networks. It precisely models the complex dynamics of vehicle-terrain interactions by embedding known physical laws into the neural architecture.
  2. Performance on Real-World Data: Uniquely, PhysORD has been evaluated using real-world data from the TartanDrive dataset, setting it apart from previous neuro-symbolic approaches which primarily rely on simulated data. This real-world validation showcases PhysORD’s robustness in handling uncertainties inherent in off-road scenarios.
  3. Efficiency in Prediction and Training: The model demonstrates significant efficiency improvements, achieving a 46.7% enhancement in prediction accuracy with 96.9% fewer parameters compared to existing data-driven methods. Additionally, training time efficiency is drastically improved, with the model reaching optimal performance in a fraction of the time required by other models.

Numerical and Qualitative Insights

The quantitative results are particularly compelling. PhysORD displays superior accuracy, marked by substantial reductions in RMSE (Root Mean Square Error) across diverse terrain types. The model's efficiency sees it outperforming traditional data-heavy approaches, making it notably effective for short-term learning applications. Its ability to generalize from training on short sequences to predict longer-term behaviors is demonstrative of its strong learning generalization capabilities.

Qualitatively, the model reveals its adeptness at predicting complex off-road maneuvers—such as oscillations and continuous turns—by maintaining trajectory fidelity over extended prediction horizons. This characteristic is crucial for real-world deployment where vehicles may encounter unpredictable terrains.

Implications and Future Directions

The research has profound implications for the design of robust motion prediction frameworks in autonomous vehicle systems. Practically, the paper provides insights into the design of autonomous systems capable of operating in unstructured and unpredictable environments by utilizing integrated physics and machine learning approaches. Theoretically, it advances our understanding of how constraints from physical laws can be strategically incorporated into learning systems to improve generalization and efficiency.

Looking forward, the application of PhysORD can extend beyond autonomous vehicles to any robotic systems engaged with dynamic, unstructured environments. Future research could explore incorporating additional sensory data, such as visual inputs, to further refine and enhance model predictions. Diversifying the model to broader robotic applications across varying environments would expand its utility and applicability in real-world contexts.

In conclusion, PhysORD represents a noteworthy advancement in the domain of motion prediction for off-road autonomous driving. Its successful fusion of symbolic reasoning with machine learning techniques paves the way for more efficient and accurate predictive models suitable for the intricacies of off-road navigation. The paper's empirical results substantiate the promise of neuro-symbolic approaches in overcoming limitations posed by traditional methods, offering a robust framework for future advancements in autonomous vehicular systems.

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