Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Automatic Derivation of an Optimal Task Frame for Learning and Controlling Contact-Rich Tasks

Published 2 Apr 2024 in cs.RO | (2404.01900v3)

Abstract: In previous work on learning and controlling contact-rich tasks, the procedure for choosing a proper reference frame to express learned signals for the motion and the interaction wrench is often implicit, requires expert insight, or starts from proposed frame candidates. This article presents an automatic method to derive the optimal reference frame, referred to as optimal task frame, directly from the recorded motion and wrench data of the demonstration. Using screw theory, several origin and orientation candidates are generated that maximize decoupling in the data. These candidates are then processed probabilistically, without needing hyperparameters, to obtain the optimal task frame. Its origin and orientation are independently fixed to either the world or the robot tool. The method works regardless of whether the task involves translation, rotation, force, or moment, or any combination thereof. The method was validated for various tasks, including surface following and manipulation of articulated objects, showing good agreement between derived and assumed expert task frames. To validate the robot's performance, a constraint-based controller was designed based on the data expressed in the derived task frames. These experiments demonstrated the approach's effectiveness and versatility. The automatic task frame derivation approach supports learning methods to design controllers for a wide range of contact-rich tasks.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (43)
  1. H. Bruyninckx and J. De Schutter, “Specification of force-controlled actions in the” task frame formalism”-a synthesis,” IEEE transactions on robotics and automation, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 581–589, 1996.
  2. X. Li and O. Brock, “Learning from demonstration based on environmental constraints,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10 938–10 945, 2022.
  3. Y. Kim, C. Sloth, and A. Kramberger, “Skill transfer for surface finishing tasks based on estimation of key parameters,” in 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), 2022, pp. 2148–2153.
  4. J. Zhao, A. Giammarino, E. Lamon, J. M. Gandarias, E. De Momi, and A. Ajoudani, “A hybrid learning and optimization framework to achieve physically interactive tasks with mobile manipulators,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 8036–8043, 2022.
  5. A. Conkey and T. Hermans, “Learning task constraints from demonstration for hybrid force/position control,” in 2019 IEEE-RAS 19th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids).   IEEE, 2019, pp. 162–169.
  6. M. Suomalainen and V. Kyrki, “Learning compliant assembly motions from demonstration,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2016, pp. 871–876.
  7. A. L. P. Ureche, K. Umezawa, Y. Nakamura, and A. Billard, “Task parameterization using continuous constraints extracted from human demonstrations,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1458–1471, 2015.
  8. Y. Huang, J. Silvério, L. Rozo, and D. G. Caldwell, “Generalized task-parameterized skill learning,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2018, pp. 5667–5474.
  9. C. Pérez-D’Arpino and J. A. Shah, “C-learn: Learning geometric constraints from demonstrations for multi-step manipulation in shared autonomy,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2017, pp. 4058–4065.
  10. M. Suomalainen, J. Koivumäki, S. Lampinen, V. Kyrki, and J. Mattila, “Learning from demonstration for hydraulic manipulators,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2018, pp. 3579–3586.
  11. L. Peternel, L. Rozo, D. Caldwell, and A. Ajoudani, “A method for derivation of robot task-frame control authority from repeated sensory observations,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 719–726, 2017.
  12. C. A. Vergara Perico, J. De Schutter, and E. Aertbeliën, “Learning robust manipulation tasks involving contact using trajectory parameterized probabilistic principal component analysis,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2020, pp. 8336–8343.
  13. S. El Zaatari, M. Marei, W. Li, and Z. Usman, “Cobot programming for collaborative industrial tasks: An overview,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 116, pp. 162–180, 2019.
  14. M. Suomalainen, S. Calinon, E. Pignat, and V. Kyrki, “Improving dual-arm assembly by master-slave compliance,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2019, pp. 8676–8682.
  15. H. Ravichandar, A. S. Polydoros, S. Chernova, and A. Billard, “Recent advances in robot learning from demonstration,” Annual review of control, robotics, and autonomous systems, vol. 3, pp. 297–330, 2020.
  16. K. Fischer, F. Kirstein, L. C. Jensen, N. Kr, K. Kukli, M. V. aus der Wieschen, T. R. Savarimuthu, et al., “A comparison of types of robot control for programming by demonstration. in 2016 11th acm,” in IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), pp. 213–220.
  17. “Mujoco, advanced physics simulation,” https://mujoco.org/, accessed: 2023-12-19.
  18. “Bullet, real-time physics simulation,” https://pybullet.org/wordpress/, accessed: 2023-12-19.
  19. M. Suomalainen, Y. Karayiannidis, and V. Kyrki, “A survey of robot manipulation in contact,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 156, p. 104224, 2022.
  20. X. Li, M. Baurn, and O. Brock, “Augmentation enables one-shot generalization in learning from demonstration for contact-rich manipulation,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2023, pp. 3656–3663.
  21. M. T. Mason, “Compliance and force control for computer controlled manipulators,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 418–432, 1981.
  22. M. H. Raibert and J. J. Craig, “Hybrid Position/Force Control of Manipulators,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 126–133, 06 1981.
  23. J. De Schutter and H. Van Brussel, “Compliant robot motion i. a formalism for specifying compliant motion tasks,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 3–17, 1988.
  24. ——, “Compliant robot motion ii. a control approach based on external control loops,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 18–33, 1988.
  25. H. Bruyninckx, S. Demey, S. Dutre, and J. De Schutter, “Kinematic models for model-based compliant motion in the presence of uncertainty,” The International journal of robotics research, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 465–482, 1995.
  26. J. Kober, M. Gienger, and J. J. Steil, “Learning movement primitives for force interaction tasks,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2015, pp. 3192–3199.
  27. S. Manschitz, M. Gienger, J. Kober, and J. Peters, “Mixture of attractors: A novel movement primitive representation for learning motor skills from demonstrations,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 926–933, 2018.
  28. S. Niekum, S. Osentoski, G. Konidaris, S. Chitta, B. Marthi, and A. G. Barto, “Learning grounded finite-state representations from unstructured demonstrations,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 131–157, 2015.
  29. M. Suomalainen and V. Kyrki, “A geometric approach for learning compliant motions from demonstration,” in 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th International Conference on Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids).   IEEE, 2017, pp. 783–790.
  30. M. Vochten, T. De Laet, and J. De Schutter, “Generalizing demonstrated motion trajectories using coordinate-free shape descriptors,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 122, p. 103291, 2019.
  31. M. Vochten, A. Mousavi Mohammadi, A. Verduyn, T. De Laet, E. Aertbeliën, and J. De Schutter, “Invariant descriptors of motion and force trajectories for interpreting object manipulation tasks in contact,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, pp. 1–21, 2023.
  32. F. J. Abu-Dakka, L. Rozo, and D. G. Caldwell, “Force-based variable impedance learning for robotic manipulation,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 109, pp. 156–167, 2018.
  33. F. Qin, D. Xu, D. Zhang, and Y. Li, “Robotic skill learning for precision assembly with microscopic vision and force feedback,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1117–1128, 2019.
  34. M. Deniša, A. Gams, A. Ude, and T. Petrič, “Learning compliant movement primitives through demonstration and statistical generalization,” IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 2581–2594, 2015.
  35. M. Racca, J. Pajarinen, A. Montebelli, and V. Kyrki, “Learning in-contact control strategies from demonstration,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2016, pp. 688–695.
  36. Y. Kim, C. Sloth, and A. Kramberger, “A framework for transferring surface finishing skills to new surface geometries,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 7650–7655.
  37. A. Ancillao, M. Vochten, A. Verduyn, J. De Schutter, and E. Aertbeliën, “An optimal method for calculating an average screw axis for a joint, with improved sensitivity to noise and providing an analysis of the dispersion of the instantaneous axes,” PLOS ONE, vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 1–22, 2022.
  38. L. Kavan, S. Collins, C. O’Sullivan, and J. Zara, “Dual quaternions for rigid transformation blending,” Trinity College Dublin, vol. 5, 2006.
  39. A. J. Ijspeert, J. Nakanishi, H. Hoffmann, P. Pastor, and S. Schaal, “Dynamical movement primitives: Learning attractor models for motor behaviors,” Neural Computation, vol. 25, pp. 328–373, 2013.
  40. S. Calinon, F. Guenter, and A. Billard, “On learning, representing, and generalizing a task in a humanoid robot,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 286–298, 2007.
  41. C. A. Vergara Perico, J. De Schutter, and E. Aertbeliën, “Combining imitation learning with constraint-based task specification and control,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1892–1899, 2019.
  42. H. Bruyninckx, S. Dutre, and J. De Schutter, “Peg-on-hole: a model based solution to peg and hole alignment,” in Proceedings of 1995 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2.   IEEE, 1995, pp. 1919–1924.
  43. E. Aertbeliën and J. De Schutter, “etasl/etc: A constraint-based task specification language and robot controller using expression graphs,” in 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.   IEEE, 2014, pp. 1540–1546.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

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

Generate Now

Collections

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

Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 2 tweets with 2 likes about this paper.

Sign Up for Free