Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Effort Allocation for Deadline-Aware Task and Motion Planning: A Metareasoning Approach

Published 8 Oct 2024 in cs.RO | (2410.05828v1)

Abstract: In robot planning, tasks can often be achieved through multiple options, each consisting of several actions. This work specifically addresses deadline constraints in task and motion planning, aiming to find a plan that can be executed within the deadline despite uncertain planning and execution times. We propose an effort allocation problem, formulated as a Markov decision process (MDP), to find such a plan by leveraging metareasoning perspectives to allocate computational resources among the given options. We formally prove the NP-hardness of the problem by reducing it from the knapsack problem. Both a model-based approach, where transition models are learned from past experience, and a model-free approach, which overcomes the unavailability of prior data acquisition through reinforcement learning, are explored. For the model-based approach, we investigate Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) to approximately solve the proposed MDP and further design heuristic schemes to tackle NP-hardness, leading to the approximate yet efficient algorithm called DP_Rerun. In experiments, DP_Rerun demonstrates promising performance comparable to MCTS while requiring negligible computation time.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (79)
  1. C. R. Garrett, R. Chitnis, R. Holladay, B. Kim, T. Silver, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-Pérez, “Integrated task and motion planning,” Annual review of control, robotics, and autonomous systems, vol. 4, pp. 265–293, 2021.
  2. Z. Zhao, S. Chen, Y. Ding, Z. Zhou, S. Zhang, D. Xu, and Y. Zhao, “A survey of optimization-based task and motion planning: From classical to learning approaches,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02817, 2024.
  3. K. Hauser and V. Ng-Thow-Hing, “Randomized multi-modal motion planning for a humanoid robot manipulation task,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 678–698, 2011.
  4. A. Krontiris and K. E. Bekris, “Dealing with difficult instances of object rearrangement.” in Robotics: Science and Systems, vol. 1123, 2015.
  5. C. R. Garrett, T. Lozano-Perez, and L. P. Kaelbling, “Ffrob: Leveraging symbolic planning for efficient task and motion planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 104–136, 2018.
  6. J. Wolfe, B. Marthi, and S. Russell, “Combined task and motion planning for mobile manipulation,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 20, 2010, pp. 254–257.
  7. S. Srivastava, E. Fang, L. Riano, R. Chitnis, S. Russell, and P. Abbeel, “Combined task and motion planning through an extensible planner-independent interface layer,” in 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2014, pp. 639–646.
  8. M. Toussaint, “Logic-geometric programming: An optimization-based approach to combined task and motion planning.” in IJCAI, 2015, pp. 1930–1936.
  9. F. Lagriffoul and B. Andres, “Combining task and motion planning: A culprit detection problem,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 890–927, 2016.
  10. N. T. Dantam, Z. K. Kingston, S. Chaudhuri, and L. E. Kavraki, “An incremental constraint-based framework for task and motion planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1134–1151, 2018.
  11. S.-Y. Lo, S. Zhang, and P. Stone, “The petlon algorithm to plan efficiently for task-level-optimal navigation,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 69, pp. 471–500, 2020.
  12. C. R. Garrett, T. Lozano-Pérez, and L. P. Kaelbling, “Pddlstream: Integrating symbolic planners and blackbox samplers via optimistic adaptive planning,” in Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling, vol. 30, 2020, pp. 440–448.
  13. Y. Sung, Z. Wang, and P. Stone, “Learning to correct mistakes: Backjumping in long-horizon task and motion planning,” in Conference on Robot Learning.   PMLR, 2023, pp. 2115–2124.
  14. E. Plaku and G. D. Hager, “Sampling-based motion and symbolic action planning with geometric and differential constraints,” in 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.   IEEE, 2010, pp. 5002–5008.
  15. L. P. Kaelbling and T. Lozano-Pérez, “Integrated task and motion planning in belief space,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 32, no. 9-10, pp. 1194–1227, 2013.
  16. B. Kim, L. Shimanuki, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-Pérez, “Representation, learning, and planning algorithms for geometric task and motion planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 210–231, 2022.
  17. Z. Kingston and L. E. Kavraki, “Scaling multimodal planning: Using experience and informing discrete search,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 128–146, 2022.
  18. B. Kim, Z. Wang, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-Pérez, “Learning to guide task and motion planning using score-space representation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 793–812, 2019.
  19. R. Chitnis, D. Hadfield-Menell, A. Gupta, S. Srivastava, E. Groshev, C. Lin, and P. Abbeel, “Guided search for task and motion plans using learned heuristics,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2016, pp. 447–454.
  20. X. Fang, C. R. Garrett, C. Eppner, T. Lozano-Pérez, L. P. Kaelbling, and D. Fox, “Dimsam: Diffusion models as samplers for task and motion planning under partial observability,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13196, 2023.
  21. A. M. Wells, N. T. Dantam, A. Shrivastava, and L. E. Kavraki, “Learning feasibility for task and motion planning in tabletop environments,” IEEE robotics and automation letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1255–1262, 2019.
  22. D. Driess, O. Oguz, J.-S. Ha, and M. Toussaint, “Deep visual heuristics: Learning feasibility of mixed-integer programs for manipulation planning,” in 2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2020, pp. 9563–9569.
  23. S. Li and N. T. Dantam, “A sampling and learning framework to prove motion planning infeasibility,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 938–956, 2023.
  24. Z. Yang, C. Garrett, T. Lozano-Perez, L. Kaelbling, and D. Fox, “Sequence-based plan feasibility prediction for efficient task and motion planning,” in Robotics science and systems, 2023.
  25. Y. Sung and P. Stone, “Motion planning (in) feasibility detection using a prior roadmap via path and cut search,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10395, 2023.
  26. Z. Wang, C. R. Garrett, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-Pérez, “Learning compositional models of robot skills for task and motion planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 40, no. 6-7, pp. 866–894, 2021.
  27. T. Silver, R. Chitnis, J. Tenenbaum, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-Pérez, “Learning symbolic operators for task and motion planning,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 3182–3189.
  28. T. Silver, A. Athalye, J. B. Tenenbaum, T. Lozano-Pérez, and L. P. Kaelbling, “Learning neuro-symbolic skills for bilevel planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10680, 2022.
  29. S. Cheng, C. Garrett, A. Mandlekar, and D. Xu, “Nod-tamp: Multi-step manipulation planning with neural object descriptors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01530, 2023.
  30. U. A. Mishra, S. Xue, Y. Chen, and D. Xu, “Generative skill chaining: Long-horizon skill planning with diffusion models,” in Conference on Robot Learning.   PMLR, 2023, pp. 2905–2925.
  31. A. Curtis, X. Fang, L. P. Kaelbling, T. Lozano-Pérez, and C. R. Garrett, “Long-horizon manipulation of unknown objects via task and motion planning with estimated affordances,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 1940–1946.
  32. Y. Ding, X. Zhang, X. Zhan, and S. Zhang, “Learning to ground objects for robot task and motion planning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5536–5543, 2022.
  33. T. Silver, R. Chitnis, N. Kumar, W. McClinton, T. Lozano-Pérez, L. Kaelbling, and J. B. Tenenbaum, “Predicate invention for bilevel planning,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 37, no. 10, 2023, pp. 12 120–12 129.
  34. W. Vega-Brown and N. Roy, “Asymptotically optimal planning under piecewise-analytic constraints,” in Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XII: Proceedings of the Twelfth Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics.   Springer, 2020, pp. 528–543.
  35. R. Shome, D. Nakhimovich, and K. E. Bekris, “Pushing the boundaries of asymptotic optimality in integrated task and motion planning,” in Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XIV: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics 14.   Springer, 2021, pp. 467–484.
  36. W. Thomason, M. P. Strub, and J. D. Gammell, “Task and motion informed trees (tmit*): Almost-surely asymptotically optimal integrated task and motion planning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 11 370–11 377, 2022.
  37. Y. Sung, Z. Chen, J. Das, P. Tokekar et al., “A survey of decision-theoretic approaches for robotic environmental monitoring,” Foundations and Trends® in Robotics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 225–315, 2023.
  38. E. Balas, “The prize collecting traveling salesman problem,” Networks, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 621–636, 1989.
  39. C. Chekuri and M. Pal, “A recursive greedy algorithm for walks in directed graphs,” in 46th annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science (FOCS’05).   IEEE, 2005, pp. 245–253.
  40. B. Liu, X. Xiao, and P. Stone, “Team orienteering coverage planning with uncertain reward,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 9728–9733.
  41. S. J. Russell and E. Wefald, “Principles of metareasoning,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 49, no. 1-3, pp. 361–395, 1991. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(91)90015-C
  42. T. L. Dean and M. S. Boddy, “An analysis of time-dependent planning.” in AAAI, vol. 88, 1988, pp. 49–54.
  43. M. T. Cox, “Metacognition in computation: A selected research review,” Artificial intelligence, vol. 169, no. 2, pp. 104–141, 2005.
  44. M. L. Anderson and T. Oates, “A review of recent research in metareasoning and metalearning,” AI Magazine, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 12–12, 2007.
  45. R. Ackerman and V. A. Thompson, “Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning,” Trends in cognitive sciences, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 607–617, 2017.
  46. E. A. Hansen and S. Zilberstein, “Monitoring and control of anytime algorithms: A dynamic programming approach,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 126, no. 1-2, pp. 139–157, 2001.
  47. J. Svegliato, K. H. Wray, and S. Zilberstein, “Meta-level control of anytime algorithms with online performance prediction,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2018.
  48. J. Svegliato, P. Sharma, and S. Zilberstein, “A model-free approach to meta-level control of anytime algorithms,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2020, pp. 11 436–11 442.
  49. M. Budd, B. Lacerda, and N. Hawes, “Stop! planner time: Metareasoning for probabilistic planning using learned performance profiles,” in Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Feb. 2024.
  50. D. O’Ceallaigh and W. Ruml, “Metareasoning in real-time heuristic search,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, vol. 6, no. 1, 2015, pp. 87–95.
  51. C. H. Lin, A. Kolobov, E. Kamar, and E. Horvitz, “Metareasoning for planning under uncertainty,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1505.00399, 2015.
  52. Y. Sung, L. P. Kaelbling, and T. Lozano-Pérez, “Learning when to quit: meta-reasoning for motion planning,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 4692–4699.
  53. J. Svegliato, K. H. Wray, S. J. Witwicki, J. Biswas, and S. Zilberstein, “Belief space metareasoning for exception recovery,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2019, pp. 1224–1229.
  54. N. Hay, S. Russell, D. Tolpin, and S. E. Shimony, “Selecting computations: theory and applications,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2012, pp. 346–355.
  55. F. Lieder, D. Plunkett, J. B. Hamrick, S. J. Russell, N. Hay, and T. Griffiths, “Algorithm selection by rational metareasoning as a model of human strategy selection,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 27, 2014.
  56. F. Callaway, S. Gul, P. Krueger, T. Griffiths, and F. Lieder, “Learning to select computations,” in 34th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 2018).   Curran Associates, Inc., 2018, pp. 776–785.
  57. S. S. Shperberg, A. Coles, B. Cserna, E. Karpas, W. Ruml, and S. E. Shimony, “Allocating planning effort when actions expire,” in AAAI 2019.   AAAI Press, 2019, pp. 2371–2378.
  58. M. Cashmore, A. Coles, B. Cserna, E. Karpas, D. Magazzeni, and W. Ruml, “Temporal planning while the clock ticks,” in Proceedings of ICAPS, 2018, pp. 39–46. [Online]. Available: https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICAPS/ICAPS18/paper/view/17724
  59. A. Elboher, A. Bensoussan, E. Karpas, W. Ruml, S. S. Shperberg, and S. E. Shimony, “A formal metareasoning model of concurrent planning and execution,” in AAAI 2023, 2023.
  60. A. Coles, E. Karpas, A. Lavrinenko, W. Ruml, S. E. Shimony, and S. Shperberg, “Planning and acting while the clock ticks.” in ICAPS, 2024, pp. 232–239.
  61. R. Diankov, “Automated construction of robotic manipulation programs,” Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, USA, 2010.
  62. T. Bylander, “The computational complexity of propositional strips planning,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 69, no. 1-2, pp. 165–204, 1994.
  63. J. H. Reif, “Complexity of the mover’s problem and generalizations,” in 20th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1979).   IEEE Computer Society, 1979, pp. 421–427.
  64. M. Fox and D. Long, “Pddl2. 1: An extension to pddl for expressing temporal planning domains,” Journal of artificial intelligence research, vol. 20, pp. 61–124, 2003.
  65. T. Lozano-Pérez and L. P. Kaelbling, “A constraint-based method for solving sequential manipulation planning problems,” in 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.   IEEE, 2014, pp. 3684–3691.
  66. M. Helmert, “The fast downward planning system,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 26, pp. 191–246, 2006.
  67. D. Speck, R. Mattmüller, and B. Nebel, “Symbolic top-k planning,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 34, no. 06, 2020, pp. 9967–9974.
  68. T. Ren, G. Chalvatzaki, and J. Peters, “Extended tree search for robot task and motion planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.05456, 2021.
  69. B. Marthi, S. Russell, and J. A. Wolfe, “Angelic semantics for high-level actions.” in ICAPS, 2007, pp. 232–239.
  70. C. B. Browne, E. Powley, D. Whitehouse, S. M. Lucas, P. I. Cowling, P. Rohlfshagen, S. Tavener, D. Perez, S. Samothrakis, and S. Colton, “A survey of monte carlo tree search methods,” IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in games, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–43, 2012.
  71. M. Świechowski, K. Godlewski, B. Sawicki, and J. Mańdziuk, “Monte carlo tree search: A review of recent modifications and applications,” Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 2497–2562, 2023.
  72. L. Kocsis and C. Szepesvári, “Bandit based monte-carlo planning,” in European conference on machine learning.   Springer, 2006, pp. 282–293.
  73. S. S. Shperberg, A. Coles, E. Karpas, W. Ruml, and S. E. Shimony, “Situated temporal planning using deadline-aware metareasoning,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 31, 2021, pp. 340–348.
  74. J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017.
  75. D. Pathak, P. Agrawal, A. A. Efros, and T. Darrell, “Curiosity-driven exploration by self-supervised prediction,” in ICML, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 70.   PMLR, 2017, pp. 2778–2787.
  76. A. Ecoffet, J. Huizinga, J. Lehman, K. O. Stanley, and J. Clune, “Go-explore: a new approach for hard-exploration problems,” CoRR, vol. abs/1901.10995, 2019.
  77. E. Coumans and Y. Bai, “Pybullet, a python module for physics simulation for games, robotics and machine learning,” 2016.
  78. 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.
  79. J. Achiam, “Spinning up in deep reinforcement learning,” 2018.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

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

Open Problems

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

Continue Learning

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

Collections

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