Randomized Motion Planning

Gildardo Snchez Ante

Computer Science Department

Tec de Monterrey-Campus Guadalajara

Goal of Motion Planning

Answer queries about

connectivity of a space
Classical example: find a
collision-free path in
robot configuration space
among static obstacles
Examples of additional constraints:
Kinodynamic constraints
Visibility constraints

Outline

Bits of history

Approaches

Probabilistic Roadmaps

Applications

Conclusion

Early Work
Shakey (Nilsson, 1969): Visibility graph

Mathematical Foundations
Lozano-Perez, 1980: Configuration Space

C = S1 x S1

Computational Analysis
Reif, 1979: Hardness (lower-bound results)

Exact General-Purpose Path Planners

- Schwarz and Sharir, 1983: Exact cell
decomposition based on Collins technique

- Canny, 1987: Silhouette method

Heuristic Planners
Khatib, 1986:
Potential Fields
Goal

1 1 1
if 0 ,
2
FObstacle = 0 x

0
if > 0

Go
al
F

orc
e

Robot
n
Mo tio

orce
O bs tac le F

FGoal = k p ( x xGoal )

Other Types of Constraints

E.g., Visibility-Based Motion Planning
Guibas, Latombe, LaValle, Lin, and Motwani, 1997

Outline

Bits of history

Approaches

Probabilistic Roadmaps

Applications

Conclusion

Criticality-Based Motion Planning

Principle:
Select a property P over the space of interest
Compute an arrangement of cells such that P
stays constant over each cell
Build a search graph based on this arrangement
Example: Wilsons
Non-Directional Blocking
Graphs for assembly planning
Other examples:
Schwartz-Sharirs cell decomposition
Cannys roadmap

Criticality-Based Motion Planning

Advantages:
Completeness
Insight

Drawbacks:
Computational complexity
Difficult to implement

Sampling-Based Motion Planning

Principle:
Sample the space of interest
Connect sampled points by simple paths
Search the resulting graph
Example:
Probabilistic Roadmaps
(PRMs)
Other example:
Grid-based methods (deterministic sampling)

Sampling-Based Motion Planning

Advantages:

Easy to implement
Fast, scalable to many degrees of
freedom and complex constraints
Drawbacks:
Probabilistic completeness
Limited insight

Outline

Bits of history

Approaches

Probabilistic Roadmaps

Applications

Conclusion

Motivation
Computing an explicit representation of the admissible
space is hard, but checking that a point lies in the
admissible space is fast

Probabilistic Roadmap (PRM)

admissible space
milestone

mg
mb

[Kavraki, Svetska, Latombe,Overmars, 95]

Sampling Strategies

Multi vs. single query strategies

Multi-stage strategies

Obstacle-sensitive strategies

Lazy collision checking

Probabilistic biases (e.g., potential fields)

PRM With Dynamic Constraints in State x Time Space

m = f(m,u)

endgame region

mg
mb

[Hsu, Kindel, Latombe, and Rock, 2000]

Relation to Art-Gallery Problems

[Kavraki, Latombe, Motwani, Raghavan, 95]

Narrow Passage Issue

Desirable Properties of a PRM

Coverage:
The milestones should see most of the admissible
space to guarantee that the initial and goal
configurations can be easily connected to the
roadmap
Connectivity:
There should be a 1-to-1 map between the
components of the admissible space and those of
the roadmap

Complexity Measures

e-goodness
[Kavraki, Latombe, Motwani, and Raghavan, 1995]

Path clearance
[Kavraki, Koulountzakis, and Latombe, 1996]

e-complexity
[Overmars and Svetska, 1998]

Expansiveness
[Hsu, Latombe, and Motwani, 1997]

Expansiveness of Admissible Space

Expansiveness of Admissible Space

The admissible space is
expansive if each of its
subsets has a large lookout
Lookout of F1

Prob[failure] = K exp(-r)

Two Very Different Cases

Poorly expansive

Expansive

A Few Remarks

Big computational saving is achieved at the cost of

slightly reduced completeness
Computational complexity is a function of the
shape of the admissible space, not the size needed
to describe it
Randomization is not really needed; it is a
convenient incremental scheme

Outline

Bits of history

Approaches

Probabilistic Roadmaps

Applications

Conclusion

Design for Manufacturing and Servicing

General Motors

General Motors

General Electric

[Hsu, 2000]

Robot Programming and Placement

[Hsu, 2000]

Graphic Animation of Digital Actors

The Motion
Factory

[Koga, Kondo, Kuffner, and Latombe, 1994]

Digital Actors With Visual Sensing

Simulated Vision

Kuffner, 1999

Segment environment

Render false-color scene offscreen

Scan pixels & record IDs

Actor camera image

Vision module image

Humanoid Robot
[Kuffner and Inoue, 2000] (U. Tokyo)

Space Robotics

robot

obstacles

air thrusters
gaz tank

air bearing
[Kindel, Hsu, Latombe, and Rock, 2000]

Total duration : 40 sec

Autonomous Helicopter

[Feron, 2000] (AA Dept., MIT)

Interacting Nonholonomic Robots

y2

q2

q1

y1
x1
(Grasp Lab - U. Penn)

x2

Map Building

[Gonzalez, 2000]

Next-Best View Computation

Map Building

[Gonzalez, 2000]

Map Building

[Gonzalez, 2000]

Radiosurgical Planning

Cyberknife System (Accuray, Inc.)

CARABEAMER Planner

[Tombropoulos, Adler, and Latombe, 1997]

Radiosurgical Planning

2000 < Tumor < 2200

B1
B2

2000 < B2 + B4 < 2200

2000 < B4 < 2200
2000 < B3 + B4 < 2200
2000 < B3 < 2200
2000 < B1 + B3 + B4 < 2200
2000 < B1 + B4 < 2200
2000 < B1 + B2 + B4 < 2200
2000 < B1 < 2200
2000 < B1 + B2 < 2200

C
B3

B4

0 < Critical < 500

0 < B2 < 500

Sample Case

50% Isodose Surface

80% Isodose Surface

Conventional systems plan

CARABEAMERs

plan

Reconfiguration Planning for Modular Robots

Casal and Yim, 1999

Xerox, Parc

Prediction of Molecular Motions

Ligand-protein binding

Protein folding

[Singh, Latombe, and Brutlag, 1999]

[Apaydin, 2000]

Capturing Energy Landscape

[Apaydin, 2000]

Energy

10-12 kcal/mol

Predicted
binding site

15-20 kcal/mol

Active
site

10-12 kcal/mol

Predicted
binding site

Outline

Bits of history

Approaches

Probabilistic Roadmaps

Applications

Conclusion

Conclusion

PRM planners have successfully solved many diverse

complex motion problems with different constraints
(obstacles, kinematics, dynamics, stability, visibility,
energetic)
They are easy to implement
Fast convergence has been formally proven in
expansive spaces. As computers get more powerful,
PRM planners should allow us to solve considerably
more difficult problems
Recent implementations solve difficult problems with
many degrees of freedom at quasi-interactive rate

Issues

Relatively large standard deviation of

planning time

No rigorous termination criterion when no

solution is found
New challenging applications

Planning Minimally Invasive Surgery

Procedures Amidst Soft-Tissue Structures

Planning Nice-Looking Motions

for Digital Actors

A Bugs Life (Pixar/Disney)

Tomb Raider 3 (Eidos Interactive)

Toy Story (Pixar/Disney)

The Legend of Zelda (Nintendo)

Antz (Dreamworks)

Final Fantasy VIII (SquareOne)

Dealing with 1,000s of Degrees of Freedom

Protein folding

Main Common Difficulty

Formulating motion constraints