Automated sequence and motion planning for robotic spatial extrusion of 3D trusses

While robotic spatial extrusion has demonstrated a new and efficient means to fabricate 3D truss structures in architectural scale, a major challenge remains in automatically planning extrusion sequence and robotic motion for trusses with unconstrained topologies. This paper presents the first attempt in the field to rigorously formulate the extrusion sequence and motion planning (SAMP) problem, using a CSP encoding. Furthermore, this research proposes a new hierarchical planning framework to solve the extrusion SAMP problems that usually have a long planning horizon and 3D configuration complexity. By decoupling sequence and motion planning, the planning framework is able to efficiently solve the extrusion sequence, end-effector poses, joint configurations, and transition trajectories for spatial trusses with nonstandard topologies. This paper also presents the first detailed computation data to reveal the runtime bottleneck on solving SAMP problems, which provides insight and comparing baseline for future algorithmic development. Together with the algorithmic results, this paper also presents an open-source and modularized software implementation called Choreo that is machine-agnostic. To demonstrate the power of this algorithmic framework, three case studies, including real fabrication and simulation results, are presented.Comment: 24 pages, 16 figure

Higher-Level Consistencies: Where, When, and How Much

Determining whether or not a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) has a solution is NP-complete. CSPs are solved by inference (i.e., enforcing consistency), conditioning (i.e., doing search), or, more commonly, by interleaving the two mechanisms. The most common consistency property enforced during search is Generalized Arc Consistency (GAC). In recent years, new algorithms that enforce consistency properties stronger than GAC have been proposed and shown to be necessary to solve difficult problem instances. We frame the question of balancing the cost and the pruning effectiveness of consistency algorithms as the question of determining where, when, and how much of a higher-level consistency to enforce during search. To answer the `where\u27 question, we exploit the topological structure of a problem instance and target high-level consistency where cycle structures appear. To answer the \u27when\u27 question, we propose a simple, reactive, and effective strategy that monitors the performance of backtrack search and triggers a higher-level consistency as search thrashes. Lastly, for the question of `how much,\u27 we monitor the amount of updates caused by propagation and interrupt the process before it reaches a fixpoint. Empirical evaluations on benchmark problems demonstrate the effectiveness of our strategies. Adviser: B.Y. Choueiry and C. Bessier

Decomposition Based Search - A theoretical and experimental evaluation

In this paper we present and evaluate a search strategy called Decomposition Based Search (DBS) which is based on two steps: subproblem generation and subproblem solution. The generation of subproblems is done through value ranking and domain splitting. Subdomains are explored so as to generate, according to the heuristic chosen, promising subproblems first. We show that two well known search strategies, Limited Discrepancy Search (LDS) and Iterative Broadening (IB), can be seen as special cases of DBS. First we present a tuning of DBS that visits the same search nodes as IB, but avoids restarts. Then we compare both theoretically and computationally DBS and LDS using the same heuristic. We prove that DBS has a higher probability of being successful than LDS on a comparable number of nodes, under realistic assumptions. Experiments on a constraint satisfaction problem and an optimization problem show that DBS is indeed very effective if compared to LDS.Comment: 16 pages, 8 figures. LIA Technical Report LIA00203, University of Bologna, 200

Higher-Level Consistencies: Where, When, and How Much

Determining whether or not a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) has a solution is NP-complete. CSPs are solved by inference (i.e., enforcing consistency), conditioning (i.e., doing search), or, more commonly, by interleaving the two mechanisms. The most common consistency property enforced during search is Generalized Arc Consistency (GAC). In recent years, new algorithms that enforce consistency properties stronger than GAC have been proposed and shown to be necessary to solve difficult problem instances. We frame the question of balancing the cost and the pruning effectiveness of consistency algorithms as the question of determining where, when, and how much of a higher-level consistency to enforce during search. To answer the `where\u27 question, we exploit the topological structure of a problem instance and target high-level consistency where cycle structures appear. To answer the \u27when\u27 question, we propose a simple, reactive, and effective strategy that monitors the performance of backtrack search and triggers a higher-level consistency as search thrashes. Lastly, for the question of `how much,\u27 we monitor the amount of updates caused by propagation and interrupt the process before it reaches a fixpoint. Empirical evaluations on benchmark problems demonstrate the effectiveness of our strategies. Adviser: B.Y. Choueiry and C. Bessier

Higher-Level Consistencies: Where, When, and How Much

Determining whether or not a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) has a solution is NP-complete. CSPs are solved by inference (i.e., enforcing consistency), conditioning (i.e., doing search), or, more commonly, by interleaving the two mechanisms. The most common consistency property enforced during search is Generalized Arc Consistency (GAC). In recent years, new algorithms that enforce consistency properties stronger than GAC have been proposed and shown to be necessary to solve difficult problem instances. We frame the question of balancing the cost and the pruning effectiveness of consistency algorithms as the question of determining where, when, and how much of a higher-level consistency to enforce during search. To answer the `where\u27 question, we exploit the topological structure of a problem instance and target high-level consistency where cycle structures appear. To answer the \u27when\u27 question, we propose a simple, reactive, and effective strategy that monitors the performance of backtrack search and triggers a higher-level consistency as search thrashes. Lastly, for the question of `how much,\u27 we monitor the amount of updates caused by propagation and interrupt the process before it reaches a fixpoint. Empirical evaluations on benchmark problems demonstrate the effectiveness of our strategies. Adviser: B.Y. Choueiry and C. Bessier