Experience-Based Planning with Sparse Roadmap Spanners

We present an experienced-based planning framework called Thunder that learns to reduce computation time required to solve high-dimensional planning problems in varying environments. The approach is especially suited for large configuration spaces that include many invariant constraints, such as those found with whole body humanoid motion planning. Experiences are generated using probabilistic sampling and stored in a sparse roadmap spanner (SPARS), which provides asymptotically near-optimal coverage of the configuration space, making storing, retrieving, and repairing past experiences very efficient with respect to memory and time. The Thunder framework improves upon past experience-based planners by storing experiences in a graph rather than in individual paths, eliminating redundant information, providing more opportunities for path reuse, and providing a theoretical limit to the size of the experience graph. These properties also lead to improved handling of dynamically changing environments, reasoning about optimal paths, and reducing query resolution time. The approach is demonstrated on a 30 degrees of freedom humanoid robot and compared with the Lightning framework, an experience-based planner that uses individual paths to store past experiences. In environments with variable obstacles and stability constraints, experiments show that Thunder is on average an order of magnitude faster than Lightning and planning from scratch. Thunder also uses 98.8% less memory to store its experiences after 10,000 trials when compared to Lightning. Our framework is implemented and freely available in the Open Motion Planning Library.Comment: Submitted to ICRA 201

Landmark Guided Probabilistic Roadmap Queries

A landmark based heuristic is investigated for reducing query phase run-time of the probabilistic roadmap (\PRM) motion planning method. The heuristic is generated by storing minimum spanning trees from a small number of vertices within the \PRM graph and using these trees to approximate the cost of a shortest path between any two vertices of the graph. The intermediate step of preprocessing the graph increases the time and memory requirements of the classical motion planning technique in exchange for speeding up individual queries making the method advantageous in multi-query applications. This paper investigates these trade-offs on \PRM graphs constructed in randomized environments as well as a practical manipulator simulation.We conclude that the method is preferable to Dijkstra's algorithm or the ${\rm A}^*$ algorithm with conventional heuristics in multi-query applications.Comment: 7 Page

Asymptotically near-optimal RRT for fast, high-quality, motion planning

We present Lower Bound Tree-RRT (LBT-RRT), a single-query sampling-based algorithm that is asymptotically near-optimal. Namely, the solution extracted from LBT-RRT converges to a solution that is within an approximation factor of 1+epsilon of the optimal solution. Our algorithm allows for a continuous interpolation between the fast RRT algorithm and the asymptotically optimal RRT* and RRG algorithms. When the approximation factor is 1 (i.e., no approximation is allowed), LBT-RRT behaves like RRG. When the approximation factor is unbounded, LBT-RRT behaves like RRT. In between, LBT-RRT is shown to produce paths that have higher quality than RRT would produce and run faster than RRT* would run. This is done by maintaining a tree which is a sub-graph of the RRG roadmap and a second, auxiliary graph, which we call the lower-bound graph. The combination of the two roadmaps, which is faster to maintain than the roadmap maintained by RRT*, efficiently guarantees asymptotic near-optimality. We suggest to use LBT-RRT for high-quality, anytime motion planning. We demonstrate the performance of the algorithm for scenarios ranging from 3 to 12 degrees of freedom and show that even for small approximation factors, the algorithm produces high-quality solutions (comparable to RRG and RRT*) with little running-time overhead when compared to RRT