On the Fundamental Importance of Gauss-Newton in Motion Optimization

Hessian information speeds convergence substantially in motion optimization. The better the Hessian approximation the better the convergence. But how good is a given approximation theoretically? How much are we losing? This paper addresses that question and proves that for a particularly popular and empirically strong approximation known as the Gauss-Newton approximation, we actually lose very little--for a large class of highly expressive objective terms, the true Hessian actually limits to the Gauss-Newton Hessian quickly as the trajectory's time discretization becomes small. This result both motivates it's use and offers insight into computationally efficient design. For instance, traditional representations of kinetic energy exploit the generalized inertia matrix whose derivatives are usually difficult to compute. We introduce here a novel reformulation of rigid body kinetic energy designed explicitly for fast and accurate curvature calculation. Our theorem proves that the Gauss-Newton Hessian under this formulation efficiently captures the kinetic energy curvature, but requires only as much computation as a single evaluation of the traditional representation. Additionally, we introduce a technique that exploits these ideas implicitly using Cholesky decompositions for some cases when similar objective terms reformulations exist but may be difficult to find. Our experiments validate these findings and demonstrate their use on a real-world motion optimization system for high-dof motion generation.

[1]  G. Oriolo,et al.  Robotics: Modelling, Planning and Control , 2008 .

[2]  E. Todorov,et al.  A generalized iterative LQG method for locally-optimal feedback control of constrained nonlinear stochastic systems , 2005, Proceedings of the 2005, American Control Conference, 2005..

[3]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  Understanding the geometry of workspace obstacles in Motion Optimization , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[4]  Pieter Abbeel,et al.  Finding Locally Optimal, Collision-Free Trajectories with Sequential Convex Optimization , 2013, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[5]  Siddhartha S. Srinivasa,et al.  Manipulation planning with goal sets using constrained trajectory optimization , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[6]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  Robot trajectory optimization using approximate inference , 2009, ICML '09.

[7]  D K Smith,et al.  Numerical Optimization , 2001, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[8]  Yuval Tassa,et al.  An integrated system for real-time model predictive control of humanoid robots , 2013, 2013 13th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids).

[9]  Siddhartha S. Srinivasa,et al.  CHOMP: Gradient optimization techniques for efficient motion planning , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[10]  John M. Lee Introduction to Smooth Manifolds , 2002 .

[11]  Stefan Schaal,et al.  STOMP: Stochastic trajectory optimization for motion planning , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[12]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  On the closed form computation of the dynamic matrices and their differentiations , 2013, 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[13]  J. Nash The imbedding problem for Riemannian manifolds , 1956 .

[14]  Marc Toussaint,et al.  Newton methods for k-order Markov Constrained Motion Problems , 2014, ArXiv.