Predicting Pushing Action Effects on Spatial Object Relations by Learning Internal Prediction Models

Understanding the effects of actions is essential for planning and executing robot tasks. By imagining possible action consequences, a robot can choose specific action parameters to achieve desired goal states. We present an approach for parametrizing pushing actions based on learning internal prediction models. These pushing actions must fulfill constraints given by a high-level planner, e. g., after the push the brown box must be to the right of the orange box. In this work, we represent the perceived scenes as object-centric graphs and learn an internal model, which predicts object pose changes due to pushing actions. We train this internal model on a large synthetic data set, which was generated in simulation, and record a smaller data set on the real robot for evaluation. For a given scene and goal state, the robot generates a set of possible pushing action candidates by sampling the parameter space and then evaluating the candidates by internal simulation, i. e., by comparing the predicted effect resulting from the internal model with the desired effect provided by the high-level planner. In the evaluation, we show that our model achieves high prediction accuracy in scenes with a varying number of objects and, in contrast to state-of-the-art approaches, is able to generalize to scenes with more objects than seen during training. In experiments on the humanoid robot ARMAR-6, we validate the transfer from simulation and show that the learned internal model can be used to manipulate scenes into desired states effectively.

[1]  Siddhartha S. Srinivasa,et al.  The YCB object and Model set: Towards common benchmarks for manipulation research , 2015, 2015 International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR).

[2]  Ronald J. Brachman,et al.  Systems That Know What They're Doing , 2002, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[3]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Object-Action Complexes: Grounded abstractions of sensory-motor processes , 2011, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[4]  Alberto Rodriguez,et al.  Feedback Control of the Pusher-Slider System: A Story of Hybrid and Underactuated Contact Dynamics , 2016, WAFR.

[5]  S. Levine,et al.  Reasoning About Physical Interactions with Object-Centric Models , 2018 .

[6]  Franziska Meier,et al.  SE3-Pose-Nets: Structured Deep Dynamics Models for Visuomotor Planning and Control , 2017, ArXiv.

[7]  Razvan Pascanu,et al.  Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks , 2018, ArXiv.

[8]  Rüdiger Dillmann,et al.  The KIT object models database: An object model database for object recognition, localization and manipulation in service robotics , 2012, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[9]  Maya Cakmak,et al.  Making objects graspable in confined environments through push and pull manipulation with a tool , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[10]  Tamim Asfour,et al.  Templates for pre-grasp sliding interactions , 2012, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[11]  Tamim Asfour,et al.  Accurate shape-based 6-DoF pose estimation of single-colored objects , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[12]  Mary-Anne Williams,et al.  Comirit: Commonsense Reasoning by Integrating Simulation and Logic , 2008, AGI.

[13]  David Hsu,et al.  Push-Net: Deep Planar Pushing for Objects with Unknown Physical Properties , 2018, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[14]  Atsushi Sato,et al.  Both motor prediction and conceptual congruency between preview and action-effect contribute to explicit judgment of agency , 2009, Cognition.

[15]  Dieter Fox,et al.  SE3-nets: Learning rigid body motion using deep neural networks , 2016, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[16]  P. Haggard,et al.  Awareness of action: Inference and prediction , 2008, Consciousness and Cognition.

[17]  Sergey Levine,et al.  Unsupervised Learning for Physical Interaction through Video Prediction , 2016, NIPS.

[18]  J. Andrew Bagnell,et al.  A convex polynomial model for planar sliding mechanics: theory, application, and experimental validation , 2018, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[19]  Wolfram Burgard,et al.  Learning to Singulate Objects using a Push Proposal Network , 2017, ISRR.

[20]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  Learning to Poke by Poking: Experiential Learning of Intuitive Physics , 2016, NIPS.

[21]  Matthew T. Mason,et al.  Mechanics and Planning of Manipulator Pushing Operations , 1986 .

[22]  Vincenzo Lippiello,et al.  Nonprehensile Dynamic Manipulation: A Survey , 2018, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters.

[23]  Kuan-Ting Yu,et al.  More than a million ways to be pushed. A high-fidelity experimental dataset of planar pushing , 2016, 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).

[24]  Tamim Asfour,et al.  Extraction of Physically Plausible Support Relations to Predict and Validate Manipulation Action Effects , 2018, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters.

[25]  You Zhou,et al.  ARMAR-6: A High-Performance Humanoid for Human-Robot Collaboration in Real-World Scenarios , 2019, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[26]  Ales Ude,et al.  Autonomous acquisition of pushing actions to support object grasping with a humanoid robot , 2009, 2009 9th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots.

[27]  Rustam Stolkin,et al.  Learning to predict how rigid objects behave under simple manipulation , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[28]  James Park,et al.  The Brain's Sense of Movement , 2003, The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine.

[29]  Alberto Rodriguez,et al.  Learning Synergies Between Pushing and Grasping with Self-Supervised Deep Reinforcement Learning , 2018, 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).

[30]  Stefan Schaal,et al.  Combining learned and analytical models for predicting action effects from sensory data , 2017, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[31]  Kazuo Tanie,et al.  Manipulation And Active Sensing By Pushing Using Tactile Feedback , 1992, Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[32]  Oliver Kroemer,et al.  Maximally informative interaction learning for scene exploration , 2012, 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[33]  Jessica B. Hamrick,et al.  Simulation as an engine of physical scene understanding , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Yuval Tassa,et al.  MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control , 2012, 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.