Comparison of Distal Teacher Learning with Numerical and Analytical Methods to Solve Inverse Kinematics for Rigid-Body Mechanisms

Several publications are concerned with learning inverse kinematics, however, their evaluation is often limited and none of the proposed methods is of practical relevance for rigid-body kinematics with a known forward model. We argue that for rigid-body kinematics one of the first proposed machine learning (ML) solutions to inverse kinematics -- distal teaching (DT) -- is actually good enough when combined with differentiable programming libraries and we provide an extensive evaluation and comparison to analytical and numerical solutions. In particular, we analyze solve rate, accuracy, sample efficiency and scalability. Further, we study how DT handles joint limits, singularities, unreachable poses, trajectories and provide a comparison of execution times. The three approaches are evaluated on three different rigid body mechanisms with varying complexity. With enough training data and relaxed precision requirements, DT has a better solve rate and is faster than state-of-the-art numerical solvers for a 15-DoF mechanism. DT is not affected by singularities while numerical solutions are vulnerable to them. In all other cases numerical solutions are usually better. Analytical solutions outperform the other approaches by far if they are available.

[1]  Hendrik Wöhrle,et al.  Modular Design and Decentralized Control of the Recupera Exoskeleton for Stroke Rehabilitation , 2019, Applied Sciences.

[2]  Jochen J. Steil,et al.  Goal Babbling Permits Direct Learning of Inverse Kinematics , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development.

[3]  B. Roth,et al.  Inverse Kinematics of the General 6R Manipulator and Related Linkages , 1993 .

[4]  Du Q. Huynh,et al.  Metrics for 3D Rotations: Comparison and Analysis , 2009, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision.

[5]  Paul T. Boggs,et al.  Sequential Quadratic Programming , 1995, Acta Numerica.

[6]  Patrick Beeson,et al.  TRAC-IK: An open-source library for improved solving of generic inverse kinematics , 2015, 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids).

[7]  S. Buss Introduction to Inverse Kinematics with Jacobian Transpose , Pseudoinverse and Damped Least Squares methods , 2004 .

[8]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Forward Models: Supervised Learning with a Distal Teacher , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[9]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Learning inverse kinematics with structured prediction , 2011, 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[10]  R. Paul Robot manipulators : mathematics, programming, and control : the computer control of robot manipulators , 1981 .

[11]  Jochen J. Steil,et al.  Efficient Exploratory Learning of Inverse Kinematics on a Bionic Elephant Trunk , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems.

[12]  Ullrich Köthe,et al.  Analyzing Inverse Problems with Invertible Neural Networks , 2018, ICLR.

[13]  Marcello Chiaberge,et al.  Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics , 2020, Mechanisms and Machine Science.

[14]  Stefan Schaal,et al.  Learning inverse kinematics , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Expanding the Societal Role of Robotics in the the Next Millennium (Cat. No.01CH37180).

[15]  Frank Kirchner,et al.  Development and Control of the Multi-Legged Robot MANTIS , 2016 .

[16]  Donald Lee Pieper The kinematics of manipulators under computer control , 1968 .

[17]  Abhishek Sarkar,et al.  A deep reinforcement learning approach for dynamically stable inverse kinematics of humanoid robots , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO).

[18]  Tao Tan,et al.  Probabilistic Kinematic Model of a Robotic Catheter for 3D Position Control. , 2019, Soft robotics.

[19]  Alexander Fabisch,et al.  A Comparison of Policy Search in Joint Space and Cartesian Space for Refinement of Skills , 2019, RAAD.