Comparative Assessment of Sensing Modalities on Manipulation Failure Detection

Execution monitoring is important for the robot to safely interact with its environment, and to successfully complete the given tasks. This is because several unexpected outcomes that may occur during manipulation in unstructured environments (i.e., in homes) such as sensory noises, improper action parameters, hardware limitations or external factors. The execution monitoring process should be continuous for effective failure detection and prevention if possible. We present an empirical analysis of proprioception, audition and vision modalities to detect failures on a selected tabletop object manipulation actions. We model failure detection as a binary classification problem, where the classifier uses high level predicates extracted from raw sensory measurements. We evaluate the contributions of these modalities in detecting failures for pick, place and push actions on a Baxter robot.

[1]  Zoltan-Csaba Marton,et al.  Tutorial: Point Cloud Library: Three-Dimensional Object Recognition and 6 DOF Pose Estimation , 2012, IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine.

[2]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Plan execution monitoring through detection of unmet expectations about action outcomes , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[3]  Kostas J. Kyriakopoulos,et al.  Model based actuator fault diagnosis for a mobile robot , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT).

[4]  Alessandro Saffiotti,et al.  Handling uncertainty in semantic-knowledge based execution monitoring , 2007, 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[5]  Kjeld Jensen,et al.  Towards Rule-Based Dynamic Safety Monitoring for Mobile Robots , 2014, SIMPAR.

[6]  Sanem Sariel,et al.  Action monitoring in cognitive robots , 2014, 2014 22nd Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU).

[7]  Alessandro Saffiotti,et al.  Model-Free Execution Monitoring in Behavior-Based Robotics , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[8]  Ola Pettersson,et al.  Execution monitoring in robotics: A survey , 2005, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[9]  Muhammad Tahir Khan,et al.  Fault detection in mobile robots using sensor fusion , 2015, 2015 10th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE).

[10]  Gaurav S. Sukhatme,et al.  Fault detection and identification in a mobile robot using multiple model estimation and neural network , 2000, Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065).

[11]  Manuela Veloso,et al.  Mobile Robot Fault Detection based on Redundant Information Statistics , 2012 .

[12]  Janos Gertler,et al.  Fault detection and diagnosis in engineering systems , 1998 .

[13]  Christian Fritz,et al.  Execution Monitoring – A Survey – Fall 2005 , 2011 .

[14]  Roberto Micalizio,et al.  ACTION FAILURE RECOVERY VIA MODEL‐BASED DIAGNOSIS AND CONFORMANT PLANNING , 2013, Comput. Intell..

[15]  Patrick Doherty,et al.  A temporal logic-based planning and execution monitoring framework for unmanned aircraft systems , 2009, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[16]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Focused optimization for online detection of anomalous regions , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[17]  Arda Inceoglu,et al.  Continuous Visual World Modeling for Autonomous Robot Manipulation , 2019, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems.

[18]  Marios M. Polycarpou,et al.  Fault detection for service mobile robots using model-based method , 2015, Autonomous Robots.