Robust online motion planning with reachable sets

In this paper we consider the problem of generating motion plans for a nonlinear dynamical system that are guaranteed to succeed despite uncertainty in the environment, parametric model uncertainty, disturbances, and/or errors in state estimation. Furthermore, we consider the case where these plans must be generated online, because constraints such as obstacles in the environment may not be known until they are perceived (with a noisy sensor) at runtime. Previous work on feedback motion planning for nonlinear systems was limited to offline planning due to the computational cost of safety verification. Here we augment the traditional trajectory library approach by designing locally stabilizing controllers for each nominal trajectory in the library and providing guarantees on the resulting closed loop systems. We leverage sums-of-squares programming to design these locally stabilizing controllers by explicitly attempting to minimize the size of the worst case reachable set of the closed-loop system subjected to bounded disturbances and uncertainty. The reachable sets associated with each trajectory in the library can be thought of as “funnels” that the system is guaranteed to remain within. The resulting funnel library is then used to sequentially compose motion plans at runtime while ensuring the safety of the robot. A major advantage of the work presented here is that by explicitly taking into account the effect of uncertainty, the robot can evaluate motion plans based on how vulnerable they are to disturbances. We demonstrate our method on a simulation of a plane flying through a two dimensional forest of polygonal trees with parametric uncertainty and disturbances in the form of a bounded “cross-wind”. Note to Practitioners—We are motivated by the need for planning algorithms for robots that are able to deal with uncertainty in the form of unknown or unmodeled dynamics, state estimation errors and obstacle positions that are unknown until runtime. Existing approaches to this problem typically either fail to provide formal guarantees on the behavior of the system subjected to disturbances and uncertainty or are unable to deal with a priori unknown environments. Our approach is to compute a set of “motion primitives” for which we can provide formal guarantees on the behavior of the closed-loop system. In particular, for each motion primitive, we can provide bounds on where the system may end up given that it starts off in some set of initial conditions. One can visuzalize these sets as “funnels” that the system is guaranteed to remain within (there is one funnel associated with each motion primitive). At runtime, when the robot encounters a novel environment, it can combine these motion primitives in order to plan its way safely through the environment. We provide an example of how this approach may be used on a model of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) flying through a forest with unknown (but bounded) speed while subjected to a cross-wind. There are two main challenges that practitioners must overcome when applying this approach. First, the computational tools used for computing “funnels” can often run into numerical difficulties. Second, hardware implementation of the approach requires one to have a reasonably accurate model of the dynamics of the system and the uncertainty and Anirudha Majumdar and Russ Tedrake are with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge MA 02139. Email: {anirudha,russt}@mit.edu. disturbances it is subjected to. While not the focus here, examples of applying related algorithms to physical systems can be found in [19] and [25]. We are currently experimenting with this approach for different application domains including humanoid locomotion.

[1]  Mark M. Tobenkin,et al.  Invariant Funnels around Trajectories using Sum-of-Squares Programming , 2010, 1010.3013.

[2]  Nicholas Roy,et al.  Finite-Time Regional Verification of Stochastic Nonlinear Systems , 2012 .

[3]  Emilio Frazzoli,et al.  Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning , 2011, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[4]  Ian R. Manchester,et al.  LQR-trees: Feedback Motion Planning via Sums-of-Squares Verification , 2010, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[5]  Russ Tedrake,et al.  Simulation-based LQR-trees with input and state constraints , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[6]  Jonathan P. How,et al.  Robust motion planning using a maneuver automation with built-in uncertainties , 2003, Proceedings of the 2003 American Control Conference, 2003..

[7]  Amir Ali Ahmadi Non-monotonic Lyapunov functions for stability of nonlinear and switched systems : theory and computation , 2008 .

[8]  Daniel E. Koditschek,et al.  Sequential Composition of Dynamically Dexterous Robot Behaviors , 1999, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[9]  John F. Canny,et al.  Robust motion planning for mobile robots , 1990, Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[10]  Johan Löfberg,et al.  Pre- and Post-Processing Sum-of-Squares Programs in Practice , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[11]  Alexander C. Shkolnik Sample-based motion planning in high-dimensional and differentially-constrained systems , 2010 .

[12]  Eduardo F. Camacho,et al.  Model Predictive Controllers , 2007 .

[13]  George J. Pappas,et al.  Sequential composition of robust controller specifications , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[14]  A. Megretski Positivity of trigonometric polynomials , 2003, 42nd IEEE International Conference on Decision and Control (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37475).

[15]  Russ Tedrake,et al.  Flying between obstacles with an autonomous knife-edge maneuver , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[16]  Russ Tedrake,et al.  Algebraic verification for parameterized motion planning libraries , 2012, 2012 American Control Conference (ACC).

[17]  E. Feron,et al.  Real-time motion planning for agile autonomous vehicles , 2000, Proceedings of the 2001 American Control Conference. (Cat. No.01CH37148).

[18]  Jos F. Sturm,et al.  A Matlab toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones , 1999 .

[19]  D. Luenberger An introduction to observers , 1971 .

[20]  Russ Tedrake,et al.  Robust Online Motion Planning with Regions of Finite Time Invariance , 2012, WAFR.

[21]  George J. Pappas,et al.  Trajectory Based Verification Using Local Finite-Time Invariance , 2009, HSCC.

[22]  Munther A. Dahleh,et al.  Maneuver-based motion planning for nonlinear systems with symmetries , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[23]  Alonzo Kelly,et al.  Toward Optimal Sampling in the Space of Paths , 2007, ISRR.

[24]  Amir Ali Ahmadi,et al.  Control design along trajectories with sums of squares programming , 2012, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[25]  Steven M. LaValle,et al.  RRT-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning , 2000, Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065).

[26]  Christopher G. Atkeson,et al.  Policies based on trajectory libraries , 2006, Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006..

[27]  Nicholas Roy,et al.  Rapidly-exploring Random Belief Trees for motion planning under uncertainty , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[28]  Christopher G. Atkeson,et al.  Standing balance control using a trajectory library , 2009, 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[29]  Lennart Ljung,et al.  System identification toolbox for use with MATLAB , 1988 .

[30]  Emilio Frazzoli,et al.  High-speed flight in an ergodic forest , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[31]  David Q. Mayne,et al.  Robust model predictive control of constrained linear systems with bounded disturbances , 2005, Autom..

[32]  Frantisek M. Sobolic,et al.  Agile flight control techniques for a fixed-wing aircraft , 2009 .

[33]  Leslie Pack Kaelbling,et al.  Belief space planning assuming maximum likelihood observations , 2010, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[34]  David Q. Mayne,et al.  Model predictive control: Recent developments and future promise , 2014, Autom..

[35]  Anil V. Rao,et al.  Practical Methods for Optimal Control Using Nonlinear Programming , 1987 .

[36]  Dmitry Berenson,et al.  Grasp planning in complex scenes , 2007, 2007 7th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots.

[37]  Mark W. Spong,et al.  The swing up control problem for the Acrobot , 1995 .

[38]  J. Andrew Bagnell,et al.  Efficient Optimization of Control Libraries , 2011, AAAI.

[39]  Claire J. Tomlin,et al.  Design of guaranteed safe maneuvers using reachable sets: Autonomous quadrotor aerobatics in theory and practice , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[40]  Urs A. Muller,et al.  Learning maneuver dictionaries for ground robot planning , 2008 .

[41]  P. Parrilo Structured semidefinite programs and semialgebraic geometry methods in robustness and optimization , 2000 .

[42]  Frank Allgöwer,et al.  A set-valued filter for discrete time polynomial systems using sum of squares programming , 2009, Proceedings of the 48h IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) held jointly with 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference.