1 / 16

RRT-Blossom

Maciej Kalisiak DGP Laboratory University of Toronto mac@dgp.toronto.edu. Michiel van de Panne Imager Laboratory University of British Columbia van@cs.ubc.ca. RRT-Blossom. RRT with local flood-fill behavior. Highly-constrained terrain. Purpose. highly-constrained environments

lydia-serrano
Download Presentation

RRT-Blossom

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Maciej Kalisiak DGP Laboratory University of Toronto mac@dgp.toronto.edu Michiel van de Panne Imager Laboratory University of British Columbia van@cs.ubc.ca RRT-Blossom RRT with local flood-fill behavior

  2. Highly-constrained terrain

  3. Purpose • highly-constrained environments • less room to move • → smaller search space • → motion planning should be easier • Rapidly-Exploring Random Trees (RRT) • popular motion planning algorithm • does poorly in highly-constrained terrain • RRT-Blossom • variation of RRT well adapted to such terrain

  4. Flood-fill traits to emulate • generally, a flood-fill: • has a constant rate of fill • does not visit a location more than once • in RRT context this translates to: • make sure tree gains an edge on each iteration • do not re-explore the same space twice

  5. Key modifications • receding edges • allow edges that recede from the target point • re-exploration prevention • do not revisit same space with multiple nodes • node “blossoming” • avoid duplicate work by immediately and permanently keeping or discarding tested edges

  6. Receding edges • often provide useful information → worth keeping • RRT does not allow receding edges • RRT-CT† allows receding edges, but does not guard against resultant re-exploration † P.Cheng & S.M.LaValle, Reducing Metric Sensitivity in Randomized Trajectory Design, IROS 2001

  7. Re-exploration(“regression”) • RRT guarantees no edge/node overlap • receding edges break this guarantee • now possible: multiple tree nodes exploring same space • re-exploration = wasted effort (often huge!)

  8. generally, re-exploration non-trivial to detect approximation that works well: prevention: do not instantiate edges which satisfy the above Preventing re-exploration • edge regresses if its leaf node is closer to a tree nodeother than its parent

  9. Blossoming • instantiate all valid edges out of chosen node • avoids duplicate edge computation and testing • RRT: “memoryless” • recomputes good & bad edges • RRT-CT: remembers only bad edges • recomputes good edges • RRT-Blossom: “remembers” all edges • by instantiating all valid edges out of node, no need to remember anything

  10. Viability issue • dead-end branches can “block” needed edges • can prevent discovery of solution! • fix for re-exploration check: • ignore such nonviable branches • viability discovered on-the-fly

  11. Experiments: agents point car bike kinematic kinodynamic

  12. Experiments: terrains T rooms complex tunnel

  13. Results: point(holonomic)

  14. Results: car(nonholonomic)

  15. Results: bike(kinodynamic)

  16. Take-away • RRT-Blossom: more robust RRT • highly-constrained terrain → big speedup • deep local minima → big speedup • regular terrain → comparable performance • performs well in both settings • kinematic • kinodynamic • more at http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/~mac/rrt-blossom/

More Related