1 / 83

Sampling Strategies

Sampling Strategies. By David Johnson. Roadmap components. local path. milestone. Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM). goal configuration. start configuration. free-space. c-obstacle. Configuration-space components. [Kavraki, Svetska, Latombe, Overmars, 1996].

odin
Download Presentation

Sampling Strategies

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. Sampling Strategies By David Johnson

  2. Roadmap components local path milestone Probabilistic Roadmaps (PRM) goal configuration start configuration free-space c-obstacle Configuration-space components [Kavraki, Svetska, Latombe, Overmars, 1996]

  3. PRM planners solve complicated problems Complex geometries: obstacles: 43530 polygons Robot: 4053 polygons High dimensional

  4. low density of free samples high density of free samples Main Issue: “Narrow Passages” narrow passage free samples colliding local path colliding samples The efficiency of PRM planners drops dramatically in spaces with narrow passages

  5. Main Issue: “Narrow Passages” • Problems with “narrow passages” are commonly encountered

  6. PRM Sampling • Random • Free points can see a “lot” of free space • Somewhat invariant with dimensionality • Not true for narrow passages • Can we better characterize a narrow passge/difficult problem?

  7. Coverage and Connectivity • Coverage • How well does the roadmap approximate the configuration space • Connectivity • Are regions of C-space connected that can be connected

  8. Bad Good Coverage

  9. Bad Good Coverage almost any point of the configuration space can be connected by a straight line segment to some milestone

  10. Bad Good Connectivity

  11. Bad Good Connectivity 1-1 correspondence between the connected components of the roadmap and those of F

  12. a narrow passage is difficult to define. Easy Difficult Narrow Passages • Connectivity is difficult to capture when there are narrow passages. How to characterize coverage/connectivity? Expansiveness

  13. Visibility All configurations in Free Space that can be seen by a free configuration p p

  14. 1-good 0.5-good The domain is only as good as its worst member F is 0.5-good Є-good Every free configuration “sees” at least a єfraction of the free space, є is in (0,1].

  15. 0.4-lookout of S 0.4-lookout of S S F\S β-lookout of a subspace S • Subset of points in S that can see at least a β fraction of F\S, β is in (0,1]. S F\S This area is about 40% of F\S

  16. F is ε-good ε=0.5 S F\S Volume(β-lookout) Volume(S)  α=0.2 Definition: (ε,α,β)-expansive • The free space F is (ε,α,β)-expansive if • Free space F isε-good • For each subspace S of F, its β-lookout is at least α fraction of S. ε,α,β are in (0,1] β-lookout β=0.4 F is (ε, α,β)-expansive, where ε=0.5, α=0.2,β=0.4.

  17. Why Expansive? • ε, α, and β measure the expansiveness of a free space. • Bigger ε, α, and β • Easier to construct a roadmap with good connectivity/coverage.

  18. p2 p3 q pn Pn+1 Linking sequence Lookout of V(p) Visibility of p p1 p Pn+1 is chosen from the lookout of the subset seen by p, p1,…,pn

  19. Theorem 1 • Probability of achieving good connectivity increases exponentially with the number of milestones (in an expansive space). • As (ε, α,β) decrease  the number of milestones needs to be increased(to maintain good connectivity).

  20. Theorem 2 • Probability of achieving good coverage, increases exponentially with the number of milestones (in an expansive space).

  21. Probabilistic Completeness In an expansive space, the probability that a PRM planner fails to find a path when one exists goes to 0 exponentiallyin the number of milestones (~ running time). [Hsu, Latombe, Motwani, 97]

  22. Summary • Main result • If a C-space is expansive, then a roadmap can be constructed efficiently with good connectivity and coverage. • Limitation in implementation • No theoretical guidance about the stopping time. • A planner stops when either a path is found or Max steps have been taken.

  23. Guided Sampling Motivation • Two major costs of PRMs: • FREE - Check if sample point is in free space • JOIN – Check if path between milestones is in free space • JOIN is 10 to 100 times slower than FREE Running time: T = nt Tt + na Ta nt– milestones tried Tt<<Ta na– milestones added to graph • Idea: selectively pick milestones • Try more samples (nt ) • Keep fewer samples (na ) by filtering out non-promising samples

  24. OBPRMs A randomized roadmap method for path and manipulation planning (Amato,Wu ICRA’96) OBPRM: An obstacle-based PRM for 3D workspaces (Amato,Bayazit, Dale, Jones and Vallejo)

  25. Roadmap candidate points chosen on C-obstacle surfaces

  26. Finding points on C-objects • Determine a point o inside s • Select m rays with origin o and directions uniformly distributed in C-space • For each ray identified above, use binary search to determine a point on s

  27. Issues • Selection of o in C-obstacle is crucial • To obtain uniform distribution of samples on the surface, would like to place origin somewhere near the center of C-object. • Still skewed objects would present a problem

  28. Main Advantage • Useful in manipulation planning where the robot has to move along contact surfaces • Useful when C-space is very cluttered. • On to the next ideas…

  29. Two Similar Approaches • The Gaussian Sampling Strategy for PRMs • Valerie Boor, Mark H. Overmars, A. Frank van der Stappen • ICRA 1999 • The Bridge Test for Sampling Narrow Passages with PRMs • David Hsu, Tingting Jiang, John Reit, Zheng Sun • ICRA 2003

  30. Overview • Gaussian Strategy • Goals • Two Proposed Algorithms • Experimental Results • Bridge Test • Proposed Algorithm • Comparison with Previous Paper • Experimental Results

  31. Goal • More samples in hard regions = more samples near obstacles

  32. /2 Parameters, Mixing Methods • indicates how close configurations are to obstacles • Hybrid strategy: mix uniform sampling w/ Gaussian

  33. Algorithm I hence the name • loop • c1 = random config. • d = distance sampled from Gaussian • c2 = random config. distance d from c1 • if Free(c1) and !Free(c2), add c1 to graph • if Free(c2) and !Free(c1), add c2 to graph • Intuition: • Pick free points near blocked points • Avoid adding configurations in large empty regions C1 d C2

  34. Some Sampling Issues • How to choose the offset point • Make a random vector with components chosen from a Gaussian distribution • Bias towards the hypercube corners

  35. Narrow Passage uniform sampling took 60 times longer than algorithm 1

  36. Difficult Twist uniform sampling took 13 times longerthan algorithm 1

  37. Twisty Track uniform sampling took 4 times longer than algorithm 1

  38. Overview • Gaussian Strategy • Goals • Two Proposed Algorithms • Experimental Results • Bridge Test • Proposed Algorithm • Comparison with Previous Paper • Experimental Results

  39. Bridge Test • loop • c1 = random config. • if Free(c1), continue (restart the loop) • d = distance sampled from Gaussian • c2 = random config. distance d from c1 • if Free(c2), continue (restart the loop) • p = midpoint(c1,c2) • if Free(p), add p p c2 c1

  40. Clover

  41. Two Squares Gaussian Sampler RBB Sampler

  42. Depression, Zigzags

  43. Bridge vs. Uniform RBB = Bridge

  44. Conclusion • Better configurations= fewer configurations= less edge computations= faster running time • Gaussian • Points near obstacles • Points near two obstacles • Bridge • Points between parts of obstacles • Still un-tested in high-dimensional spaces

  45. Medial-Axis Based PRM MAPRM: A Probabilistic Roadmap Planner with Sampling on the Medial Axis of the Free Space (Wilmarth, Amato, Stiller ICRA’99)

  46. Main Ideas • Beneficial to have samples on the medial axis; however, computation of medial axis itself is costly. • Retraction : takes nodes from free and obstacle space onto the medial axis w/o explicit computation of the medial axis. • This method increases the number of nodes found in a narrow corridor • independent of the volume of corridor • Depends on obstacles bounding it

  47. Approach for Free-Space • Find xo (nearest boundary point) for each point x in Free Space. • Search along the ray xox and find arbitrarily close points xa and xb s.t. xo is the nearest point on the boundary for xa but not xb. • Called canonical retraction map

  48. Extended Retraction Map • Doing only for Free-Space => Only more clearance. Doesn’t increase samples in Narrow Passages • Retract points that fall in Cobstacle also. • Retract points in the direction of the nearest boundary point

  49. Results for 2D case • LEFT: Helpful: obstacle-space that retracts to narrow passage is large • RIGHT: Not Helpful: Obstacle-space seeping into medial axis in narrow corridor is very low

More Related