skip to main content
10.1145/2461328.2461380acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescpsweekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Iterative temporal motion planning for hybrid systems in partially unknown environments

Published:08 April 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper considers the problem of motion planning for a hybrid robotic system with complex and nonlinear dynamics in a partially unknown environment given a temporal logic specification. We employ a multi-layered synergistic framework that can deal with general robot dynamics and combine it with an iterative planning strategy. Our work allows us to deal with the unknown environmental restrictions only when they are discovered and without the need to repeat the computation that is related to the temporal logic specification. In addition, we define a metric for satisfaction of a specification. We use this metric to plan a trajectory that satisfies the specification as closely as possible in cases in which the discovered constraint in the environment renders the specification unsatisfiable. We demonstrate the efficacy of our framework on a simulation of a hybrid second-order car-like robot moving in an office environment with unknown obstacles. The results show that our framework is successful in generating a trajectory whose satisfaction measure of the specification is optimal. They also show that, when new obstacles are discovered, the reinitialization of our framework is computationally inexpensive.

References

  1. K. E. Bekris, D. K. Grady, M. Moll, and L. E. Kavraki. Safe distributed motion coordination for second-order systems with different planning cycles. Intl. J. of Robotics Research, 31(2):129--149, Feb. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. K. E. Bekris and L. E. Kavraki. Greedy but safe replanning under kinodynamic constraints. In IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pages 704--710, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. A. Bhatia, L. Kavraki, and M. Vardi. Motion planning with hybrid dynamics and temporal goals. In Decision and Control, IEEE Conf. on, pages 1108--1115, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. Bhatia, L. Kavraki, and M. Vardi. Sampling-based motion planning with temporal goals. In Robotics and Automation, IEEE Int. Conf. on, pages 2689--2696, May 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. A. Bhatia, M. Maly, L. Kavraki, and M. Vardi. Motion planning with complex goals. Robotics Automation Magazine, IEEE, 18(3):55--64, Sep. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. R. Bloem, K. Greimel, T. Henzinger, and B. Jobstmann. Synthesizing robust systems. In Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design, pages 85--92, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Y. Chen, J. Tumova, and C. Belta. LTL robot motion control based on automata learning of environmental dynamics. In Robotics and Automation, IEEE Int. Conf. on, pages 5177 --5182, May 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. I. A. Şucan, M. Moll, and L. E. Kavraki. The open motion planning library. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 19:72--82, December 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. X. Ding, S. Smith, C. Belta, and D. Rus. MDP optimal control under temporal logic constraints. In Decision and Control and European Control Conf. (CDC-ECC), IEEE Conf. on, pages 532--538, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. G. Fainekos, A. Girard, H. Kress-Gazit, and G. J. Pappas. Temporal logic motion planning for dynamic robots. Automatica, 45:343--352, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. T. Fraichard. A short paper about motion safety. In Proc. 2007 IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pages 1140--1145, Apr. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. D. K. Grady, M. Moll, C. Hegde, A. C. Sankaranarayanan, R. G. Baraniuk, and L. E. Kavraki. Multi-objective sensor-based replanning for a car-like robot. In IEEE Intl. Symp. on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. D. Hsu, J. Latombe, and R. Motwani. Path planning in expansive configuration spaces. Intl. J. of Computational Geometry and Applications, 9(4--5):495--512, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Karaman and Frazzoli. Sampling-based motion planning with deterministic μ-calculus specifications. In IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. K. Kim and G. Fainekos. Approximate solutions for the minimal revision problem of specification automata. In Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 265--271, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. M. Kloetzer and C. Belta. A fully automated framework for control of linear systems from temporal logic specifications. Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, 53(1):287--297, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. H. Kress-Gazit, G. Fainekos, and G. Pappas. Where's waldo? Sensor-based temporal logic motion planning. In Robotics and Automation, 2007 IEEE Int. Conf. on, pages 3116--3121, Apr. 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. H. Kress-Gazit, G. Fainekos, and G. Pappas. Temporal-logic-based reactive mission and motion planning. Robotics, IEEE Transactions on, 25(6):1370--1381, Dec. 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. H. Kress-Gazit, T. Wongpiromsarn, and U. Topcu. Correct, reactive, high-level robot control. Robotics Automation Magazine, IEEE, 18(3):65--74, Sep. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. O. Kupferman and Y. Lustig. Lattice automata. In Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Verification, Model Checking, and Abstract Interpretation, volume 4349 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 199--213, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. O. Kupferman and M. Y. Vardi. Model checking of safety properties. Formal Methods in System Design, 19:291 -- 314, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. M. Lahijanian, S. B. Andersson, and C. Belta. Temporal logic motion planning and control with probabilistic satisfaction guarantees. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 28(2):396--409, Apr. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. M. Lahijanian, J. Wasniewski, S. Andersson, and C. Belta. Motion planning and control from temporal logic specifications with probabilistic satisfaction guarantees. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pages 3227--3232, Alaska, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. T. Latvala. Efficient model checking of safety properties. In Model Checking Software, pages 74--88. Springer, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. C. Livingston, R. M. Murray, and J. W. Burdick. Backtracking temporal logic synthesis for uncertain environments. In IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pages 5163--5170, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. E. Plaku, L. Kavraki, and M. Vardi. Motion planning with dynamics by a synergistic combination of layers of planning. IEEE Trans. on Robotics, 26(3):469--482, Jun. 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. E. Plaku, L. E. Kavraki, and M. Y. Vardi. Falsification of LTL safety properties in hybrid systems. In Proc. of the Conf. on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS 2009), York, UK, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. V. Raman and H. Kress-Gazit. Analyzing unsynthesizable specifications for high-level robot behavior using LTLMoP. In Proc. of the 23rd Int. Conf. on Computer Cided Verification, CAV'11, pages 663--668, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011. Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. S. Sarid, B. Xu, and H. Kress-Gazit. Guaranteeing high-level behaviors while exploring partially known maps. In Proc. of Robotics: Science and Systems, Sydney, Australia, July 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. J. Shewchuk. Triangle: Engineering a 2D quality mesh generator and Delaunay triangulator. In Applied Computational Geometry Towards Geometric Engineering, volume 1148 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, chapter 23, pages 203 -- 222. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. P.vCerný, S. Gopi, T. A. Henzinger, A. Radhakrishna, and N. Totla. Synthesis from incompatible specifications. In Proc. of the tenth ACM Int. Conf. on Embedded software, EMSOFT '12, pages 53--62, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. T. Wongpiromsarn, U. Topcu, and R. Murray. Receding horizon control for temporal logic specifications. In Proc. of the 13th ACM Int. Conf. on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, pages 101--110. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Iterative temporal motion planning for hybrid systems in partially unknown environments

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          HSCC '13: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Hybrid systems: computation and control
          April 2013
          378 pages
          ISBN:9781450315678
          DOI:10.1145/2461328

          Copyright © 2013 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 8 April 2013

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          HSCC '13 Paper Acceptance Rate40of86submissions,47%Overall Acceptance Rate153of373submissions,41%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader