PC-Planner: Physics-Constrained Self-Supervised Learning for Robust Neural Motion Planning with Shape-Aware Distance Function
Authors: 
Xujie Shen, Haocheng Peng, Zesong Yang, Juzhan Xu, Hujun Bao, Ruizhen Hu, Zhaopeng CuiAuthors Info & Claims
Xujie Shen, Haocheng Peng, Zesong Yang, Juzhan Xu, Hujun Bao, Ruizhen Hu, Zhaopeng CuiAuthors Info & ClaimsArticle No.: 51, Pages 1 - 11
Abstract
Motion Planning (MP) is a critical challenge in robotics, especially pertinent with the burgeoning interest in embodied artificial intelligence. Traditional MP methods often struggle with high-dimensional complexities. Recently neural motion planners, particularly physics-informed neural planners based on the Eikonal equation, have been proposed to overcome the curse of dimensionality. However, these methods perform poorly in complex scenarios with shaped robots due to multiple solutions inherent in the Eikonal equation. To address these issues, this paper presents PC-Planner, a novel physics-constrained self-supervised learning framework for robot motion planning with various shapes in complex environments. To this end, we propose several physical constraints, including monotonic and optimal constraints, to stabilize the training process of the neural network with the Eikonal equation. Additionally, we introduce a novel shape-aware distance field that considers the robot’s shape for efficient collision checking and Ground Truth (GT) speed computation. This field reduces the computational intensity, and facilitates adaptive motion planning at test time. Experiments in diverse scenarios with different robots demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method in efficiency and robustness for robot motion planning, particularly in complex environments.
Supplemental Material
ZIP File
Supplementary Material and video
- Download
- 78.82 MB
References
[1]
Guy Barles and Panagiotis E Souganidis. 1991. Convergence of approximation schemes for fully nonlinear second order equations. Asymptotic analysis 4, 3 (1991), 271–283.
[2]
Robert Bohlin and Lydia E Kavraki. 2000. Path planning using lazy PRM. In Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium conference. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Symposia proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37065), Vol. 1. IEEE, 521–528.
[3]
Rohan Chabra, Jan E Lenssen, Eddy Ilg, Tanner Schmidt, Julian Straub, Steven Lovegrove, and Richard Newcombe. 2020. Deep local shapes: Learning local sdf priors for detailed 3d reconstruction. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXIX 16. Springer, 608–625.
[4]
Devendra Singh Chaplot, Deepak Pathak, and Jitendra Malik. 2021. Differentiable spatial planning using transformers. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 1484–1495.
[5]
Haiwei Chen, Shichen Liu, Weikai Chen, Hao Li, and Randall Hill. 2021. Equivariant point network for 3d point cloud analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 14514–14523.
[6]
David L Chopp. 2001. Some improvements of the fast marching method. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 23, 1 (2001), 230–244.
[7]
Gene Chou, Ilya Chugunov, and Felix Heide. 2022. GenSDF: Two-Stage Learning of Generalizable Signed Distance Functions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh (Eds.), Vol. 35. Curran Associates, Inc., 24905–24919. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/9dfb5bc27e2d046199b38739e4ce64bd-Paper-Conference.pdf
[8]
Michael G Crandall and Pierre-Louis Lions. 1983. Viscosity solutions of Hamilton-Jacobi equations. Transactions of the American mathematical society 277, 1 (1983), 1–42.
[9]
Jonathan D Gammell, Siddhartha S Srinivasa, and Timothy D Barfoot. 2015. Batch informed trees (BIT*): Sampling-based optimal planning via the heuristically guided search of implicit random geometric graphs. In 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 3067–3074.
[10]
Jinwook Huh, Volkan Isler, and Daniel D Lee. 2021. Cost-to-go function generating networks for high dimensional motion planning. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 8480–8486.
[11]
Brian Ichter, James Harrison, and Marco Pavone. 2018. Learning sampling distributions for robot motion planning. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 7087–7094.
[12]
Chiyu Jiang, Avneesh Sud, Ameesh Makadia, Jingwei Huang, Matthias Nießner, Thomas Funkhouser, et al. 2020. Local implicit grid representations for 3d scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 6001–6010.
[13]
Jacob J. Johnson, Ahmed H. Qureshi, and Michael C. Yip. 2023. Learning Sampling Dictionaries for Efficient and Generalizable Robot Motion Planning With Transformers. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8, 12 (2023), 7946–7953.
[14]
Mrinal Kalakrishnan, Sachin Chitta, Evangelos Theodorou, Peter Pastor, and Stefan Schaal. 2011. STOMP: Stochastic trajectory optimization for motion planning. In 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, 4569–4574.
[15]
Sertac Karaman and Emilio Frazzoli. 2011. Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. The international journal of robotics research 30, 7 (2011), 846–894.
[16]
Tero Karras. 2012. Maximizing Parallelism in the Construction of BVHs, Octrees, and K-d Trees. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM SIGGRAPH / Eurographics Conference on High-Performance Graphics. Eurographics Association, 33–37.
[17]
Zachary Kingston, Mark Moll, and Lydia E Kavraki. 2018. Sampling-based methods for motion planning with constraints. Annual review of control, robotics, and autonomous systems 1 (2018), 159–185.
[18]
James J Kuffner and Steven M LaValle. 2000. RRT-connect: An efficient approach to single-query path planning. In Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37065), Vol. 2. IEEE, 995–1001.
[19]
Mikhail Kurenkov, Andrei Potapov, Alena Savinykh, Evgeny Yudin, Evgeny Kruzhkov, Pavel Karpyshev, and Dzmitry Tsetserukou. 2022. NFOMP: Neural Field for Optimal Motion Planner of Differential Drive Robots With Nonholonomic Constraints. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7, 4 (2022), 10991–10998.
[20]
Steven M LaValle and James J Kuffner Jr. 2001. Randomized kinodynamic planning. The international journal of robotics research 20, 5 (2001), 378–400.
[21]
Xueting Li, Shalini De Mello, Xiaolong Wang, Ming-Hsuan Yang, Jan Kautz, and Sifei Liu. 2021. Learning continuous environment fields via implicit functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:https://arXiv.org/abs/2111.13997 (2021).
[22]
Yiming Li, Yan Zhang, Amirreza Razmjoo, and Sylvain Calinon. 2024. Representing Robot Geometry as Distance Fields: Applications to Whole-body Manipulation. In Proc. IEEE ICRA.
[23]
Mustafa Mukadam, Xinyan Yan, and Byron Boots. 2016. Gaussian process motion planning. In 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 9–15.
[24]
Ruiqi Ni and Ahmed H Qureshi. 2023a. NTFields: Neural Time Fields for Physics-Informed Robot Motion Planning. In International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ApF0dmi1_9K
[25]
Ruiqi Ni and Ahmed H Qureshi. 2023b. Progressive Learning for Physics-informed Neural Motion Planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:https://arXiv.org/abs/2306.00616 (2023).
[26]
Amine Ouasfi and Adnane Boukhayma. 2022. Few ‘zero level set’-shot learning of shape signed distance functions in feature space. In European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 561–578.
[27]
Jia Pan, Sachin Chitta, and Dinesh Manocha. 2012. FCL: A general purpose library for collision and proximity queries. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 3859–3866.
[28]
Jeong Joon Park, Peter Florence, Julian Straub, Richard Newcombe, and Steven Lovegrove. 2019. Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 165–174.
[29]
James A Sethian. 1996. A fast marching level set method for monotonically advancing fronts. proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93, 4 (1996), 1591–1595.
[30]
J. A. Sethian. 1999. Fast Marching Methods. SIAM Rev. 41, 2 (1999), 199–235.
[31]
Eran Treister and Eldad Haber. 2016. A fast marching algorithm for the factored eikonal equation. Journal of Computational physics 324 (2016), 210–225.
[32]
Maria Cristina Tugurlan. 2008. Fast marching methods-parallel implementation and analysis. Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College.
[33]
Murad Tukan, Alaa Maalouf, Dan Feldman, and Roi Poranne. 2022. Obstacle aware sampling for path planning. In 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 13676–13683.
[34]
Aleš Vysockỳ, Hisaka Wada, Jun Kinugawa, and Kazuhiro Kosuge. 2019. Motion planning analysis according to ISO/TS 15066 in human–robot collaboration environment. In 2019 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM). IEEE, 151–156.
[35]
Jiankun Wang, Wenzheng Chi, Chenming Li, Chaoqun Wang, and Max Q.-H. Meng. 2020. Neural RRT*: Learning-Based Optimal Path Planning. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 17, 4 (2020), 1748–1758.
[36]
Malcolm C. A. White, Hongjian Fang, Nori Nakata, and Yehuda Ben‐Zion. 2020. PyKonal: A Python Package for Solving the Eikonal Equation in Spherical and Cartesian Coordinates Using the Fast Marching Method. Seismological Research Letters 91, 4 (06 2020), 2378–2389.
[37]
Fei Xia, Amir R. Zamir, Zhiyang He, Alexander Sax, Jitendra Malik, and Silvio Savarese. 2018. Gibson Env: real-world perception for embodied agents. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018 IEEE Conference on. IEEE.
[38]
Yajue Yang, Jia Pan, and Weiwei Wan. 2019. Survey of optimal motion planning. IET Cyber-systems and Robotics 1, 1 (2019), 13–19.
[39]
Minghan Zhu, Maani Ghaffari, William A Clark, and Huei Peng. 2023. E2PN: Efficient SE (3)-equivariant point network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 1223–1232.
Index Terms
- PC-Planner: Physics-Constrained Self-Supervised Learning for Robust Neural Motion Planning with Shape-Aware Distance Function
Recommendations
Learning object deformation models for robot motion planning
In this paper, we address the problem of robot navigation in environments with deformable objects. The aim is to include the costs of object deformations when planning the robot's motions and trade them off against the travel costs. We present our ...
VCS-based motion planning for distributed mobile robots: collision avoidance and formation
This paper addresses decentralized motion planning among a homogeneous set of feedback-controlled mobile robots. It introduces the velocity obstacle, which describes the collision between robot and obstacle, and the hybrid interactive velocity obstacles ...
Velocity-Change-Space-based dynamic motion planning for mobile robots navigation
This paper deals with the problem of dynamic motion planning in an unknown environment, where the workspace is cluttered with moving obstacles and robots. First, we give the principle of hybrid velocity obstacles, the definition of the preferred ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
December 2024
1620 pages
Copyright © 2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to 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 the author(s) 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].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 03 December 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
SA '24
Sponsor:
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 178 of 869 submissions, 20%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 331Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)331
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)72
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderFull Text
View this article in Full Text.
Full TextHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format