Manipulating Deformable Objects by Interleaving Prediction, Planning, and Control
January 27, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Int. J. Robotics Res.
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Dale McConachie, Andrew Dobson, Mengyao Ruan, Dmitry Berenson
arXiv ID
2001.09950
Category
cs.RO: Robotics
Citations
61
Venue
Int. J. Robotics Res.
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
We present a framework for deformable object manipulation that interleaves planning and control, enabling complex manipulation tasks without relying on high-fidelity modeling or simulation. The key question we address is when should we use planning and when should we use control to achieve the task? Planners are designed to find paths through complex configuration spaces, but for highly underactuated systems, such as deformable objects, achieving a specific configuration is very difficult even with high-fidelity models. Conversely, controllers can be designed to achieve specific configurations, but they can be trapped in undesirable local minima due to obstacles. Our approach consists of three components: (1) A global motion planner to generate gross motion of the deformable object; (2) A local controller for refinement of the configuration of the deformable object; and (3) A novel deadlock prediction algorithm to determine when to use planning versus control. By separating planning from control we are able to use different representations of the deformable object, reducing overall complexity and enabling efficient computation of motion. We provide a detailed proof of probabilistic completeness for our planner, which is valid despite the fact that our system is underactuated and we do not have a steering function. We then demonstrate that our framework is able to successfully perform several manipulation tasks with rope and cloth in simulation which cannot be performed using either our controller or planner alone. These experiments suggest that our planner can generate paths efficiently, taking under a second on average to find a feasible path in three out of four scenarios. We also show that our framework is effective on a 16 DoF physical robot, where reachability and dual-arm constraints make the planning more difficult.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Robotics
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
AirSim: High-Fidelity Visual and Physical Simulation for Autonomous Vehicles
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Motion Planning and Control Techniques for Self-driving Urban Vehicles
π
π
The Cartographer
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: A Survey on Civil Applications and Key Research Challenges
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Autonomous Driving: Common Practices and Emerging Technologies
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Learning agile and dynamic motor skills for legged robots
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted