We propose a SPAM (simultaneous planning and mapping) technique for a manipulator-type robot working in an uncertain environment via a novel Best Next Move algorithm. Demands for a smart decision to move a manipulator such as humanoid arms in uncertain or crowded environments call for a simultaneous planning and mapping technique. In the present work, we focus more on rapid map generation rather than global path search to reduce ignorance level of a given environment. The motivation is that the global path quality will be improved as the ignorance level of the unknown environment decreases. The 3D sensor introduced in the previous work has been improved for better mapping capability and the real-time rehearsal idea is used for -space cloud point generation. Captured cloud points by 3D sensors, then, create an instantaneous -space map whereby the Best Next Move algorithm directs the local motion of the manipulator. The direction of the Best Next Move utilizes the gradient of the density distribution of the -nearest-neighborhood sets in -space. It has a tendency of traveling along the direction by which the point clouds spread in space, thus rendering faster mapping of -space obstacles possible. The proposed algorithm is compared with a sensor-based algorithm such as sensor-based RRT for performance comparison. Performance measures, such as mapping efficiency, search time, and total number of -space point clouds, are reported as well. Possible applications include semiautonomous telerobotics planning and humanoid arm path planning. 1. Introduction Manipulator motion planning in unknown environments is a challenging task in path planning study. For a manipulator path planning with a complete environmental model, the notion of completeness and optimality often becomes a main issue of discussion. For unknown environments, however, optimal path finding becomes difficult due to the uncertainty in environments. The focus of question lies rather in the probabilistic convergence to the goal point or planning in difficult areas to deal with high level of uncertainty. From the standpoint of implementation, however, both sides rigorously use configuration space approach to benefit from mathematical advantages. Sensor-based motion planning is the most common approach when it comes to unknown environment planning problems. Among many attempts in this group is the Lumelsky, [1–3] which demonstrated an algorithm that guarantees convergence if a path exits or terminates in a limited time for up to 3 DOF Cartesian robot. Monotonicity plays an important role in the proof
References
[1]
L. Kavraki and J. C. Latombe, “Randomized preprocessing of configuration space for fast path planning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA '94), pp. 2138–2145, San Diego, Calif, USA, May 1994.
[2]
R. Mahkovic and T. Slivnik, “Generalized local voronoi diagram of visible region,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA '98), pp. 349–355, Leuven, Belgium, May 1998.
[3]
S. M. LaValle and J. J. Kuffner, “Rapidly-exploring random trees: progress and prospects,” in Algorithmic and Computational Robotics: New Directions, B. R. Donald, K. M. Lynch, and D. Rus, Eds., pp. 293–308, A. K. Peters, Wellesley, Mass, USA, 2001.
[4]
B. Laroche, P. Martin, and P. Rouchon, “Motion planning for a class of partial differential equations with boundary control,” in Proceedings of the 1998 37th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC '98), pp. 3494–3497, Tampa, Fla, USA, December 1998.
[5]
J. T. Schwartz and M. Sharir, “On the “piano movers” problem. II. General techniques for computing topological properties of real algebraic manifolds,” Advances in Applied Mathematics, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 298–351, 1983.
[6]
C. Guestrin and D. Ormoneit, “Robust combination of local controllers,” in Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI '01), pp. 178–185, Seattle, Wash, USA, August 2001.
[7]
N. Bezzo, R. Fierro, A. Swingler, and S. Ferrari, “A disjunctive programming approach for motion planning of mobile router networks,” International Journal of Robotics and Automation, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 13–25, 2011.
[8]
E. U. Acar, H. Choset, Y. Zhang, and M. Schervish, “Path planning for robotic demining: robust sensor-based coverage of unstructured environments and probabilistic methods,” International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 22, no. 7-8, pp. 441–466, 2003.
[9]
E. Balas, “Disjunctive programming and a hierarchy of relaxations for discrete optimization problems,” SIAM Journal on Algebraic and Discrete Methods, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 466–486, 1985.
[10]
S. J. Julier and J. K. Uhlmann, “A new extension of the kalman filter to nonlinear systems,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Aerospace/Defense Sensing, Simulation and Controls, Orlando, Fla, USA, April 1997.
[11]
D. Um and D. Ryu, “A framework for unknown environment manipulator motion planning via model based realtime rehearsal,” Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics & Intelligent Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 30–35, 2011.
[12]
Y. Yu and K. Gupta, “C-space entropy: a measure for view planning and exploration for general robot-sensor systems in unknown environments,” International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 1197–1223, 2004.
[13]
K. Kieda, H. Tanaka, and T. Zhang, “On-line optimization of avoidance ability for redundant manipulator,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS '06), Beijing, China, October 2006.
[14]
Z. Chu, P. Cao, Y. Shao, D. Qian, and X. Wang, “Trajectory planning for a redundant mobile manipulator using avoidance manipulability,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Automation and Logistics (ICAL '09), Shenyang, China, August 2009.
[15]
W. Qizhi and X. De, “On the kinematics analysis and motion planning of the manipulator of a mobile robot,” in Proceedings of the on Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC ;11), Mianyang, China, May 2011.
[16]
J. W. Burdick, “Global kinematics for manipulator planning and control,” Proceedings of the on Signals, Systems and Computers, vol. 2, pp. 1002–1007, 1989.
[17]
D. Um, “How to tackle sensor-based manipulator planning problems using model-based planners: conversion and implementation,” International Journal of Robotics and Automation, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 137–146, 2009.
[18]
D. Um, D. Ryu, and M. Kal, “Multiple intensity differentiation for 3D surface reconstruction with mono-vision infrared proximity array sensor,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 3352–3358, 2011.
[19]
P. J. Besl and N. D. McKay, “A method for registration of 3-D shapes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 239–256, 1992.
[20]
M. Temerinac, M. Reisert, and H. Burkhardt, “Invariant features for searching in protein fold databases,” International Journal of Computer Mathematics, vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 635–651, 2007.
[21]
L. Torabi and K. Gupta, “Integrated view and path planning for an autonomous six-DOF eye-in-hand object modeling system,” in Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS '10), pp. 4516–4521, Taipei, Taiwan, October 2010.