arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2406.09623cs.RO
收藏

基于搜索与基于采样的机器人运动规划:一项比较研究

Search-based versus Sampling-based Robot Motion Planning: A Comparative Study

Delft University of Technology(代尔夫特理工大学);RWTH Aachen University(亚琛工业大学)

Georgios Sotirchos, Zlatan Ajanovic

AI总结:

本文在统一规划条件和场景下基准比较 OMPL 的 RRT-Connect 与 SMPL 的 ARA*,揭示两类运动规划器在高维空间及不同动作采样方案下的性能差异。

摘要:

机器人运动规划是一个具有挑战性的领域,因为它涉及处理高维且连续的搜索空间。在过去几十年中,人们开发了各种各样的规划算法来解决这一问题,但这些算法有时是孤立发展的,彼此之间没有进行比较。在本研究中,我们对两种此类重要算法进行基准测试:OMPL 中基于采样的 RRT-Connect,以及 SMPL 中结合运动基元、基于搜索的 ARA*。为了公平比较这两种根本不同的方法,我们对它们进行调整,以确保相同的规划条件,并在同一组规划场景上对它们进行基准测试。我们的研究结果表明,像 RRT-Connect 这样的基于采样的规划器在高维空间中总体表现出更稳定的性能,而像 ARA* 这样的基于搜索的规划器在与合适的动作空间采样方案配合使用时,有能力表现得显著更好。通过这项研究,我们希望展示恰当基准测试来自不同范式的运动规划器所需的工作,从而促进对其能力和局限性更细致入微的理解。代码可在 https://github.com/gsotirchos/benchmarking_planners 获取。

英文摘要:

Robot motion planning is a challenging domain as it involves dealing with high-dimensional and continuous search space. In past decades, a wide variety of planning algorithms have been developed to tackle this problem, sometimes in isolation without comparing to each other. In this study, we benchmark two such prominent types of algorithms: OMPL's sampling-based RRT-Connect and SMPL's search-based ARA* with motion primitives. To compare these two fundamentally different approaches fairly, we adapt them to ensure the same planning conditions and benchmark them on the same set of planning scenarios. Our findings suggest that sampling-based planners like RRT-Connect show more consistent performance across the board in high-dimensional spaces, whereas search-based planners like ARA* have the capacity to perform significantly better when used with a suitable action-space sampling scheme. Through this study, we hope to showcase the effort required to properly benchmark motion planners from different paradigms thereby contributing to a more nuanced understanding of their capabilities and limitations. The code is available at https://github.com/gsotirchos/benchmarking_planners

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑