Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Sampling-based Model Predictive Control Leveraging Parallelizable Physics Simulations

Published 18 Jul 2023 in cs.RO | (2307.09105v3)

Abstract: We present a method for sampling-based model predictive control that makes use of a generic physics simulator as the dynamical model. In particular, we propose a Model Predictive Path Integral controller (MPPI), that uses the GPU-parallelizable IsaacGym simulator to compute the forward dynamics of a problem. By doing so, we eliminate the need for explicit encoding of robot dynamics and contacts with objects for MPPI. Since no explicit dynamic modeling is required, our method is easily extendable to different objects and robots and allows one to solve complex navigation and contact-rich tasks. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this method in several simulated and real-world settings, among which mobile navigation with collision avoidance, non-prehensile manipulation, and whole-body control for high-dimensional configuration spaces. This method is a powerful and accessible open-source tool to solve a large variety of contact-rich motion planning tasks.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (25)
  1. O. M. Andrychowicz, B. Baker, M. Chociej, R. Józefowicz, B. McGrew, J. Pachocki, A. Petron, M. Plappert, G. Powell, A. Ray, J. Schneider, S. Sidor, J. Tobin, P. Welinder, L. Weng, and W. Zaremba, “Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 3–20, Jan. 2020.
  2. M. Schwenzer, M. Ay, T. Bergs, and D. Abel, “Review on model predictive control: an engineering perspective,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 117, no. 5, pp. 1327–1349, Nov. 2021.
  3. F. R. Hogan and A. Rodriguez, “Reactive planar non-prehensile manipulation with hybrid model predictive control,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 755–773, Jun. 2020.
  4. J. Moura, T. Stouraitis, and S. Vijayakumar, “Non-prehensile Planar Manipulation via Trajectory Optimization with Complementarity Constraints,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   Philadelphia, PA, USA: IEEE, May 2022, pp. 970–976.
  5. N. Mansard, A. DelPrete, M. Geisert, S. Tonneau, and O. Stasse, “Using a Memory of Motion to Efficiently Warm-Start a Nonlinear Predictive Controller,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   Brisbane: IEEE, May 2018, pp. 2986–2993.
  6. T. S. Lembono, A. Paolillo, E. Pignat, and S. Calinon, “Memory of Motion for Warm-Starting Trajectory Optimization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2594–2601, Apr. 2020.
  7. G. Williams, A. Aldrich, and E. A. Theodorou, “Model Predictive Path Integral Control: From Theory to Parallel Computation,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 344–357, Feb. 2017.
  8. G. Williams, P. Drews, B. Goldfain, J. M. Rehg, and E. A. Theodorou, “Information-Theoretic Model Predictive Control: Theory and Applications to Autonomous Driving,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1603–1622, Dec. 2018.
  9. V. Makoviychuk, L. Wawrzyniak, Y. Guo, M. Lu, K. Storey, M. Macklin, D. Hoeller, N. Rudin, A. Allshire, A. Handa, and G. State, “Isaac Gym: High Performance GPU Based Physics Simulation For Robot Learning,” in Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks, J. Vanschoren and S. Yeung, Eds., vol. 1.   Curran, 2021.
  10. A. Li, M. Mukadam, M. Egerstedt, and B. Boots, “Multi-objective Policy Generation for Multi-robot Systems Using Riemannian Motion Policies,” in Robotics Research, ser. Springer Proceedings in Advanced Robotics, T. Asfour, E. Yoshida, J. Park, H. Christensen, and O. Khatib, Eds.   Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 258–274.
  11. N. D. Ratliff, K. Van Wyk, M. Xie, A. Li, and M. A. Rana, “Generalized Nonlinear and Finsler Geometry for Robotics,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   Xi’an, China: IEEE, May 2021, pp. 10 206–10 212.
  12. M. Spahn, M. Wisse, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Dynamic Optimization Fabrics for Motion Generation,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, pp. 1–16, 2023.
  13. G. Buizza Avanzini, A. M. Zanchettin, and P. Rocco, “Constrained model predictive control for mobile robotic manipulators,” Robotica, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 19–38, Jan. 2018.
  14. L. Hewing, K. P. Wabersich, M. Menner, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Learning-Based Model Predictive Control: Toward Safe Learning in Control,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 269–296, May 2020.
  15. M. Bhardwaj, B. Sundaralingam, A. Mousavian, N. D. Ratliff, D. Fox, F. Ramos, and B. Boots, “STORM: An Integrated Framework for Fast Joint-Space Model-Predictive Control for Reactive Manipulation,” in Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Robot Learning.   PMLR, Jan. 2022, pp. 750–759.
  16. M. Danielczuk, A. Mousavian, C. Eppner, and D. Fox, “Object Rearrangement Using Learned Implicit Collision Functions,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   Xi’an, China: IEEE, May 2021, pp. 6010–6017.
  17. I. Abraham, A. Handa, N. Ratliff, K. Lowrey, T. D. Murphey, and D. Fox, “Model-Based Generalization Under Parameter Uncertainty Using Path Integral Control,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2864–2871, Apr. 2020.
  18. J. Carius, R. Ranftl, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter, “Constrained stochastic optimal control with learned importance sampling: A path integral approach,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 189–209, Feb. 2022.
  19. T. Howell, N. Gileadi, S. Tunyasuvunakool, K. Zakka, T. Erez, and Y. Tassa, “Predictive Sampling: Real-time Behaviour Synthesis with MuJoCo,” 2022.
  20. E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y. Tassa, “MuJoCo: A physics engine for model-based control,” in 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.   Vilamoura-Algarve, Portugal: IEEE, Oct. 2012, pp. 5026–5033.
  21. E. Arruda, M. J. Mathew, M. Kopicki, M. Mistry, M. Azad, and J. L. Wyatt, “Uncertainty averse pushing with model predictive path integral control,” 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th International Conference on Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids), 2017.
  22. L. Cong, M. Grner, P. Ruppel, H. Liang, N. Hendrich, and J. Zhang, “Self-Adapting Recurrent Models for Object Pushing from Learning in Simulation,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   Las Vegas, NV, USA: IEEE, Oct. 2020, pp. 5304–5310.
  23. A. Zanelli, A. Domahidi, J. Jerez, and M. Morari, “FORCES NLP: an efficient implementation of interior-point methods for multistage nonlinear nonconvex programs,” International Journal of Control, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 13–29, Jan. 2020.
  24. M. Spahn, C. Salmi, and J. Alonso-Mora, “Local Planner Bench: Benchmarking for Local Motion Planning,” 2022.
  25. S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, Jun. 2011.
Citations (9)

Summary

  • The paper introduces a sampling-based MPC using IsaacGym, eliminating the need for explicit dynamic modeling in contact-rich environments.
  • It employs Halton Splines for efficient stochastic sampling, improving exploration and convergence in mobile navigation and whole-body control.
  • Experimental results demonstrate competitive motion planning, robust collision avoidance, and effective real-world deployment.

Sampling-based Model Predictive Control Leveraging Parallelizable Physics Simulations

Introduction

The paper introduces a sampling-based model predictive control (MPC) method utilizing the IsaacGym physics simulator for dynamic modeling. By leveraging IsaacGym's GPU-parallelizable simulation capabilities, the proposed Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) controller can efficiently perform rollouts to solve complex contact-rich tasks without requiring explicit dynamic modeling. This flexibility enables application across various scenarios, including mobile navigation and high-dimensional whole-body control, making the approach robust and versatile for real-world robotic tasks. Figure 1

Figure 1: Scheme of the proposed method using IsaacGym as the dynamic model for MPPI.

Model Predictive Path Integral (MPPI) Framework

MPPI is based on sampling stochastic optimal control inputs for discrete-time systems to generate state trajectories. These are evaluated against a cost function to optimize the control sequence. Traditionally, MPPI requires accurate dynamic modeling, which can be challenging for contact-rich and complex environments. The proposed framework eliminates this necessity by using IsaacGym to simulate dynamics, thereby reducing computational overhead and simplifying the process of handling non-convex dynamics. Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 2: Examples for pure motion planning benchmark setups. Left: point robot with 3 DOF. Right: manipulator with 7 DOF.

Algorithm Implementation

The algorithm initializes with an input sequence, samples noise using Halton Splines, and simulates state trajectories in parallel using IsaacGym. Costs are computed for each trajectory, and importance sampling weights are used to obtain the optimal control input sequence applied to the robot. The method relies on dynamically updating weights and exploring input space efficiently via Halton Splines rather than Gaussian sampling, allowing improved convergence and exploration.

Collision Checking and Uncertainty Management

Collision checking is performed using IsaacGym's contact forces tensor, enabling continuous assessment during task execution without additional convexification. Domain randomization within IsaacGym addresses model uncertainties by varying object properties, maintaining robustness across diverse environments.

Experimental Results

Motion Planning and Collision Avoidance

Experiments reveal comparable performance with state-of-the-art methods in motion planning without environmental interactions but with faster goal convergence due to precise representation of robot shapes and dynamics. Our method incurs higher computational times due to complex simulations, yet retains competitive advantages in contact-rich scenarios.

Whole-body Control

The proposed system seamlessly handles complex tasks such as mobile manipulation involving multiple DOFs without needing to segment or pre-plan motion sequences. Demonstrations include relocating objects using a mobile manipulator, showcasing fluid, whole-body movement directly derived from the cost function. Figure 3

Figure 3: Whole-body motion of a mobile manipulator moving a cube from initial to desired location.

Non-prehensile Manipulation

The system effectively addresses pushing tasks with both robotic arms and mobile bases, outperforming baseline methods which require learning dynamics or limiting sampled trajectories. Experiments demonstrate smooth manipulation of both boxes and spheres by various robot platforms, highlighting the versatility of the approach. Figure 4

Figure 4: Rolling ball non-prehensile pushing. Goal: Ball placement between two obstacles.

Real-world Deployment

Real-world trials demonstrate comparable performance to simulations in non-prehensile manipulation tasks, reinforcing the applicability of the method in practical settings. Disturbances during execution are compensated by the control strategy, ensuring robust interaction with dynamic environments. Figure 5

Figure 5

Figure 5: Qualitative real-world experiments with disturbances. The behavior can be seen in the accompanying video.

Discussion

The proposed method is computationally intensive, especially with extended horizons, suggesting future integration with global planning strategies to improve sampling efficiency. Tuning for control algorithms remains a challenge; autotuning techniques could mitigate this issue. Further enhancement through sensor integration may facilitate collision avoidance in complex setups.

Conclusion

The integration of MPPI with IsaacGym presents a powerful framework for robotic control in contact-rich environments, avoiding the complexities of explicit dynamic modeling and contact engineering. The approach is validated across diverse tasks, demonstrating faster execution and improved accuracy while offering a versatile open-source solution adaptable to various robotic applications.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.