4.6 Article

Interactive Multi-Modal Motion Planning With Branch Model Predictive Control

期刊

IEEE ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION LETTERS
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 5365-5372

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LRA.2022.3156648

关键词

Human-aware motion planning; path planning; Human-aware motion planning; path planning for multiple mobile robots or agents; autonomous agents

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motion planning for autonomous robots and vehicles in the presence of uncontrolled agents is a challenging problem. This article proposes a branch Model Predictive Control (MPC) framework that plans over feedback policies to leverage the reactive behavior of the uncontrolled agent, achieving a balance between safety and performance.
Motion planning for autonomous robots and vehicles in presence of uncontrolled agents remains a challenging problem as the reactive behaviors of the uncontrolled agents must be considered. Since the uncontrolled agents usually demonstrate multimodal reactive behavior, the motion planner needs to solve a continuous motion planning problem under these behaviors, which contains a discrete element. We propose a branch Model Predictive Control (MPC) framework that plans over feedback policies to leverage the reactive behavior of the uncontrolled agent. In particular, a scenario tree is constructed from a finite set of policies of the uncontrolled agent, and the branch MPC solves for a feedback policy in the form of a trajectory tree, which shares the same topology as the scenario tree. Moreover, coherent risk measures such as the Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) are used as a tuning knob to adjust the tradeoff between performance and robustness. The proposed branch MPC framework is tested on an autonomous vehicle planning problem in simulation, and on an autonomous quadruped robot alongside an uncontrolled quadruped in experiments. The result demonstrates interesting human-like behaviors, achieving a balance between safety and performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据