Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2018
DOI: 10.24963/ijcai.2018/674
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Admissible Abstractions for Near-optimal Task and Motion Planning

Abstract: We define an admissibility condition for abstractions expressed using angelic semantics and show that these conditions allow us to accelerate planning while preserving the ability to find the optimal motion plan. We then derive admissible abstractions for two motion planning domains with continuous state. We extract upper and lower bounds on the cost of concrete motion plans using local metric and topological properties of the problem domain. These bounds guide the search for a plan while maintaining performan… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
(9 reference statements)
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…If we consider the original form of f , PETLON will be downgraded to a locally suboptimal algorithm: there can be shorter motion plan consistent with the task-level symbolic plan. It is acknowledged that there exist TMP algorithms that ensure local optimality using gradient-based optimization (Toussaint, 2015), and global optimality using abstractions (Vega-Brown & Roy, 2018). In contrast, we use off-the-shelf task planners from the literature of classical AI.…”
Section: Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If we consider the original form of f , PETLON will be downgraded to a locally suboptimal algorithm: there can be shorter motion plan consistent with the task-level symbolic plan. It is acknowledged that there exist TMP algorithms that ensure local optimality using gradient-based optimization (Toussaint, 2015), and global optimality using abstractions (Vega-Brown & Roy, 2018). In contrast, we use off-the-shelf task planners from the literature of classical AI.…”
Section: Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the work has focused on hierarchical strategies, which typically commit to solutions from time-budgeted underlying motion planning subroutines, and heuristically [3], [39], [40] guide the search over actions in the task space [33], [34], [35]. An important aspect of manipulation task planning is the generation and evaluation of grasps that form these mode transitions.…”
Section: A Foundationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Substantial computational benefits [7] can reward planners that commit to decisions at a high level of abstraction [8], learning STRIPS-like symbols [9] or performing an efficient satisficing search [10]. In contrast, aiming for highly dynamic implementation in uncertain, unstructured settings, in [1] we introduced a provably correct architecture for completing assembly plans in 2D environments based on the integration of a vector-field reactive controller with a deliberative planner [11] that uses the angelic semantics [12] to guarantee hierarchical optimality. While high level deliberation has previously been coordinated with reactive planners on hardware-specialized physical systems [13], [14], harnessing the inherent relationship between mobility and manipulation [4], as well as the potential for dynamics to ameliorate kinematic task mismatches [15], can preserve platform generality and, thereby, its fitness for a greater diversity of tasks.…”
Section: B Prior Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2. After a description of the offline deliberative planner, we proceed with the features of the online reactive module and the new, In the deliberative layer, a high-level planner [11] outputs a sequence of symbolic actions that are realized and executed sequentially using a reactive controller that issues unicycle velocity (u ku ) [1] and abstract gripper (g) commands (see Section III-B). The low-level gait layer uses the commands instructed by the reactive planner to call out appropriately parametrized joint-level feedback controllers (see [6] and Section III-C) for Minitaur.…”
Section: System Architecturementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation