Cited by 368Robotic Path Planning AlgorithmsRobot Manipulation and LearningRobotic Mechanisms and Dynamics

Task Space Regions: A framework for pose-constrained manipulation planning

Berenson, Dmitry, Srinivasa, Siddhartha, Kuffner, James·2011·The International Journal of Robotics Research

Abstract

We present a manipulation planning framework that allows robots to plan in the presence of constraints on end-effector pose, as well as other common constraints. The framework has three main components: constraint representation, constraint-satisfaction strategies, and a general planning algorithm. These components come together to create an efficient and probabilistically complete manipulation planning algorithm called the Constrained BiDirectional Rapidly-exploring Random Tree (RRT) – CBiRRT2. The underpinning of our framework for pose constraints is our Task Space Regions (TSRs) representation. TSRs are intuitive to specify, can be efficiently sampled, and the distance to a TSR can be evaluated very quickly, making them ideal for sampling-based planning. Most importantly, TSRs are a general representation of pose constraints that can fully describe many practical tasks. For more complex tasks, such as manipulating articulated objects, TSRs can be chained together to create more complex end-effector pose constraints. TSRs can also be intersected, a property that we use to plan with pose uncertainty. We provide a detailed description of our framework, prove probabilistic completeness for our planning approach, and describe several real-world example problems that illustrate the efficiency and versatility of the TSR framework.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0278364910396389

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The general problem of generating motion plans that remain within a constraint manifold is a challenging computational problem because of the high dimensionality of the space and the complexity of the geometry.

    “The general problem of generating motion plans that remain within such a constraint manifold is a challenging computational problem because of the high dimensionality of the space and the complexity of the geometry (Berenson et al., 2009; Berenson et al., 2011).”

    From Lessons for Robotics From the Control Architecture of the Octopus (2022) · cites this paper as Berenson et al., 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berenson, D., Srinivasa, S., & Kuffner, J.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Intel (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Berenson, Dmitry
Venue
The International Journal of Robotics Research
Published
2011-03-15
Volume
30
Issue
12
Pages
1435-1460
ISSN
  • 0278-3649 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3176
OpenAlex
W2116341587
Cited by
368
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 10
FWCI
22.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The International Journal of Robotics Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Robotic Path Planning Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
Keywords
manipulation planning, sampling-based motion planning, probabilistic completeness, constraint satisfaction, pose uncertainty, articulated object manipulation, robot motion planning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review