CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 23Robot Manipulation and LearningRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsReinforcement Learning in Robotics

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Motion Policy Networks

Open access
Fishman, Adam, Murali, Adithyavairan, Eppner, Clemens, Peele, Bryan, Boots, Byron, Fox, Dieter·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2210.12209arXiv 2210.12209
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Collision-free motion generation in unknown environments is a core building block for robot manipulation. Generating such motions is challenging due to multiple objectives; not only should the solutions be optimal, the motion generator itself must be fast enough for real-time performance and reliable enough for practical deployment. A wide variety of methods have been proposed ranging from local controllers to global planners, often being combined to offset their shortcomings. We present an end-to-end neural model called Motion Policy Networks (M$π$Nets) to generate collision-free, smooth motion from just a single depth camera observation. M$π$Nets are trained on over 3 million motion planning problems in over 500,000 environments. Our experiments show that M$π$Nets are significantly faster than global planners while exhibiting the reactivity needed to deal with dynamic scenes. They are 46% better than prior neural planners and more robust than local control policies. Despite being only trained in simulation, M$π$Nets transfer well to the real robot with noisy partial point clouds. Code and data are publicly available at https://mpinets.github.io.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2210.12209

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Several recent works have demonstrated the efficacy of procedural scene generation in improving synthetic data diversity and robustness during sim2real transfer.

    “Several recent works have demonstrated the efficacy of procedural scene generation in improving synthetic data diversity [51] and robustness during sim2real transfer for different robotics tasks [52, 53].”

    From RoboPoint: A Vision-Language Model for Spatial Affordance Prediction for Robotics (2024) · cites this paper as [53]

    Section 4 (p. 5) describes training on more than 575,000 procedurally generated environments, and Section 5.6 (p. 9) reports sim-to-real transfer on noisy point clouds in unknown and changing scenes. These passages support the paper as an example of procedural scene generation used in a system that transfers to a real robot, but they do not establish that procedural generation itself improved transfer robustness. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. [2][2] N. D. Ratliff, M. Zucker, J. A. Bagnell, and S. S. Srinivasa. Chomp: Gradient optimization techniques for efficient motion planning. 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 489-494, 2009. -
  2. [3][3] J. Schulman, Y. Duan, J. Ho, A. X. Lee, I. Awwal, H. Bradlow, J. Pan, S. Patil, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel. Motion planning with sequential convex optimization and convex collision checking. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 33:1251 - 1270, 2014. -
  3. [4][4] K. V. Wyk, M. Xie, A. Li, M. A. Rana, B. Babich, B. N. Peele, Q. Wan, I. Akinola, B. Sundaralingam, D. Fox, B. Boots, and N. D. Ratliff. Geometric fabrics: Generalizing classical mechanics to capture the physics of behavior. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 7:32023209, 2022. -
  4. [6][6] S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli. Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 30:846 - 894, 2011. -
  5. [7][7] J. D. Gammell, S. S. Srinivasa, and T. D. Barfoot. Batch informed trees (bit*): Sampling-based optimal planning via the heuristically guided search of implicit random geometric graphs. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 3067-3074, 2015. -
  6. [8][8] M. P. Strub and J. D. Gammell. Advanced bit* (abit*): Sampling-based planning with advanced graph-search techniques. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 130-136, 2020. -
  7. [9][9] M. P. Strub and J. D. Gammell. Adaptively informed trees (ait*): Fast asymptotically optimal path planning through adaptive heuristics. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 3191-3198, 2020. -
  8. [10][10] M. Mukadam, J. Dong, X. Yan, F. Dellaert, and B. Boots. Continuous-time Gaussian process motion planning via probabilistic inference. volume 37, pages 1319-1340, 2018. -
  9. [12][12] A. H. Qureshi, M. J. Bency, and M. C. Yip. Motion planning networks. 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 2118-2124, 2019. -
  10. [13][13] B. Ichter, J. Harrison, and M. Pavone. Learning sampling distributions for robot motion planning. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 70877094, 2018. -
  11. [14][14] J. C. Kew, B. Ichter, M. Bandari, T.-W. E. Lee, and A. Faust. Neural collision clearance estimator for batched motion planning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.05917 , 2019. - · arXiv
  12. [15][15] R. Newcombe, S. Izadi, O. Hilliges, D. Molyneaux, D. Kim, A. J. Davison, P. Kohli, J. Shotton, S. Hodges, and A. Fitzgibbon. Kinectfusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking. 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) , 2011. -
  13. [16][16] J. J. Park, P. Florence, J. Straub, R. Newcombe, and S. Lovegrove. Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2019. -
  14. [17][17] B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. In ECCV , 2020. -
  15. [18][18] M. Danielczuk, A. Mousavian, C. Eppner, and D. Fox. Object rearrangement using learned implicit collision functions. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 6010-6017, 2021. -
  16. [20][20] A. Tamar, Y. Wu, G. Thomas, S. Levine, and P. Abbeel. Value iteration networks. In Neural Information Processing Systems , 2016. -
  17. [21][21] R. A. M. Strudel, R. G. Pinel, J. Carpentier, J.-P. Laumond, I. Laptev, and C. Schmid. Learning obstacle representations for neural motion planning. In CoRL , 2020. -
  18. [22][22] P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael. A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. , 4:100-107, 1968. -
  19. [23][23] M. Likhachev, G. J. Gordon, and S. Thrun. Ara*: Anytime a* with provable bounds on suboptimality. In NIPS , 2003. -
  20. [26][26] A. H. Qureshi, A. Mousavian, C. Paxton, M. C. Yip, and D. Fox. Nerp: Neural rearrangement planning for unknown objects. ArXiv , abs/2106.01352, 2021. - · arXiv
  21. [27][27] M. Sundermeyer, A. Mousavian, R. Triebel, and D. Fox. Contact-graspnet: Efficient 6-dof grasp generation in cluttered scenes. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 13438-13444, 2021. -
  22. [28][28] N. D. Ratliff, M. Toussaint, and S. Schaal. Understanding the geometry of workspace obstacles in motion optimization. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 4202-4209, 2015. -
  23. [29][29] O. Khatib. Real-time obstacle avoidance for manipulators and mobile robots. In Autonomous robot vehicles , pages 396-404. Springer, 1986. -
  24. [30][30] N. D. Ratliff, J. Issac, and D. Kappler. Riemannian motion policies. ArXiv , abs/1801.02854, 2018. - · arXiv
  25. [32][32] S. J. Russell. Learning agents for uncertain environments (extended abstract). In COLT' 98 , 1998. -
  26. [33][33] A. Y. Ng and S. J. Russell. Algorithms for inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning , ICML '00, page 663-670, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. ISBN 1558607072. -
  27. [34][34] B. D. Ziebart, A. L. Maas, J. A. Bagnell, and A. K. Dey. Maximum entropy inverse reinforcement learning. In AAAI , 2008. -
  28. [35][35] D. A. Pomerleau. Alvinn: An autonomous land vehicle in a neural network. In NIPS , 1988. -
  29. [37][37] L. Ke, J. Wang, T. Bhattacharjee, B. Boots, and S. S. Srinivasa. Grasping with chopsticks: Combating covariate shift in model-free imitation learning for fine manipulation. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 6185-6191, 2021. -
  30. [38][38] A. Mandlekar, D. Xu, J. Wong, S. Nasiriany, C. Wang, R. Kulkarni, L. Fei-Fei, S. Savarese, Y. Zhu, and R. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ın. What matters in learning from offline human demonstrations for robot manipulation. In Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL) , 2021. -
  31. [39][39] F. Codevilla, E. Santana, A. M. L´ opez, and A. Gaidon. Exploring the limitations of behavior cloning for autonomous driving. 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 9328-9337, 2019. -
  32. [40][40] S. Ross, G. J. Gordon, and J. A. Bagnell. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning. In AISTATS , 2011. -
  33. [41][41] S. Ross and A. Bagnell. Efficient reductions for imitation learning. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , page 661-668, 2010. -
  34. [42][42] M. Laskey, J. N. Lee, R. Fox, A. D. Dragan, and K. Goldberg. Dart: Noise injection for robust imitation learning. In CoRL , 2017. -
  35. [43][43] S. Ross, G. Gordon, and A. Bagnell. A reduction of imitation learning and structured prediction to no-regret online learning. In arXiv preprint arXiv:1011.0686 , 2010. - · arXiv
  36. [44][44] R. Kumar, A. Mandalika, S. Choudhury, and S. S. Srinivasa. Lego: Leveraging experience in roadmap generation for sampling-based planning. 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 1488-1495, 2019. -
  37. [45][45] C. Zhang, J. Huh, and D. D. Lee. Learning implicit sampling distributions for motion planning. 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 3654-3661, 2018. -
  38. [46][46] C. Chamzas, Z. K. Kingston, C. Quintero-Pe˜ na, A. Shrivastava, and L. E. Kavraki. Learning sampling distributions using local 3d workspace decompositions for motion planning in high dimensions. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 1283-1289, 2021. -
  39. [47][47] D. S. Chaplot, D. Pathak, and J. Malik. Differentiable spatial planning using transformers. In Internal Conference on Machine Learning , 2021. -
  40. [48][48] B. Eysenbach, R. Salakhutdinov, and S. Levine. C-learning: Learning to achieve goals via recursive. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021. -
  41. [49][49] C. Qi, L. Yi, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. In NIPS , 2017. -
  42. [50][50] A. Mousavian, C. Eppner, and D. Fox. 6-dof graspnet: Variational grasp generation for object manipulation. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , 2019. -
  43. [51][51] A. Murali, A. Mousavian, C. Eppner, C. Paxton, and D. Fox. 6-dof grasping for target-driven object manipulation in clutter. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020. -
  44. [52][52] C. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 77-85, 2017. -
  45. [53][53] A. Fishman, C. Paxton, W. Yang, D. Fox, B. Boots, and N. D. Ratliff. Collaborative interaction models for optimized human-robot teamwork. 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 11221-11228, 2020. -
  46. [54][54] M. Laskey, J. Lee, R. Fox, A. Dragan, and K. Goldberg. Dart: Noise injection for robust imitation learning. Conference on Robot Learning , pages 143-156, 2017. -
  47. [55][55] R. Diankov. Automated Construction of Robotic Manipulation Programs . PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Robotics Institute, August 2010. URL http://www. programmingvision.com/rosen\_diankov\_thesis.pdf . -
  48. [56][56] K. K. Hauser and V. Ng-Thow-Hing. Fast smoothing of manipulator trajectories using optimal bounded-acceleration shortcuts. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 2493-2498, 2010. -
  49. [57][57] M. Andrychowicz, D. Crow, A. Ray, J. Schneider, R. Fong, P. Welinder, B. McGrew, J. Tobin, P. Abbeel, and W. Zaremba. Hindsight experience replay. In NIPS , 2017. -
  50. [58][58] P. Wunsch, S. Winkler, and G. Hirzinger. Real-time pose estimation of 3d objects from camera images using neural networks. Proceedings of International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 4:3232-3237 vol.4, 1997. -
  51. [59][59] S. Balasubramanian, A. Melendez-Calderon, A. Roby-Brami, and E. Burdet. On the analysis of movement smoothness. Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation , 12, 2015. -
  52. [60][60] S. Chitta, I. Sucan, and S. Cousins. Moveit![ros topics]. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , 19(1):18-19, 2012. -
  53. [61][61] I. A. S ¸ ucan, M. Moll, and L. E. Kavraki. The Open Motion Planning Library. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , 19(4):72-82, December 2012. doi:10.1109/MRA.2012.2205651. https://ompl.kavrakilab.org . - · DOI · Paper page
  54. [64][64] I. Misra, C. L. Zitnick, M. Mitchell, and R. B. Girshick. Seeing through the human reporting bias: Visual classifiers from noisy human-centric labels. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 2930-2939, 2016. -
  55. [65][65] A. Joulin, L. van der Maaten, A. Jabri, and N. Vasilache. Learning visual features from large weakly supervised data. In ECCV , 2016. -
  56. [66][66] A. L. Maas, A. Y. Hannun, and A. Y. Ng. Rectifier nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic models. In in ICML Workshop on Deep Learning for Audio, Speech and Language Processing , 2013. -
  57. [67][67] B. C ¸ alli, A. Singh, A. Walsman, S. S. Srinivasa, P. Abbeel, and A. M. Dollar. The ycb object and model set: Towards common benchmarks for manipulation research. 2015 International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR) , pages 510-517, 2015. -
  58. [68][68] T. Kunz and M. Stilman. Time-optimal trajectory generation for path following with bounded acceleration and velocity. Robotics: Science and Systems VIII , pages 1-8, 2012. -
  59. [69][69] A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In arXiv:2103.00020 , 2021. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fishman, A., Murali, A., Eppner, C., Peele, B., Boots, B., & Fox, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Nvidia (United Kingdom) (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2210.12209
arXiv
2210.12209
OpenAlex
W4307307990
Cited by
23
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Nvidia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robot Manipulation and Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Robotic Path Planning Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
robotic manipulation, motion planning, point clouds, sim-to-real transfer, real-time motion generation, dynamic environments

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