1 of 17

Robot Path Planning with Dynamic Obstacle Prediction using SGANs

Team # 5

Affan Bin Usman | Chinmay Bhale | Pooja Bharathi Oguri | Vishnu Pisharam

2 of 17

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Problem

  • Robot motion planning in dynamic environments is a challenging problem
  • Requires the robot to generate
    • Safe & efficient paths
    • Avoiding collisions with moving obstacles
  • Starship food delivery robots
    • Stops if people come in front of the robot

Motivation

  • Traditional motion planning algorithms do not handle dynamic obstacles
    • Leads to unsafe and inefficient navigation
  • Novel approach that can integrate
    • Dynamic obstacle predictions
    • Traditional motion planning algorithms

2

What now???

3 of 17

SOLUTION

  • Dynamic obstacle prediction using SGANs
  • RRT* algorithm + Spline Interpolation for path planning
  • Motion control with Non-linear MPC
  • Goal
    • Safety of pedestrians
    • Efficiency of autonomous robots in dynamic environments

3

4 of 17

BASELINE

  • GANs to overcome the difficulties in
    • Approximating intractable probabilistic computation
    • Behavioral inference
  • Improve performances of social robots & self-driving cars
  • Predict motion behavior of pedestrians

* Paper: Social GAN - Socially Acceptable Trajectories with Generative Adversarial Networks

  • Input
    • Vector of previous trajectories
  • Output
    • Pooled vector for each individual.
  • Structure
    • Generator: RNN Encoder-Decoder
    • Discriminator: RNN-based encoder

4

5 of 17

BASELINE

  • Inputs (decoder)
    • Histories
    • Pooled vector
  • Output (decoder)
    • Future trajectory

* Paper: Social GAN - Socially Acceptable Trajectories with Generative Adversarial Networks

5

6 of 17

BASELINE

  • Inputs (decoder)
    • Histories
    • Pooled vector
  • Output (decoder)
    • Future trajectory

* Paper: Social GAN - Socially Acceptable Trajectories with Generative Adversarial Networks

  • Discriminator determines if the generated trajectories are real or fake
  • Training dataset
    • 5 sets of publicly available datasets (ETH, Hotel, Univ, Zara1, Zara2)
    • Leave-one-out approach
  • Error Calculation - Evaluating accuracy of the generated trajectories
    • Average Displacement Error (ADE)
    • Final Displacement

6

7 of 17

* Paper: Social GAN - Socially Acceptable Trajectories with Generative Adversarial Networks

Fig 1: Error Plot

Fig 2: Error for Datasets & Models

Table 1

7

Dataset

ADE12

FDE12

ADE8

FDE8

Mean

STD

Mean

STD

Mean

STD

Mean

STD

ETH

0.70321

0.00981

1.28723

0.01778

0.57670

0.00333

1.13812

0.00516

Hotel

0.47954

0.00278

1.01885

0.00606

0.36318

0.00127

0.71679

0.00260

Univ

0.55698

0.00107

1.18071

0.00223

0.33457

0.00031

0.69657

0.00063

Zara1

0.33593

0.00157

0.68127

0.00498

0.20889

0.00105

0.41419

0.00207

Zara2

0.30806

0.00133

0.64443

0.00254

0.20606

0.00067

0.42402

0.00147

8 of 17

What to do with these Predictions?

8

Predictions of humans

Model Dynamic Obstacles

Robot’s Sensory Input

Path Planning with Obstacle Avoidance

Reach at Desired Location

9 of 17

WORKFLOW

Previous 8 Steps

Predicted Future

Trajectories

Sends List

Finds Path

Smoothes Out Path

Next 8 Steps of Robot

9

Calculate Obstacle List

SGAN

Simulation

(Humans & Robot)

RRT* / Custom RRT*

Spline Interpolation

NMPC

10 of 17

PATH PLANNING

Fig 1: Path with RRT*

Fig 2: Path with modified RRT*

10

11 of 17

MOTION PLANNING

Obstacle Avoidance with NMPC

11

12 of 17

SIMULATION STRUCTURE

Front End

Back End

12

Person.js

SGAN

Sim.js

Robot.js

Main.py

RRT*

Evaluate.py

NMPC

Docker

Robot Class

13 of 17

Back End

Front End

Person.js

SGAN

Sim.js

Robot.js

Main.py

RRT*

Evaluate.py

NMPC

Docker

Robot Class

14 of 17

PEOPLE SIMULATION

14

15 of 17

15

Robot within threshold distance of 1.5m considered as collision (Due to human safety consideration)

16 of 17

FUTURE WORK

  • 2D → 3D
  • Testing & implementation in real-world environment
  • Evaluate with respect to Extended Social force model.
  • Comparison against different path planning approaches

16

17 of 17

Thank you!

17