15-780: graduate ai

15-780: Graduate AILecture 14. Spatial Search;

Uncertainty Geoff Gordon (this lecture)

Tuomas SandholmTAs Sam Ganzfried, Byron Boots

Spatial Planning

Plans in Space…

A* can be used for many thingsHere, A* for spatial planning (in contrast to, e.g., jobshop scheduling)

Optimal Solution End-effector Trajectory Probability of Obstacle Appearing Probability of Obstacle Appearing

Figure 10: Environment used in our second experiment, along with the optimal solution and the end-effector trajectory (withoutany dynamic obstacles). Also shown are the solution cost of the path traversed and the number of states expanded by each ofthe three algorithms compared.

other words, by adding a fixed value to the key of each newstate placed on the queue, the old states are given a rela-tive advantage in their queue placement. When a state ispopped off the queue whose key value is not in line withthe current bias term, it is placed back on the queue with anupdated key value. The intuition is that only a small num-ber of the states previously on the queue may ever makeit to the top, so it can be much more efficient to only re-order the ones that do. We can use the same idea when εdecreases (from εo to εn, say) to increase the bias term by(εo − εn) · maxs∈OPEN h(sstart, s). The key value of eachstate becomeskey(s) = [min(g(s), rhs(s)) + ε · h(sstart, s) + bias,

min(g(s), rhs(s))].By using the maximum heuristic value present in the queueto update the bias term, we are guaranteeing that each statealready on the queue will be at least as elevated on the queueas it should be relative to the new states being added. It isfuture work to implement this approach but it appears to bea promising modification.

Finally, it may be possible to reduce the effect of un-derconsistent states in our repair of previous solution paths.With the current version of AD*, underconsistent states needto be placed on the queue with a key value that uses an un-inflated heuristic value. This is because they could reside onthe old solution path and their true effect on the start statemay be much more than the inflated heuristic would suggest.This means, however, that the underconsistent states quicklyrise to the top of the queue and are processed before manyoverconsistent states. At times, these underconsistent statesmay not have any effect on the value of the start state (forinstance when they do not reside upon the current solutionpath). We are currently looking into ways of reducing thenumber of underconsistent states examined, using ideas veryrecently developed (Ferguson & Stentz 2005). This couldprove very useful in the current framework, where much ofthe processing is done on underconsistent states that may notturn out to have any bearing on the solution.

ConclusionsWe have presented Anytime Dynamic A*, a heuristic-based,anytime replanning algorithm able to efficiently generate so-

lutions to complex, dynamic path planning problems. Thealgorithm works by continually decreasing a suboptimal-ity bound on its solution, reusing previous search efforts asmuch as possible. When changes in the environment areencountered, it is able to repair its previous solution incre-mentally. Our experiments and application of the algorithmto two real-world robotic systems have shown it to be a valu-able addition to the family of heuristic-based path planningalgorithms, and a useful tool in practise.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank Sven Koenig for fruitfuldiscussions. This work was partially sponsored by DARPA’sMARS program. Dave Ferguson is supported in part by anNSF Graduate Research Fellowship.

ReferencesBarbehenn, M., and Hutchinson, S. 1995. Efficient searchand hierarchical motion planning by dynamically maintain-ing single-source shortest path trees. IEEE Transactions onRobotics and Automation 11(2):198–214.Barto, A.; Bradtke, S.; and Singh, S. 1995. Learning toAct Using Real-Time Dynamic Programming. ArtificialIntelligence 72:81–138.Bonet, B., and Geffner, H. 2001. Planning as heuristicsearch. Artificial Intelligence 129(1-2):5–33.Chakrabarti, P.; Ghosh, S.; and DeSarkar, S. 1988. Ad-missibility of AO* when heuristics overestimate. ArtificialIntelligence 34:97–113.Dean, T., and Boddy, M. 1988. An analysis of time-dependent planning. In Proceedings of the National Con-ference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI).Edelkamp, S. 2001. Planning with pattern databases. InProceedings of the European Conference on Planning.Ersson, T., and Hu, X. 2001. Path planning and navigationof mobile robots in unknown environments. In Proceedingsof the IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robotsand Systems (IROS).Ferguson, D., and Stentz, A. 2005. The Delayed D* Algo-rithm for Efficient Path Replanning. In Proceedings of the

What’s wrong w/ A* guarantees?

(optimality) A* finds a solution of cost g*(efficiency) A* expands no nodes that have f(node) > g*

What’s wrong with A*?

Discretized space into tiny little chunksa few degrees rotation of a jointLots of states ⇒ lots of states w/ f ≤ g*

Discretized actions tooone joint at a time, discrete angles

Results in jagged paths