Advertisement

A Sequential Bi-criteria Search Algorithm for Robot Path Planning in the Box Pushing Problem

Article
  • 125 Downloads

Abstract

In the Box Push Planning problem, the aim is to find a path for a robot that transfers a movable object from an initial to a target position by merely pushing it. Due to the irreversibility of object movements, deadlocks are the main challenge in this problem, making it NP-complete and PSPACE-hard, even in discrete workspaces. While all our studied previous researches have addressed this problem for minimizing the number of box pushes, in this paper the objective function of the problem incorporates a combination of the movements of both the box and the pushing robot. Furthermore, a new method called Sequential Bi-criteria Search (SBS) has been proposed for solving the single-box push planning problem on grids. The SBS applies different cost criteria in two consecutive phases: first the path length of only the box from its initial to target positions is minimized, and then the overall objective function (which considers the robot’s movements as well) is minimized. The proposed method is optimal and complete, and experimental results showed that its search tree size and runtime are significantly less than both the standard and improved A* search. The properties of SBS are discussed in detail, and it is shown that it can be utilized to solve other constraint satisfaction problems, as well as multi-criteria optimization problems by sequentially relaxing its criteria and solving incremental subproblems through consecutive phases.

Keywords

Box push planning problem Robot path planning Deadlock Sequential bi-criteria search (SBS) Constraint satisfaction problems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmad, N., Agah, A.: Plan and intent recognition in a multi-agent system for collective box pushing. J. Intell. Syst. 23(1), 95–108 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akella, S., Mason, M.T.: Posing polygonal objects in the plane by pushing. In: Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotic and Automation, 2255–2262 (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barnhart, C., Johnson, E.L., Nemhauser, G.L., Savelsbergh, M.W.P., Vance, P.H.: Branch-and-Price: Column Generation for Huge Integer Programs. Oper. Res. 46, 316–329 (1998)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ben-Shahar, O., Rivlin, E.: To push or not to push: On the rearrangement of movable objects by a mobile robot. In: Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotic and Automation, 159–164 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ben-Shahar, O., Rivlin, E.: To push or not to push: On the rearrangement of movable objects by a mobile robot. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. B 28(5), 667–679 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bremner, D., O’Rourke, J., Shermer, T: Motion planning amidst movable square blocks is PSPACE complete. Draft (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Culberson, J.: Sokoban is PSPACE-complete. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Fun with Algorithms, 65–76 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demaine, E.D., Demaine, M.L., Hoffmann, M., O’Rourke, J.: Pushing blocks is hard. Comput. Geom. 26, 21–36 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Demaine, E.D., Hearn, R.A., Hoffmann, M.: Push-2-F is PSPACE-Complete. In: Proc. of the 14 th Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry, 31–35 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demaine, E.D., Hoffmann, M.: Pushing blocks is NP-complete for noncrossing solution paths. In: Proc. 13th Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry, 65-68 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demaine, E.D., Hoffmann, M., Holzer, M.: PushPush-k is PSPACE-Complete. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Fun with Algorithms (FUN ‘04), 159–170 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demaine, E.D., Demaine, M.L., O’Rourke, J.: PushPush and Push-1 are NP-hard in 2D. In: Proc. of the 12th Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry, 211–219 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dhagat, A., O’Rourke, J.: Motion planning amidst Movable Square blocks. In: Proc. of the 4 th Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry, 188-191 (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dor, D., Zwick, U.: SOKOBAN and other motion planning problems. Comput. Geom. 13, 215–228 (1999)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Friedman, E.: Pushing Blocks in Gravity is NP-hard, http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma (2002)
  16. 16.
    Ghosh, A., Konar, A., Janarthanan, R.: Multi-robot cooperative box-pushing problem using multi-objective particle swarm optimization Technique. In: IEEE World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies (WICT), pp. 272–277 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Havur, G., Ozbilgin, G., Erdem, E., Patoglu, V.: Geometric rearrangement of multiple movable objects on cluttered surfaces: A hybrid reasoning approach. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 445–452 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hearn, R.A., Demaine, E.D.: PSPACE-completeness of sliding-block puzzles and other problems through the nondeterministic constraint logic model of computation. Theor. Comput. Sci. 343(1-2), 72–96 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoffmann, M.: Motion Planning Amidst Movable Square Blocks: Push-* is NP-hard. In: Proc. of the 12 th Canadian Conference on Computational Geometry, 205-210 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jarvis, R.: Collision free trajectory planning using distance transforms, Mechanical Engineering Transactions. J. Inst. Eng. 10, 191–197 (1985)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Latombe, J.C.: Robot Motion Planning. Kluwer Academic Pub, London (1991)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alami, R., Laumond, J.P., Siméon, T.: Two manipulation planning algorithms. In: Goldberg, K., et al (eds.) Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics, 109-125 (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laumond, J.P., Dacre-Wright, B., Alami, R.: Motion planning for a robot and a movable object amidst polygonal obstacle. Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotic and Automation, 2474–2480 (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laumond, J.P., Simeon, T., Cortes, J., Sahbani, A.: A general manipulation task planner. In: WAFR, 293–309 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Levihn, M., Scholz, J., Stilman, M.: Planning with movable obstacles in continuous environments with uncertain dynamics. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 3832–3838 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Levihn, M., Stilman, M., Christensen, H.: Locally Optimal Navigation among Movable Obstacles in Unknown Environments. In: International Conference on Humanoid Robots (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindzey, L., Knepper, R., Choset, H., Srinivasa, S. Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XI (107), 301 (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lynch, K.M., Mason, M.T.: Stable Planning: Mechanics, Controllability, and Planning. Int. J. Robot. Res. 15(6), 533–556 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moghaddam, K.M., Masehian, E.: Planning Robot Navigation Among Movable Obstacles (NAMO) Through A Recursive Approach. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. (2016). doi: 10.1007/s10846-016-0344-1
  30. 30.
    O’Rourke, J.: The Smith Problem Solving Group (1999), PushPush is NP-hard in 3D, Smith Technical Report 064Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ota, J.: Rearrangement of multiple movable objects: Integration of global and local planning methodology. In: Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotic and Automation, 1962–1967 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oyama, N., Liu, Z., Gueta, L. B., Ota, J.: Task apportionment in a rearrangement problem of multiple mobile robots. Adv. Robot. 27(2), 93–107 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parra-Gonzalez E.F., Ramírez-Torres, J.G.: Object Path Planner for the Box Pushing Problem. In: Yasuda, T. (ed.) Multi-Robot Systems, Trends and Development, InTech Pub., pp. 291-306 (2011)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pereira, A.G., Ritt, M., Buriol, L.S.: Finding Optimal Solutions to Sokoban Using Instance Dependent Pattern Databases. In: Proc. of the Sixth International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, 141–148 (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ritt, M.: Motion planning with pull moves, available online at 1008.2952 (2010)
  36. 36.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Stilman, M., Kuffner, J.J.: Planning among movable obstacles with artificial constraints. In: Proc. 6 th Int. Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics, 1–20 (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wilfong, G.: Motion planning in the presence of movable obstacles. In: ACM Symp Computational Geometry, 279–288 (1988)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wu, H., Levihn, N.M., Stilman, M.: Navigation Among Movable Obstacles in Unknown Environments. In: Proc IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 1433–1438 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial and Systems EngineeringTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations