Combining learned and analytical models for predicting action effects from sensory data

One of the most basic skills a robot should possess is predicting the effect of physical interactions with objects in the environment. This enables optimal action selection to reach a certain goal state. Traditionally, these dynamics are described by physics-based analytical models, which may however be very hard to find for complex problems. More recently, we have seen learning approaches that can predict the effect of more complex physical interactions directly from sensory input. However, it is an open question how far these models generalize beyond their training data. In this work, we analyse how analytical and learned models can be combined to leverage the best of both worlds. As physical interaction task, we use planar pushing, for which there exists a well-known analytical model and a large real-world dataset. We propose to use a neural network to convert the raw sensory data into a suitable representation that can be consumed by the analytical model and compare this approach to using neural networks for both, perception and prediction. Our results show that the combined method outperforms the purely learned version in terms of accuracy and generalization to push actions not seen during training. It also performs comparable to the analytical model applied on ground truth input values, despite using raw sensory data as input.

[1]  Sergey Ioffe,et al.  Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift , 2015, ICML.

[2]  Yuval Tassa,et al.  Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning , 2015, ICLR.

[3]  Jonas Degrave A Differentiable Physics Engine for Deep Learning , 2016 .

[4]  Sergey Levine,et al.  Unsupervised Learning for Physical Interaction through Video Prediction , 2016, NIPS.

[5]  Jitendra Malik,et al.  Learning to Poke by Poking: Experiential Learning of Intuitive Physics , 2016, NIPS.

[6]  Matthew T. Mason,et al.  Mechanics and Planning of Manipulator Pushing Operations , 1986 .

[7]  Oliver Brock,et al.  Learning state representations with robotic priors , 2015, Auton. Robots.

[8]  Manuela M. Veloso,et al.  Push-manipulation of complex passive mobile objects using experimentally acquired motion models , 2015, Auton. Robots.

[9]  A. Ruina,et al.  Planar sliding with dry friction Part 1. Limit surface and moment function , 1991 .

[10]  J. Andrew Bagnell,et al.  A convex polynomial force-motion model for planar sliding: Identification and application , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[11]  Sergey Levine,et al.  End-to-End Training of Deep Visuomotor Policies , 2015, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[12]  Rustam Stolkin,et al.  Learning modular and transferable forward models of the motions of push manipulated objects , 2017, Auton. Robots.

[13]  Kazuo Tanie,et al.  Manipulation And Active Sensing By Pushing Using Tactile Feedback , 1992, Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[14]  Jeffrey C. Trinkle,et al.  The application of particle filtering to grasping acquisition with visual occlusion and tactile sensing , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[15]  Franziska Meier,et al.  SE3-Pose-Nets: Structured Deep Dynamics Models for Visuomotor Planning and Control , 2017, ArXiv.

[16]  Maria Bauza,et al.  A probabilistic data-driven model for planar pushing , 2017, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[17]  Samy Bengio,et al.  Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization , 2016, ICLR.

[18]  Mark R. Cutkosky,et al.  Practical Force-Motion Models for Sliding Manipulation , 1996, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[19]  Kuan-Ting Yu,et al.  More than a million ways to be pushed. A high-fidelity experimental dataset of planar pushing , 2016, 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).

[20]  Leonidas J. Guibas,et al.  PointNet++: Deep Hierarchical Feature Learning on Point Sets in a Metric Space , 2017, NIPS.

[21]  Jimmy Ba,et al.  Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , 2014, ICLR.

[22]  Jan Peters,et al.  Using model knowledge for learning inverse dynamics , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[23]  Soo-Hong Lee,et al.  Fixture planning with friction , 1991 .

[24]  Jonas Degrave,et al.  A DIFFERENTIABLE PHYSICS ENGINE FOR DEEP LEARNING IN ROBOTICS , 2016, Front. Neurorobot..

[25]  François Laviolette,et al.  Domain-Adversarial Training of Neural Networks , 2015, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[26]  Razvan Pascanu,et al.  Visual Interaction Networks: Learning a Physics Simulator from Video , 2017, NIPS.

[27]  Jiajun Wu,et al.  Learning to See Physics via Visual De-animation , 2017, NIPS.

[28]  Dieter Fox,et al.  SE3-nets: Learning rigid body motion using deep neural networks , 2016, 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[29]  Dominik Belter,et al.  Kinematically optimised predictions of object motion , 2014, 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[30]  Jiajun Wu,et al.  Galileo: Perceiving Physical Object Properties by Integrating a Physics Engine with Deep Learning , 2015, NIPS.

[31]  Christoph H. Lampert,et al.  Extrapolation and learning equations , 2016, ICLR.