Comparative experiments on task space control with redundancy resolution

Understanding the principles of motor coordination with redundant degrees of freedom still remains a challenging problem, particularly for new research in highly redundant robots like humanoids. Even after more than a decade of research, task space control with redundacy resolution still remains an incompletely understood theoretical topic, and also lacks a larger body of thorough experimental investigation on complex robotic systems. This paper presents our first steps towards the development of a working redundancy resolution algorithm which is robust against modeling errors and unforeseen disturbances arising from contact forces. To gain a better understanding of the pros and cons of different approaches to redundancy resolution, we focus on a comparative empirical evaluation. First, we review several redundancy resolution schemes at the velocity, acceleration and torque levels presented in the literature in a common notational framework and also introduce some new variants of these previous approaches. Second, we present experimental comparisons of these approaches on a seven-degree-of-freedom anthropomorphic robot arm. Surprisingly, one of our simplest algorithms empirically demonstrates the best performance, despite, from a theoretical point, the algorithm does not share the same beauty as some of the other methods. Finally, we discuss practical properties of these control algorithms, particularly in light of inevitable modeling errors of the robot dynamics.

[1]  A. Liegeois,et al.  Automatic supervisory control of the configuration and behavior of multi-body mechanisms , 1977 .

[2]  John M. Hollerbach,et al.  Redundancy resolution of manipulators through torque optimization , 1985, Proceedings. 1985 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[3]  T. Yoshikawa,et al.  Task-Priority Based Redundancy Control of Robot Manipulators , 1987 .

[4]  Oussama Khatib,et al.  A unified approach for motion and force control of robot manipulators: The operational space formulation , 1987, IEEE J. Robotics Autom..

[5]  S. Shankar Sastry,et al.  Dynamic control of redundant manipulators , 1989, J. Field Robotics.

[6]  A. D. Luca,et al.  Issues in Acceleration Resolution of Robot Redundancy , 1991 .

[7]  Oussama Khatib,et al.  Load Independence of the Dynamically Consistent Inverse of the Jacobian Matrix , 1997, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[8]  Kei Senda Quasioptimal control of space redundant manipulators , 1999 .

[9]  Koji Yoshida,et al.  Verification of the Positive Definiteness of the Inertial Matrix of Manipulators Using Base Inertial Parameters , 2000, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[10]  Stefan Schaal,et al.  Inverse kinematics for humanoid robots , 2000, Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium Conference. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Symposia Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37065).

[11]  Stefan Schaal,et al.  Learning inverse kinematics , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Expanding the Societal Role of Robotics in the the Next Millennium (Cat. No.01CH37180).

[12]  Suguru Arimoto A Natural Resolution of Bernstein’s Degrees-of-Freedom Problem in Case of Multi-Joint Reaching , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics.

[13]  Jun Nakanishi,et al.  A unifying methodology for the control of robotic systems , 2005, 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[14]  Jun Nakanishi,et al.  A Bayesian Approach to Nonlinear Parameter Identification for Rigid Body Dynamics , 2006, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[15]  Stefan Schaal,et al.  Learning from Demonstration , 1996, NIPS.