Tag Archives: failure
#438807 Visible Touch: How Cameras Can Help ...
The dawn of the robot revolution is already here, and it is not the dystopian nightmare we imagined. Instead, it comes in the form of social robots: Autonomous robots in homes and schools, offices and public spaces, able to interact with humans and other robots in a socially acceptable, human-perceptible way to resolve tasks related to core human needs.
To design social robots that “understand” humans, robotics scientists are delving into the psychology of human communication. Researchers from Cornell University posit that embedding the sense of touch in social robots could teach them to detect physical interactions and gestures. They describe a way of doing so by relying not on touch but on vision.
A USB camera inside the robot captures shadows of hand gestures on the robot’s surface and classifies them with machine-learning software. They call this method ShadowSense, which they define as a modality between vision and touch, bringing “the high resolution and low cost of vision-sensing to the close-up sensory experience of touch.”
Touch-sensing in social or interactive robots is usually achieved with force sensors or capacitive sensors, says study co-author Guy Hoffman of the Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Cornell University. The drawback to his group’s approach has been that, even to achieve coarse spatial resolution, many sensors are needed in a small area.
However, working with non-rigid, inflatable robots, Hoffman and his co-researchers installed a consumer-grade USB camera to which they attached a fisheye lens for a wider field of vision.
“Given that the robot is already hollow, and has a soft and translucent skin, we could do touch interaction by looking at the shadows created by people touching the robot,” says Hoffman. They used deep neural networks to interpret the shadows. “And we were able to do it with very high accuracy,” he says. The robot was able to interpret six different gestures, including one- or two-handed touch, pointing, hugging and punching, with an accuracy of 87.5 to 96 percent, depending on the lighting.
This is not the first time that computer vision has been used for tactile sensing, though the scale and application of ShadowSense is unique. “Photography has been used for touch mainly in robotic grasping,” says Hoffman. By contrast, Hoffman and collaborators wanted to develop a sense that could be “felt” across the whole of the device.
The potential applications for ShadowSense include mobile robot guidance using touch, and interactive screens on soft robots. A third concerns privacy, especially in home-based social robots. “We have another paper currently under review that looks specifically at the ability to detect gestures that are further away [from the robot’s skin],” says Hoffman. This way, users would be able to cover their robot’s camera with a translucent material and still allow it to interpret actions and gestures from shadows. Thus, even though it’s prevented from capturing a high-resolution image of the user or their surrounding environment, using the right kind of training datasets, the robot can continue to monitor some kinds of non-tactile activities.
In its current iteration, Hoffman says, ShadowSense doesn’t do well in low-light conditions. Environmental noise, or shadows from surrounding objects, also interfere with image classification. Relying on one camera also means a single point of failure. “I think if this were to become a commercial product, we would probably [have to] work a little bit better on image detection,” says Hoffman.
As it was, the researchers used transfer learning—reusing a pre-trained deep-learning model in a new problem—for image analysis. “One of the problems with multi-layered neural networks is that you need a lot of training data to make accurate predictions,” says Hoffman. “Obviously, we don’t have millions of examples of people touching a hollow, inflatable robot. But we can use pre-trained networks trained on general images, which we have billions of, and we only retrain the last layers of the network using our own dataset.” Continue reading
Posted in Human Robots
#438553 New Drone Software Handles Motor ...
Good as some drones are becoming at obstacle avoidance, accidents do still happen. And as far as robots go, drones are very much on the fragile side of things. Any sort of significant contact between a drone and almost anything else usually results in a catastrophic, out-of-control spin followed by a death plunge to the ground. Bad times. Bad, expensive times.
A few years ago, we saw some interesting research into software that can keep the most common drone form factor, the quadrotor, aloft and controllable even after the failure of one motor. The big caveat to that software was that it relied on GPS for state estimation, meaning that without a GPS signal, the drone is unable to get the information it needs to keep itself under control. In a paper recently accepted to RA-L, researchers at the University of Zurich report that they have developed a vision-based system that brings state estimation completely on-board. The upshot: potentially any drone with some software and a camera can keep itself safe even under the most challenging conditions.
A few years ago, we wrote about first author Sihao Sun’s work on high speed controlled flight of a quadrotor with a non-functional motor. But that innovation relied on an external motion capture system. Since then, Sun has moved from Tu Delft to Davide Scaramuzza’s lab at UZH, and it looks like he’s been able to combine his work on controlled spinning flight with the Robotics and Perception Group’s expertise in vision. Now, a downward-facing camera is all it takes for a spinning drone to remain stable and controllable:
Remember, this software isn’t just about guarding against motor failure. Drone motors themselves don’t just up and fail all that often, either with respect to their software or hardware. But they do represent the most likely point of failure for any drone, usually because when you run into something, what ultimately causes your drone to crash is damage to a motor or a propeller that causes loss of control.
The reason that earlier solutions relied on GPS was because the spinning drone needs a method of state estimation—that is, in order to be closed-loop controllable, the drone needs to have a reasonable understanding of what its position is and how that position is changing over time. GPS is an easy way to take care of this, but GPS is also an external system that doesn’t work everywhere. Having a state estimation system that’s completely internal to the drone itself is much more fail safe, and Sun got his onboard system to work through visual feature tracking with a downward-facing camera, even as the drone is spinning at over 20 rad/s.
While the system works well enough with a regular downward-facing camera—something that many consumer drones are equipped with for stabilization purposes—replacing it with an event camera (you remember event cameras, right?) makes the performance even better, especially in low light.
For more details on this, including what you’re supposed to do with a rapidly spinning partially disabled quadrotor (as well as what it’ll take to make this a standard feature on consumer hardware), we spoke with Sihao Sun via email.
IEEE Spectrum: what usually happens when a drone spinning this fast lands? Is there any way to do it safely?
Sihao Sun: Our experience shows that we can safely land the drone while it is spinning. When the range sensor measurements are lower than a threshold (around 10 cm, indicating that the drone is close to the ground), we switch off the rotors. During the landing procedure, despite the fast spinning motion, the thrust direction oscillates around the gravity vector, thus the drone touches the ground with its legs without damaging other components.
Can your system handle more than one motor failure?
Yes, the system can also handle the failure of two opposing rotors. However, if two adjacent rotors or more than two rotors fail, our method cannot save the quadrotor. Some research has shown that it is possible to control a quadrotor with only one remaining rotor. But the drone requires a very special inertial property, which is hard to satisfy in real applications.
How different is your system's performance from a similar system that relies on GPS, in a favorable environment?
In a favorable environment, our system outperforms those relying on GPS signals because it obtains better position estimates. Since a damaged quadrotor spins fast, the accelerometer readings are largely affected by centrifugal forces. When the GPS signal is lost or degraded, a drone relying on GPS needs to integrate these biased accelerometer measurements for position estimation, leading to large position estimation errors. Feeding these erroneous estimates to the flight controller can easily crash the drone.
When you say that your solution requires “only onboard sensors and computation,” are those requirements specialized, or would they be generally compatible with the current generation of recreational and commercial quadrotors?
We use an NVIDIA Jetson TX2 to run our solution, which includes two parts: the control algorithm and the vision-based state estimation algorithm. The control algorithm is lightweight; thus, we believe that it is compatible with the current generation of quadrotors. On the other hand, the vision-based state estimation requires relatively more computational resources, which may not be affordable for cheap recreational platforms. But this is not an issue for commercial quadrotors because many of them have more powerful processors than a TX2.
What else can event cameras be used for, in recreational or commercial applications?
Many drone applications can benefit from event cameras, especially those in high-speed or low-light conditions, such as autonomous drone racing, cave exploration, drone delivery during night time, etc. Event cameras also consume very little power, which is a significant advantage for energy-critical missions, such as planetary aerial vehicles for Mars explorations. Regarding space applications, we are currently collaborating with JPL to explore the use of event cameras to address the key limitations of standard cameras for the next Mars helicopter.
[ UZH RPG ] Continue reading
Posted in Human Robots
#437800 Malleable Structure Makes Robot Arm More ...
The majority of robot arms are built out of some combination of long straight tubes and actuated joints. This isn’t surprising, since our limbs are built the same way, which was a clever and efficient bit of design. By adding more tubes and joints (or degrees of freedom), you can increase the versatility of your robot arm, but the tradeoff is that complexity, weight, and cost will increase, too.
At ICRA, researchers from Imperial College London’s REDS Lab, headed by Nicolas Rojas, introduced a design for a robot that’s built around a malleable structure rather than a rigid one, allowing you to improve how versatile the arm is without having to add extra degrees of freedom. The idea is that you’re no longer constrained to static tubes and joints but can instead reconfigure your robot to set it up exactly the way you want and easily change it whenever you feel like.
Inside of that bendable section of arm are layers and layers of mylar sheets, cut into flaps and stacked on top of one another so that each flap is overlapping or overlapped by at least 11 other flaps. The mylar is slippery enough that under most circumstances, the flaps can move smoothly against each other, letting you adjust the shape of the arm. The flaps are sealed up between latex membranes, and when air is pumped out from between the membranes, they press down on each other and turn the whole structure rigid, locking itself in whatever shape you’ve put it in.
Image: Imperial College London
The malleable part of the robot consists of layers of mylar sheets, cut into flaps that can move smoothly against each other, letting you adjust the shape of the arm. The flaps are sealed up between latex membranes, and when air is pumped out from between the membranes, they press down on each other and turn the whole structure rigid, locking itself in whatever shape you’ve put it in.
The nice thing about this system is that it’s a sort of combination of a soft robot and a rigid robot—you get the flexibility (both physical and metaphorical) of a soft system, without necessarily having to deal with all of the control problems. It’s more mechanically complex than either (as hybrid systems tend to be), but you save on cost, size, and weight, and reduce the number of actuators you need, which tend to be points of failure. You do need to deal with creating and maintaining a vacuum, and the fact that the malleable arm is not totally rigid, but depending on your application, those tradeoffs could easily be worth it.
For more details, we spoke with first author Angus B. Clark via email.
IEEE Spectrum: Where did this idea come from?
Angus Clark: The idea of malleable robots came from the realization that the majority of serial robot arms have 6 or more degrees of freedom (DoF)—usually rotary joints—yet are typically performing tasks that only require 2 or 3 DoF. The idea of a robot arm that achieves flexibility and adaptation to tasks but maintains the simplicity of a low DoF system, along with the rapid development of variable stiffness continuum robots for medical applications, inspired us to develop the malleable robot concept.
What are some ways in which a malleable robot arm could provide unique advantages, and what are some potential applications that could leverage these advantages?
Malleable robots have the ability to complete multiple traditional tasks, such as pick and place or bin picking operations, without the added bulk of extra joints that are not directly used within each task, as the flexibility of the robot arm is provided by a malleable link instead. This results in an overall smaller form factor, including weight and footprint of the robot, as well as a lower power requirement and cost of the robot as fewer joints are needed, without sacrificing adaptability. This makes the robot ideal for scenarios where any of these factors are critical, such as in space robotics—where every kilogram saved is vital—or in rehabilitation robotics, where cost reduction may facilitate adoption, to name two examples. Moreover, the collaborative soft-robot-esque nature of malleable robots also tends towards collaborative robots in factories working safely alongside and with humans.
“The idea of malleable robots came from the realization that the majority of serial robot arms have 6 or more degrees of freedom (DoF), yet are typically performing tasks that only require 2 or 3 DoF”
—Angus B. Clark, Imperial College London
Compared to a conventional rigid link between joints, what are the disadvantages of using a malleable link?
Currently the maximum stiffness of a malleable link is considerably weaker than that of an equivalent solid steel rigid link, and this is one of the key areas we are focusing research on improving as motion precision and accuracy are impacted. We have created the largest existing variable stiffness link at roughly 800 mm length and 50 mm diameter, which suits malleable robots towards small and medium size workspaces. Our current results evaluating this accuracy are good, however achieving a uniform stiffness across the entire malleable link can be problematic due to the production of wrinkles under bending in the encapsulating membrane. As demonstrated by our SCARA topology results, this can produce slight structural variations resulting in reduced accuracy.
Does the robot have any way of knowing its own shape? Potentially, could this system reconfigure itself somehow?
Currently we compute the robot topology using motion tracking, with markers placed on the joints of the robot. Using distance geometry, we are then able to obtain the forward and inverse kinematics of the robot, of which we can use to control the end effector (the gripper) of the robot. Ideally, in the future we would love to develop a system that no longer requires the use of motion tracking cameras.
As for the robot reconfiguring itself, which we call an “intrinsic malleable link,” there are many methods that have been demonstrated for controlling a continuum structure, such as using positive pressure or via tendon wires, however the ability to in real-time determine the curvature of the link, not just the joint positions, is a significant hurdle to solve. However, we hope to see future development on malleable robots work towards solving this problem.
What are you working on next?
For us, refining the kinematics of the robot to enable a robust and complete system for allowing a user to collaboratively reshape the robot, while still achieving the accuracy expected from robotic systems, is our current main goal. Malleable robots are a brand new field we have introduced, and as such provide many opportunities for development and optimization. Over the coming years, we hope to see other researchers work alongside us to solve these problems.
“Design and Workspace Characterization of Malleable Robots,” by Angus B. Clark and Nicolas Rojas from Imperial College London, was presented at ICRA 2020.
< Back to IEEE Journal Watch Continue reading
Posted in Human Robots
#437709 iRobot Announces Major Software Update, ...
Since the release of the very first Roomba in 2002, iRobot’s long-term goal has been to deliver cleaner floors in a way that’s effortless and invisible. Which sounds pretty great, right? And arguably, iRobot has managed to do exactly this, with its most recent generation of robot vacuums that make their own maps and empty their own dustbins. For those of us who trust our robots, this is awesome, but iRobot has gradually been realizing that many Roomba users either don’t want this level of autonomy, or aren’t ready for it.
Today, iRobot is announcing a major new update to its app that represents a significant shift of its overall approach to home robot autonomy. Humans are being brought back into the loop through software that tries to learn when, where, and how you clean so that your Roomba can adapt itself to your life rather than the other way around.
To understand why this is such a shift for iRobot, let’s take a very brief look back at how the Roomba interface has evolved over the last couple of decades. The first generation of Roomba had three buttons on it that allowed (or required) the user to select whether the room being vacuumed was small or medium or large in size. iRobot ditched that system one generation later, replacing the room size buttons with one single “clean” button. Programmable scheduling meant that users no longer needed to push any buttons at all, and with Roombas able to find their way back to their docking stations, all you needed to do was empty the dustbin. And with the most recent few generations (the S and i series), the dustbin emptying is also done for you, reducing direct interaction with the robot to once a month or less.
Image: iRobot
iRobot CEO Colin Angle believes that working toward more intelligent human-robot collaboration is “the brave new frontier” of AI. “This whole journey has been earning the right to take this next step, because a robot can’t be responsive if it’s incompetent,” he says. “But thinking that autonomy was the destination was where I was just completely wrong.”
The point that the top-end Roombas are at now reflects a goal that iRobot has been working toward since 2002: With autonomy, scheduling, and the clean base to empty the bin, you can set up your Roomba to vacuum when you’re not home, giving you cleaner floors every single day without you even being aware that the Roomba is hard at work while you’re out. It’s not just hands-off, it’s brain-off. No noise, no fuss, just things being cleaner thanks to the efforts of a robot that does its best to be invisible to you. Personally, I’ve been completely sold on this idea for home robots, and iRobot CEO Colin Angle was as well.
“I probably told you that the perfect Roomba is the Roomba that you never see, you never touch, you just come home everyday and it’s done the right thing,” Angle told us. “But customers don’t want that—they want to be able to control what the robot does. We started to hear this a couple years ago, and it took a while before it sunk in, but it made sense.”
How? Angle compares it to having a human come into your house to clean, but you weren’t allowed to tell them where or when to do their job. Maybe after a while, you’ll build up the amount of trust necessary for that to work, but in the short term, it would likely be frustrating. And people get frustrated with their Roombas for this reason. “The desire to have more control over what the robot does kept coming up, and for me, it required a pretty big shift in my view of what intelligence we were trying to build. Autonomy is not intelligence. We need to do something more.”
That something more, Angle says, is a partnership as opposed to autonomy. It’s an acknowledgement that not everyone has the same level of trust in robots as the people who build them. It’s an understanding that people want to have a feeling of control over their homes, that they have set up the way that they want, and that they’ve been cleaning the way that they want, and a robot shouldn’t just come in and do its own thing.
This change in direction also represents a substantial shift in resources for iRobot, and the company has pivoted two-thirds of its engineering organization to focus on software-based collaborative intelligence rather than hardware.
“Until the robot proves that it knows enough about your home and about the way that you want your home cleaned,” Angle says, “you can’t move forward.” He adds that this is one of those things that seem obvious in retrospect, but even if they’d wanted to address the issue before, they didn’t have the technology to solve the problem. Now they do. “This whole journey has been earning the right to take this next step, because a robot can’t be responsive if it’s incompetent,” Angle says. “But thinking that autonomy was the destination was where I was just completely wrong.”
The previous iteration of the iRobot app (and Roombas themselves) are built around one big fat CLEAN button. The new approach instead tries to figure out in much more detail where the robot should clean, and when, using a mixture of autonomous technology and interaction with the user.
Where to Clean
Knowing where to clean depends on your Roomba having a detailed and accurate map of its environment. For several generations now, Roombas have been using visual mapping and localization (VSLAM) to build persistent maps of your home. These maps have been used to tell the Roomba to clean in specific rooms, but that’s about it. With the new update, Roombas with cameras will be able to recognize some objects and features in your home, including chairs, tables, couches, and even countertops. The robots will use these features to identify where messes tend to happen so that they can focus on those areas—like around the dining room table or along the front of the couch.
We should take a minute here to clarify how the Roomba is using its camera. The original (primary?) purpose of the camera was for VSLAM, where the robot would take photos of your home, downsample them into QR-code-like patterns of light and dark, and then use those (with the assistance of other sensors) to navigate. Now the camera is also being used to take pictures of other stuff around your house to make that map more useful.
Photo: iRobot
The robots will now try to fit into the kinds of cleaning routines that many people already have established. For example, the app may suggest an “after dinner” routine that cleans just around the kitchen and dining room table.
This is done through machine learning using a library of images of common household objects from a floor perspective that iRobot had to develop from scratch. Angle clarified for us that this is all done via a neural net that runs on the robot, and that “no recognizable images are ever stored on the robot or kept, and no images ever leave the robot.” Worst case, if all the data iRobot has about your home gets somehow stolen, the hacker would only know that (for example) your dining room has a table in it and the approximate size and location of that table, because the map iRobot has of your place only stores symbolic representations rather than images.
Another useful new feature is intended to help manage the “evil Roomba places” (as Angle puts it) that every home has that cause Roombas to get stuck. If the place is evil enough that Roomba has to call you for help because it gave up completely, Roomba will now remember, and suggest that either you make some changes or that it stops cleaning there, which seems reasonable.
When to Clean
It turns out that the primary cause of mission failure for Roombas is not that they get stuck or that they run out of battery—it’s user cancellation, usually because the robot is getting in the way or being noisy when you don’t want it to be. “If you kill a Roomba’s job because it annoys you,” points out Angle, “how is that robot being a good partner? I think it’s an epic fail.” Of course, it’s not the robot’s fault, because Roombas only clean when we tell them to, which Angle says is part of the problem. “People actually aren’t very good at making their own schedules—they tend to oversimplify, and not think through what their schedules are actually about, which leads to lots of [figurative] Roomba death.”
To help you figure out when the robot should actually be cleaning, the new app will look for patterns in when you ask the robot to clean, and then recommend a schedule based on those patterns. That might mean the robot cleans different areas at different times every day of the week. The app will also make scheduling recommendations that are event-based as well, integrated with other smart home devices. Would you prefer the Roomba to clean every time you leave the house? The app can integrate with your security system (or garage door, or any number of other things) and take care of that for you.
More generally, Roomba will now try to fit into the kinds of cleaning routines that many people already have established. For example, the app may suggest an “after dinner” routine that cleans just around the kitchen and dining room table. The app will also, to some extent, pay attention to the environment and season. It might suggest increasing your vacuuming frequency if pollen counts are especially high, or if it’s pet shedding season and you have a dog. Unfortunately, Roomba isn’t (yet?) capable of recognizing dogs on its own, so the app has to cheat a little bit by asking you some basic questions.
A Smarter App
Image: iRobot
The previous iteration of the iRobot app (and Roombas themselves) are built around one big fat CLEAN button. The new approach instead tries to figure out in much more detail where the robot should clean, and when, using a mixture of autonomous technology and interaction with the user.
The app update, which should be available starting today, is free. The scheduling and recommendations will work on every Roomba model, although for object recognition and anything related to mapping, you’ll need one of the more recent and fancier models with a camera. Future app updates will happen on a more aggressive schedule. Major app releases should happen every six months, with incremental updates happening even more frequently than that.
Angle also told us that overall, this change in direction also represents a substantial shift in resources for iRobot, and the company has pivoted two-thirds of its engineering organization to focus on software-based collaborative intelligence rather than hardware. “It’s not like we’re done doing hardware,” Angle assured us. “But we do think about hardware differently. We view our robots as platforms that have longer life cycles, and each platform will be able to support multiple generations of software. We’ve kind of decoupled robot intelligence from hardware, and that’s a change.”
Angle believes that working toward more intelligent collaboration between humans and robots is “the brave new frontier of artificial intelligence. I expect it to be the frontier for a reasonable amount of time to come,” he adds. “We have a lot of work to do to create the type of easy-to-use experience that consumer robots need.” Continue reading
Posted in Human Robots
#437667 17 Teams to Take Part in DARPA’s ...
Among all of the other in-person events that have been totally wrecked by COVID-19 is the Cave Circuit of the DARPA Subterranean Challenge. DARPA has already hosted the in-person events for the Tunnel and Urban SubT circuits (see our previous coverage here), and the plan had always been for a trio of events representing three uniquely different underground environments in advance of the SubT Finals, which will somehow combine everything into one bonkers course.
While the SubT Urban Circuit event snuck in just under the lockdown wire in late February, DARPA made the difficult (but prudent) decision to cancel the in-person Cave Circuit event. What this means is that there will be no Systems Track Cave competition, which is a serious disappointment—we were very much looking forward to watching teams of robots navigating through an entirely unpredictable natural environment with a lot of verticality. Fortunately, DARPA is still running a Virtual Cave Circuit, and 17 teams will be taking part in this competition featuring a simulated cave environment that’s as dynamic and detailed as DARPA can make it.
From DARPA’s press releases:
DARPA’s Subterranean (SubT) Challenge will host its Cave Circuit Virtual Competition, which focuses on innovative solutions to map, navigate, and search complex, simulated cave environments November 17. Qualified teams have until Oct. 15 to develop and submit software-based solutions for the Cave Circuit via the SubT Virtual Portal, where their technologies will face unknown cave environments in the cloud-based SubT Simulator. Until then, teams can refine their roster of selected virtual robot models, choose sensor payloads, and continue to test autonomy approaches to maximize their score.
The Cave Circuit also introduces new simulation capabilities, including digital twins of Systems Competition robots to choose from, marsupial-style platforms combining air and ground robots, and breadcrumb nodes that can be dropped by robots to serve as communications relays. Each robot configuration has an associated cost, measured in SubT Credits – an in-simulation currency – based on performance characteristics such as speed, mobility, sensing, and battery life.
Each team’s simulated robots must navigate realistic caves, with features including natural terrain and dynamic rock falls, while they search for and locate various artifacts on the course within five meters of accuracy to score points during a 60-minute timed run. A correct report is worth one point. Each course contains 20 artifacts, which means each team has the potential for a maximum score of 20 points. Teams can leverage numerous practice worlds and even build their own worlds using the cave tiles found in the SubT Tech Repo to perfect their approach before they submit one official solution for scoring. The DARPA team will then evaluate the solution on a set of hidden competition scenarios.
Of the 17 qualified teams (you can see all of them here), there are a handful that we’ll quickly point out. Team BARCS, from Michigan Tech, was the winner of the SubT Virtual Urban Circuit, meaning that they may be the team to beat on Cave as well, although the course is likely to be unique enough that things will get interesting. Some Systems Track teams to watch include Coordinated Robotics, CTU-CRAS-NORLAB, MARBLE, NUS SEDS, and Robotika, and there are also a handful of brand new teams as well.
Now, just because there’s no dedicated Cave Circuit for the Systems Track teams, it doesn’t mean that there won’t be a Cave component (perhaps even a significant one) in the final event, which as far as we know is still scheduled to happen in fall of next year. We’ve heard that many of the Systems Track teams have been testing out their robots in caves anyway, and as the virtual event gets closer, we’ll be doing a sort of Virtual Systems Track series that highlights how different teams are doing mock Cave Circuits in caves they’ve found for themselves.
For more, we checked in with DARPA SubT program manager Dr. Timothy H. Chung.
IEEE Spectrum: Was it a difficult decision to cancel the Systems Track for Cave?
Tim Chung: The decision to go virtual only was heart wrenching, because I think DARPA’s role is to offer up opportunities that may be unimaginable for some of our competitors, like opening up a cave-type site for this competition. We crawled and climbed through a number of these sites, and I share the sense of disappointment that both our team and the competitors have that we won’t be able to share all the advances that have been made since the Urban Circuit. But what we’ve been able to do is pour a lot of our energy and the insights that we got from crawling around in those caves into what’s going to be a really great opportunity on the Virtual Competition side. And whether it’s a global pandemic, or just lack of access to physical sites like caves, virtual environments are an opportunity that we want to develop.
“The simulator offers us a chance to look at where things could be … it really allows for us to find where some of those limits are in the technology based only on our imagination.”
—Timothy H. Chung, DARPA
What kind of new features will be included in the Virtual Cave Circuit for this competition?
I’m really excited about these particular features because we’re seeing an opportunity for increased synergy between the physical and the virtual. The first I’d say is that we scanned some of the Systems Track robots using photogrammetry and combined that with some additional models that we got from the systems competitors themselves to turn their systems robots into virtual models. We often talk about the sim to real transfer and how successful we can get a simulation to transfer over to the physical world, but now we’ve taken something from the physical world and made it virtual. We’ve validated the controllers as well as the kinematics of the robots, we’ve iterated with the systems competitors themselves, and now we have these 13 robots (air and ground) in the SubT Tech Repo that now all virtual competitors can take advantage of.
We also have additional robot capability. Those comms bread crumbs are common among many of the competitors, so we’ve adopted that in the virtual world, and now you have comms relay nodes that are baked in to the SubT Simulator—you can have either six or twelve comms nodes that you can drop from a variety of our ground robot platforms. We have the marsupial deployment capability now, so now we have parent ground robots that can be mixed and matched with different child drones to become marsupial pairs.
And this is something I’ve been planning for for a while: we now have the ability to trigger things like rock falls. They still don’t quite look like Indiana Jones with the boulder coming down the corridor, but this comes really close. In addition to it just being an interesting and realistic consideration, we get to really dynamically test and stress the robots’ ability to navigate and recognize that something has changed in the environment and respond to it.
Image: DARPA
DARPA is still running a Virtual Cave Circuit, and 17 teams will be taking part in this competition featuring a simulated cave environment.
No simulation is perfect, so can you talk to us about what kinds of things aren’t being simulated right now? Where does the simulator not match up to reality?
I think that question is foundational to any conversation about simulation. I’ll give you a couple of examples:
We have the ability to represent wholesale damage to a robot, but it’s not at the actuator or component level. So there’s not a reliability model, although I think that would be really interesting to incorporate so that you could do assessments on things like mean time to failure. But if a robot falls off a ledge, it can be disabled by virtue of being too damaged to continue.
With communications, and this is one that’s near and dear not only to my heart but also to all of those that have lived through developing communication systems and robotic systems, we’ve gone through and conducted RF surveys of underground environments to get a better handle on what propagation effects are. There’s a lot of research that has gone into this, and trying to carry through some of that realism, we do have path loss models for RF communications baked into the SubT Simulator. For example, when you drop a bread crumb node, it’s using a path loss model so that it can represent the degradation of signal as you go farther into a cave. Now, we’re not modeling it at the Maxwell equations level, which I think would be awesome, but we’re not quite there yet.
We do have things like battery depletion, sensor degradation to the extent that simulators can degrade sensor inputs, and things like that. It’s just amazing how close we can get in some places, and how far away we still are in others, and I think showing where the limits are of how far you can get simulation is all part and parcel of why SubT Challenge wants to have both System and Virtual tracks. Simulation can be an accelerant, but it’s not going to be the panacea for development and innovation, and I think all the competitors are cognizant those limitations.
One of the most amazing things about the SubT Virtual Track is that all of the robots operate fully autonomously, without the human(s) in the loop that the System Track teams have when they compete. Why make the Virtual Track even more challenging in that way?
I think it’s one of the defining, delineating attributes of the Virtual Track. Our continued vision for the simulation side is that the simulator offers us a chance to look at where things could be, and allows for us to explore things like larger scales, or increased complexity, or types of environments that we can’t physically gain access to—it really allows for us to find where some of those limits are in the technology based only on our imagination, and this is one of the intrinsic values of simulation.
But I think finding a way to incorporate human input, or more generally human factors like teleoperation interfaces and the in-situ stress that you might not be able to recreate in the context of a virtual competition provided a good reason for us to delineate the two competitions, with the Virtual Competition really being about the role of fully autonomous or self-sufficient systems going off and doing their solution without human guidance, while also acknowledging that the real world has conditions that would not necessarily be represented by a fully simulated version. Having said that, I think cognitive engineering still has an incredibly important role to play in human robot interaction.
What do we have to look forward to during the Virtual Competition Showcase?
We have a number of additional features and capabilities that we’ve baked into the simulator that will allow for us to derive some additional insights into our competition runs. Those insights might involve things like the performance of one or more robots in a given scenario, or the impact of the environment on different types of robots, and what I can tease is that this will be an opportunity for us to showcase both the technology and also the excitement of the robots competing in the virtual environment. I’m trying not to give too many spoilers, but we’ll have an opportunity to really get into the details.
Check back as we get closer to the 17 November event for more on the DARPA SubT Challenge. Continue reading
Posted in Human Robots