Learning Geometry-Aware Virtual Fixtures From Sparse Demonstrations
Authors: Maximilian Mühlbauer, Marcella Piacentino, Raffaella Mancino, Paolino De Risi, Bernhard Weber, Margarida Campos, Thomas Hulin, Sylvain Calinon, +5 more
Organizations: German Aerospace Center (DLR), Robotics and Mechatronics Center (RMC), Münchener Str. 20, 82234 Weßling, Germany. · Department of Computer Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Friedrich-Ludwig-Bauer-Str. 3, Garching, Germany. · C.R.E.A.T.E. Consorzio di Ricerca per l’Energia, l’Automazione e le Tecnologie dell’Elettromagnetismo, Universit`a degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy · Department of Mechanical, Energy, Management and Transportation Engineering (DIME), University of Genova, Genoa, Italy · Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology (DIETI), University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy · Instituto Superior T´ecnico, University of Lisbon, Portugal. · Idiap Research Institute, Martigny, Switzerland. · ´Ecole Polytechnique F´edérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland.
In many teleoperation applications, collecting a large number of demonstrations as required for traditional probabilistic learning from demonstration (LfD) approaches may not be feasible. To still give operators the ability to intuitively create trajectories as Virtual Fixtures (VFs), we propose to leverage a motion prior in the learning process. Particularly, by using Linear Quadratic Tracking (LQT), users are able to define guiding trajectories from the demonstration of just a few via points. To account for orientation guidance, we further reformulate classical LQT on Riemannian manifolds, introducing an additional geometric prior. Through a probabilistic interpretation of the LQT solution, we derive a covariance estimate at each trajectory point which we use to modulate the stiffness of the resulting fixture, resulting in strong guidance around the via points and softer guidance when far away. The covariance information is also used to define a validity region of the fixture, allowing the operator to leave its influence area and conduct unmodeled tasks. We evaluate the proposed Riemannian LQT formulation in a set of toy examples and the full framework on a cutting task requiring high precision in a minimally invasive surgery setting on the da Vinci Research Kit (dVRK).
Figures & tables
Fig. 4 : Plots for writing the letter “B” of the handwriting dataset [ 29 ] on S2 . We fit the GMM using 10 Gaussians and extract 10 via points using GMR for LQT ; all these Gaussians are depicted with their mean and covariance ellipsoid. For the LQT , we furthermore plot its velocity as blue and the command at each time step as green arrows. Note how it passes through the edge of the covariance ellipsoids only for high control cost, trading accuracy for control cost, while approximating the original trajectory more precisely with decreasing control cost.
Fig. 5 : Plots of a circular trajectory for our proposed Riemannian LQT and a STS variant [ 9 ] . Long coordinate systems show via points and their orientation, short coordinate systems those of the prediction. The gray volume shows the predicted covariance of the position part.
Mean
“Skin”
“Blue”
“White”
No Fixture
65.0±13.2
66.8±7.3
65.0±17.9
63.3±13.4
Fixture
65.3±17.4
67.0±18.4
67.0±18.3
62.0±17.1
TABLE I : SUS value (M ± SD) for different phantoms. Higher = better, highlighted in bold.
Mean
“Skin”
“Blue”
“White”
No Fixture
6.27±3.90
5.92±4.20
6.00±3.67
6.88±3.95
Fixture
6.01±2.99
4.99±2.55
6.34±3.03
6.70±3.21
TABLE II : Raw NASA TLX (M ± SD) for different phantoms. First row without, second with fixture, lower = better.
Mean
“Skin”
“Blue”
“White”
No Fixture
43.2±26.3
36.4±19.7
32.3±18.9
60.9±29.9
Fixture
43.9±24.5
37.2±19.9
28.0±14.2
66.6±20.3
TABLE III : Completion time in seconds for different phantoms. Lower = better, highlighted in bold.
Dependent Variable
Factor
df1
df2
F
p (corr.)
Completion Time
Fixture
1
9
0.0684
n.s.
Phantom
2
18
11.8193
<0.001
Fixt. * Phant.
2
18
1.2908
n.s.
TABLE IV : ANOVA comparing completion time results.
Mean
“Skin”
“Blue”
“White”
Flexor
9.9±19.2
16.3±31.5
5.9±3.8
7.4±10.8
w. Fixture
10.3±17.8
15.2±25.1
5.6±3.7
10.2±18.0
Extensor
9.4±4.0
10.5±3.6
9.4±4.5
8.2±3.9
w. Fixture
10.2±4.7
11.6±5.2
9.7±4.5
9.4±4.6
TABLE V : EMG values ( % of MVC ) for different experiments.
Dependent Variable
Factor
df1
df2
F
p (corr.)
Flexor % MVC
Fixture
1
9
1.7881
n.s.
Phantom
2
18
1.6192
n.s.
Fixt. * Phant.
2
18
0.8406
n.s.
Extensor % MVC
Fixture
1
9
6.7434
<.05
Phantom
2
18
3.9399
<.1
Fixt. * Phant.
2
18
0.8200
n.s.
TABLE VI : ANOVA results comparing EMG values.
Mean
“Skin”
“Blue”
No Fixture
1.1±0.7
1.1±0.5
1.1±0.8
Fixture
0.9±0.6
0.9±0.5
0.9±0.7
TABLE VII : Distance between cut and marked line in mm. Lower = better, highlighted in bold.
Mean
“Skin”
“Blue”
No Fixture
1.1±0.9
1.1±0.8
1.1±1.0
Fixture
0.7±0.7
0.9±0.6
0.6±0.7
TABLE VIII : Distance between start / end of cut and marked line start / end in mm. Lower = better, highlighted in bold.
Dependent Variable
Factor
df1
df2
F
p
Cut Offset
Fixture
1
9
4.3675
<.1
Phantom
1
9
0.0377
n.s.
Fixt. * Phant.
1
9
0.0149
n.s.
Cut Length
Fixture
1
9
6.7924
<.05
Phantom
1
9
0.5015
n.s.
Fixt. * Phant.
1
9
0.8161
n.s.
TABLE IX : ANOVA results comparing results with and without fixture, excluding the “white” phantom.
Chair of Robotics and System Intelligence, Technical University of Munich, Germany · Learning Systems and Robotics Lab, Technical University of Munich, Germany