skip to main content
research-article

Discovery of complex behaviors through contact-invariant optimization

Published:01 July 2012Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We present a motion synthesis framework capable of producing a wide variety of important human behaviors that have rarely been studied, including getting up from the ground, crawling, climbing, moving heavy objects, acrobatics (hand-stands in particular), and various cooperative actions involving two characters and their manipulation of the environment. Our framework is not specific to humans, but applies to characters of arbitrary morphology and limb configuration. The approach is fully automatic and does not require domain knowledge specific to each behavior. It also does not require pre-existing examples or motion capture data.

At the core of our framework is the contact-invariant optimization (CIO) method we introduce here. It enables simultaneous optimization of contact and behavior. This is done by augmenting the search space with scalar variables that indicate whether a potential contact should be active in a given phase of the movement. These auxiliary variables affect not only the cost function but also the dynamics (by enabling and disabling contact forces), and are optimized together with the movement trajectory. Additional innovations include a continuation scheme allowing helper forces at the potential contacts rather than the torso, as well as a feature-based model of physics which is particularly well-suited to the CIO framework. We expect that CIO can also be used with a full physics model, but leave that extension for future work.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

tp123_12.mp4

References

  1. Bouyarmane, K., and Kheddar, A. 2011. Multi-contact stances planning for multiple agents. In ICRA, 5246--5253.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Brubaker, M. A., Sigal, L., and Fleet, D. J. 2009. Estimating contact dynamics. In ICCV, 2389--2396.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Chestnutt, J. 2007. Navigation Planning for Legged Robots. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Chi Wu, J., and Popovic, Z. 2010. Terrain-adaptive bipedal locomotion control. ACM Trans. Graph. 29, 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Coros, S., Beaudoin, P., and van de Panne, M. 2009. Robust task-based control policies for physics-based characters. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Coros, S., Karpathy, A., Jones, B., Revéret, L., and van de Panne, M. 2011. Locomotion skills for simulated quadrupeds. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 4, 59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. da Silva, M., Durand, F., and Popovic, J. 2009. Linear bellman combination for control of character animation. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. de Lasa, M., Mordatch, I., and Hertzmann, A. 2010. Feature-Based Locomotion Controllers. ACM Trans. Graphics 29, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Erez, T., Tassa, Y., and Todorov, E. 2011. Infinite-horizon model predictive control for periodic tasks with contacts. In Robotics: Science and Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Faloutsos, P., van de Panne, M., and Terzopoulos, D. 2001. Composable controllers for physics-based character animation. In SIGGRAPH, 251--260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Fang, A. C., and Pollard, N. S. 2003. Efficient synthesis of physically valid human motion. ACM Trans. Graph. 22, 3, 417--426. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Grassia, F. S. 1998. Practical parameterization of rotations using the exponential map. J. Graph. Tools 3 (March), 29--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Hauser, K. K., Bretl, T., Latombe, J.-C., Harada, K., and Wilcox, B. 2008. Motion planning for legged robots on varied terrain. I. J. Robotic Res. 27, 11--12, 1325--1349.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Hodgins, J. K., and Pollard, N. S. 1997. Adapting simulated behaviors for new characters. In SIGGRAPH, 153--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Hodgins, J. K., Wooten, W. L., Brogan, D. C., and O'Brien, J. F. 1995. Animating human athletics. In SIGGRAPH, 71--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jain, S., and Liu, C. K. 2011. Controlling physics-based characters using soft contacts. ACM Trans. Graph. (SIGGRAPH Asia) 30 (Dec.), 163:1--163:10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kajita, S., Matsumoto, O., and Saigo, M. 2001. Real-time 3D walking pattern generation for a biped robot with telescopic legs. In Proc. ICRA, 2299--2306.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kalisiak, M., and van de Panne, M. 2001. A grasp-based motion planning algorithm for character animation. Journal of Visualization and Computer Animation 12, 3, 117--129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Kolter, J. Z., Rodgers, M. P., and Ng, A. Y. 2008. A control architecture for quadruped locomotion over rough terrain. In ICRA, 811--818.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuffner, J. J., Nishiwaki, K., Kagami, S., Inaba, M., and Inoue, H. 2003. Motion planning for humanoid robots. In ISRR, 365--374.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuo, A. D., Donelan, J. M., and Ruina, A. 2005. Energetic consequences of walking like an inverted pendulum: step-to-step transitions. Exercise and sport sciences reviews 33, 2 (Apr.), 88--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, S.-H., and Goswami, A. 2010. Ground reaction force control at each foot: A momentum-based humanoid balance controller for non-level and non-stationary ground. In IROS, 3157--3162.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu, C. K., Hertzmann, A., and Popovic, Z. 2005. Learning physics-based motion style with nonlinear inverse optimization. ACM Trans. Graph. 24, 3, 1071--1081. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Liu, C. K., Hertzmann, A., and Popovic, Z. 2006. Composition of complex optimal multi-character motions. In Symposium on Computer Animation, 215--222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Liu, C. K. 2009. Dextrous manipulation from a grasping pose. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Manchester, I. R., Mettin, U., Iida, F., and Tedrake, R. 2011. Stable dynamic walking over uneven terrain. I. J. Robotic Res. 30, 3, 265--279. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Mordatch, I., de Lasa, M., and Hertzmann, A. 2010. Robust physics-based locomotion using low-dimensional planning. ACM Trans. Graph. 29, 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Muico, U., Lee, Y., Popović, J., and Popović, Z. 2009. Contact-aware Nonlinear Control of Dynamic Characters. ACM Trans. Graphics 28, 3, 81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Muico, U., Popovic, J., and Popovic, Z. 2011. Composite control of physically simulated characters. ACM Trans. Graph. 30, 3, 16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Popovic, Z., and Witkin, A. P. 1999. Physically based motion transformation. In SIGGRAPH, 11--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Pratt, J., Carff, J., and Drakunov, S. 2006. Capture point: A step toward humanoid push recovery. In in 6th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, 200--207.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Safonova, A., Hodgins, J. K., and Pollard, N. S. 2004. Synthesizing physically realistic human motion in low-dimensional, behavior-specific spaces. ACM Trans. Graph. 23, 3, 514--521. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Seipel, J. E., and Holmes, P. 2005. Running in three dimensions: Analysis of a point-mass sprung-leg model. I. J. Robotic Res. 24, 8, 657--674. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Srinivasan, M., and Ruina, A. 2005. Computer optimization of a minimal biped model discovers walking and running. Nature (Sept.).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Stephens, B. 2011. Push Recovery Control for Force-Controlled Humanoid Robots. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Sutton, R., Precup, D., and Singh, S. 1999. Between mdps and semi-mdps: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning. Artificial Intelligence 112, 181--211. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Todorov, E. 2011. A convex, smooth and invertible contact model for trajectory optimization. In ICRA, 1071--1076.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Van De Panne, M., and Lamouret, A. 1995. Guided optimization for balanced locomotion. In 6th Eurographics Workshop on Animation and Simulation, Computer Animation and Simulation, September, 1995, Springer, Maastricht, Pays-Bas, D. Terzopoulos and D. Thalmann, Eds., Eurographics, 165--177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Vukobratovic, M., and Borovac, B. 2004. Zero-moment point - thirty five years of its life. I. J. Humanoid Robotics 1, 1, 157--173.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Wampler, K., and Popovic, Z. 2009. Optimal gait and form for animal locomotion. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Wang, J. M., Fleet, D. J., and Hertzmann, A. 2009. Optimizing Walking Controllers. ACM Trans. Graphics 28, 5, 168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Witkin, A., and Kass, M. 1988. Spacetime Constraints. In Proc. SIGGRAPH, vol. 22, 159--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Wooten, W. L., and Hodgins, J. K. 2000. Simulating leaping, tumbling, landing, and balancing humans. In ICRA, 656--662.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Ye, Y., and Liu, C. K. 2010. Optimal feedback control for character animation using an abstract model. ACM Trans. Graph. 29, 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Yin, K., Loken, K., and Van de Panne, M. 2007. Simbicon: simple biped locomotion control. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3, 105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Yin, K., Coros, S., Beaudoin, P., and van de Panne, M. 2008. Continuation methods for adapting simulated skills. ACM Trans. Graph. 27, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Discovery of complex behaviors through contact-invariant optimization

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Graphics
      ACM Transactions on Graphics  Volume 31, Issue 4
      July 2012
      935 pages
      ISSN:0730-0301
      EISSN:1557-7368
      DOI:10.1145/2185520
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2012 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 July 2012
      Published in tog Volume 31, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader