Path Planning with Local Motion Estimations
Path Planning with Local Motion Estimations
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LRA.2020.2972849, IEEE Robotics
and Automation Letters
IEEE ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION LETTERS. PREPRINT VERSION. ACCEPTED JANUARY, 2020 1
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LRA.2020.2972849, IEEE Robotics
and Automation Letters
2 IEEE ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION LETTERS. PREPRINT VERSION. ACCEPTED JANUARY, 2020
way when planning. b) Search spaces: Some planning strategies explore the
Note that the approach does not require that a model of the space of states and determine feasible paths as sequences of
robot is available (unless one uses simulations to acquire train- feasible states to traverse, for example, focusing on collision-
ing data) and resembles the way humans plan paths in open, free constraints or searching for a stable gait state [13].
rugged terrains: estimating from a distance whether a given Alternatively, planners search in the action space: feasible
passage is traversable relies on a quick, intuitive evaluation paths are sequences of feasible actions to execute. In our
based on partial information about the local environment and previous work [14], we estimated the feasibility of motions on
on previous experience attempting to negotiate similar-looking a regular horizontal grid. In this work, we instead randomly
passages. Crucially, this evaluation accounts for the operation sample from a much larger space.
and performance of lower-level controllers, i.e., in our case, c) Local motion estimation: Estimating the feasibility
the motor skills of the subject. An example of online learning of local motions is a key component of global path plan-
in this context occurs when inexperienced hikers learn how to ning algorithms. For instance, for legged robots, traversability
plan paths that avoid wet rocks after slipping and falling once scores can be assigned to cells of 2D maps to account for the
on such surface. robot’s geometry, and the terrain roughness and slope [15];
After reviewing related work in Section II, we formalize in a more complex approach, Fankhauser et al. [13] first
our abstract model (Section III) and describe implementa- compute stable footholds, and then body and leg trajectories
tions (Section IV) in two contexts: a simulated legged robot to overcome steep sections and high steps. In this context,
navigating rugged terrain and a real wheeled robot with un- when the interaction between the robot and the environment is
known geometry navigating among obstacles. Qualitative and complex, one can train a model to output traversability scores:
quantitative experimental results are reported and discussed in Wellhausen et al. [16] first use a weakly-supervised method
Section V. to segment terrain classes from a front-facing camera image,
then use a CNN to compute the confidence of keeping balance
on potential footholds, which is mapped to a cost function.
II. R ELATED W ORK
Similar approaches, which first classify terrain and then assign
a) Path planning: A common strategy for integrating a cost to a grid map, have been developed, e.g., during the
machine learning in robotic path planning [4] is imitation LAGR project [17].
learning of expert trajectories. Along this line of research, Our proposed approach, given a local planner, trains an esti-
Pfeiffer et al. [5] train a CNN to compute steering commands mator to predict which local motions are feasible, using many
to reach the desired target pose given current readings from random trials on diverse terrains; then, instead of building
a laser scanner; Ollis et al. [6] analyze expert trajectories to a fixed resolution grid map, samples from the whole space
learn features of traversed map areas and then compute cost of local motions to build a dense planning tree. Moreover, it
maps in a Bayesian framework; Bagnell et al. [7] use inverse does not rely on hand-modeled terrain features (like slope or
optimal planning to infer a cost function for which the expert roughness) but learns more general features from examples on
trajectories would be optimal. a variety of terrains. In contemporary work, Chiang et al. [18]
In contrast, our work relies on sampling-based graph search. propose a similar approach for integrating a local planner
Sampling-based motion planning algorithms [1] handle high- trained using reinforcement learning in a global sampling-
dimensional configuration spaces and rely on a local plan- based planner for kinodynamic constrained robots. The gen-
ner (or steering function) that determines the connectivity eral approach of using machine learning to approximate the
between nodes of a graph; in this context, one can search outputs of a computationally expensive planner is also found
in the space of controls to take into account dynamical or in imitation learning, e.g., when the expert trajectories for a
differential constraints. The Rapidly Exploring Random Trees legged robot originate from a sophisticated high-dimensional
(RRT) [8] algorithm iteratively constructs a tree by sampling footholds planner [7] instead of a human pilot.
the configuration space to add edges that lead to feasible
states; once the target state is connected to the tree, the path is
III. M ODEL
returned. Alternatively, the Probabilistic Road Maps (PRM) [9]
algorithm builds a graph of feasible edges in which the best In this section, we describe the global path planning prob-
path is found using, e.g., Dijkstra’s algorithm. In general, lem as a search in the space of sequences of local motions,
sampling-based planners are probabilistically complete, i.e., whose feasibility and costs are estimated through machine
they find a path from source to target with probability 1 learning (see Figure 2).
if such a path exists and if they are given enough time to
grow the graph. Optimal variants such as RRT* and PRM*
asymptotically converge to the path of least cost [10]. Machine A. Local motions
learning has been used to augment components of sampling- The robot moves in an environment of which it has, at plan-
based planners, e.g., for automatically selecting the best sam- ning time, partial knowledge K modeled as a set of relevant
pler [11] or the best expansion strategy depending on the pieces of information. A local motion e = (q1 , q2 ) ∈ C 2 is
neighborhood of a node [12]. In this work, we apply machine defined by two nearby states in the robot’s configuration space
learning on a different component, i.e., the one that determines C. For example, for a differential-drive wheeled robot moving
the connectivity of two nearby states. on a plane among obstacles, we may represent a local motion
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LRA.2020.2972849, IEEE Robotics
and Automation Letters
GUZZI et al.: PATH PLANNING WITH LOCAL MOTION ESTIMATIONS 3
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LRA.2020.2972849, IEEE Robotics
and Automation Letters
4 IEEE ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION LETTERS. PREPRINT VERSION. ACCEPTED JANUARY, 2020
P P
q2 50 cm
15 cm
q1 q1
(a) One local motion sample: (b) Evaluation of the trained model: colors indicate (c) In a challenging terrain, ANYmal success-
the target point q2 is uniformly predicted success probability yS (red: low, green: fully executes the planned path of lowest risk
drawn in an annulus (cyan) from high) for motions to a target point in the annulus: (blue dots) between start (left) and target poses
15 cm to 50 cm around q1 . trying to step over the (white) wall is correctly (right), computed using the trained model.
assigned a low chance of success (orange).
Fig. 3: ANYmal pipeline: (a) we collect about 90K random trajectories by picking q1 uniformly on a map and q2 in an annulus
around it. We use these trajectories to train a model (b) to finally compute plans (c) using RRT* . Local knowledge K(q1 ,q2 )
is encoded as a 2 m × 2 m grid patch P around the robot bounded by the orange line; heightmaps are depicted as gray-scale
images. All drawing are in scale and use experimental data.
Algorithm 1 RRT-based planner that builds a random tree T simplicity, we limit our analysis to local motions that maintain
with resolution δ to compute a path from s ∈ C to t ∈ C, orientation; therefore, the configuration space C = R2 is given
using a model to predict the expected descriptors y of local by the horizontal position of ANYmal’s center. Heightmaps
motions trajectories and knowledge K about the environment. have a resolution of 2 cm per pixel; local knowledge is
Only edges with success probability larger than τ are added represented as a 100 px × 100 px (2 m × 2 m) patch P of such
to the tree and carry a cost function C . heightmap (see Figure 3a).
Initialize T with a node in s b) Local motion: The simulated ANYmal uses a sim-
while t 6∈ T do ple1 locomotion planner and a complex closed-loop feedback
q ← random sample from C with a small bias toward t controller to follow a local trajectory while compensating for
q1 ← vertex in T nearest to q terrain irregularities [23]. The local planner takes as its only
e ← local motion from q1 toward q of at most length δ input the relative target pose q2 = (x, y, θ). For any sampled
y ← E [d(e, Ke )] trajectory γ, d(γ) ∈ {0, 1} × R+ is composed of success S
if yS > τ then (“has the robot arrived near enough to q2 ?”) and duration T .
add edge e with cost C (y) to T c) Dataset collection: We collect a dataset of about 90K
end if samples (76% with S = 1), where each sample is a tuple
end while (P, x, y, S, T ), by randomly spawning the robot on stable
poses and randomly sampling a relative target point at a
distance between 15 cm to 50 cm along a random direction;
in Figure 1: a simulated ANYmal robot and a real Mighty on average the robot needs 8 steps (about 10 seconds) to
Thymio robot. complete a local motion (Figure 3a). We gather data on 12
Both robots move on 2D terrain whose knowledge K is different terrains (with total area 1200 m2 ), which contain
encoded as heightmaps (i.e., grey-scale images with an altitude challenging obstacles such as slopes, bumps, holes, rails, and
value associated with each pixel); we ignore any property that steps. As in our previous work [14], terrain heightmaps are
is not geometrical (like the surface material). Knowledge used procedurally generated as superpositions of simplex noise at
by the robot for local motions is given by local heightmaps, different scales.
i.e., square heightmap patches centered at the robot location, d) Training: The success and duration of local motions
and aligned with its orientation. We implement sampling- are modeled by a deep neural network, outlined in Figure 5.
based planners using the Open Motion Planning Library The estimator has two stages: the first is composed of con-
(OMPL) [21]. volutional layers that operate on the heightmap patch (which
has an image-like 2D structure); the second stage processes
A. Simulated ANYmal the resulting features and accepts, as an additional input, the
relative target point (x, y). The output of the model consists
a) Robot and environment: ANYmal [22] is a state-of-
of the success probability yS from a dense layer with softmax
the-art quadruped robot developed at ETHZ for autonomous
activation and the estimation of duration yT from a dense
operation in challenging environments, with the ability to
layer. The loss function is given by the sum of categorical
walk on rough terrain. We simulate ANYmal in Gazebo (see
cross-entropy (success) and mean squared error (duration).
Figure 1a) to learn how well the robot copes with different
obstacles (e.g., steps, holes, slopes, bumps) and later plan safe 1 ANYmal also features a more complex local planner [13], which we do
paths; ANYmal’s footprint is 80 cm × 60 cm × 70 cm. For not use in this work, that selects the best foothold locations on a terrain.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LRA.2020.2972849, IEEE Robotics
and Automation Letters
GUZZI et al.: PATH PLANNING WITH LOCAL MOTION ESTIMATIONS 5
S=0 P
S=1
(a) When the robot collides with an (b) We use the trained model to predict (c) Planning a path through a narrow opening of
obstacle, it inverts the linear speed (here a sequence of five 1 s local motions with 44 cm from various starting poses (robots at the
moving backward) before having reached constant linear and angular speeds: target bottom) to the same target pose (blue circle) shows
the target position (red); from the trajec- poses are colored by success probability that the trained model makes the robot pass on the
tory (blue line), we extract and label many yS (red: low, green high): collisions are left side of the corridor to avoid touching with its
1 s segments (delimited by star markers). correctly identified (red). arm poking out to the right.
Fig. 4: Mighty Thymio pipeline: (a) the robot randomly changes angular speed every 2 s to collect 1 s training samples labeled
according to the occurrence (or not, S ∈ {0, 1}) of a collision; (b) this model predicts the probability of a collision in the next
1 s for given angular and linear speeds, which (c) we use to plan safe trajectories (τ = 0.98) that minimizes duration using
SST. Local knowledge K(q1 ,q2 ) is a grid patch P (orange stroke) of 50 cm around the robot. All drawing are in scale and use
experimental data.
The training dataset contains 70K samples from 7 terrains; B. Mighty Thymio
the validation dataset contains 10K samples from 2 terrains;
a) Robot and environment: The Mighty Thymio [24]
the evaluation dataset contains 8.7K samples from 3 terrains;
is an extension of the small educational robot Thymio [25]
all 12 terrains are distinct.
for research use. It features two differentially driven wheels
and its configuration space C = SE(2) is composed of
input
the robot’s position and orientation. The small mobile robot
dense (64)
target dense (1) moves on the flat floor of a room that has several obsta-
(x, y) output yT cles on the ground (see Figure 1b); to make the planning
flatten / dense (64)
dense (64)
conv (16)
conv (16)
conv (32)
conv (32)
input
dropout
map the robot by adding a rigid arm on its right. The Mighty
dense (32)
dense (2)
patch P
softmax Thymio size is 11 cm × 11 cm × 20 cm, and the arm size is
output yS 10 cm × 2 cm × 0.5 cm. As another application of the model
introduced in Section III, the goal is to learn to predict if the
Fig. 5: Neural Network architecture for ANYmal discussed in robot (whose geometry is assumed unknown) would collide
Section IV-A. Given the robot-centered heightmap patch P and with obstacles during a short motion and use this information
the relative target goal (x, y), the model outputs a probability to plan collision-free paths. We represent environments as
of reaching the target pose and an estimation of the required heightmaps with a resolution of 0.625 cm per pixel; local
time. The architecture used for Mighty Thymio is very similar knowledge is represented by robot-centered 80 px × 80 px
(see Section IV-B). (50 cm × 50 cm) patches P.
b) Local motion: Like ANYmal, the Mighty Thymio
could use a relatively complex planner/controller combination
e) Path planning: We use the trained local motion model to perform arbitrary local motions in free space. Instead,
to compute global paths through a planner, which is derived we present a simpler model that highlights the generality
from RRT* in the same way Algorithm 1 has been derived of our approach; namely, we limit local motions to have
from RRT in Section III-C1. Namely, the planner iteratively constant linear speed v ∈ {−8 cm s−1 , 8 cm s−1 }, angular
samples a random point q and attempts to grow the tree with a speed ω ∈ [−0.5 rad s−1 , 0.5 rad s−1 ], and duration T = 1 s;
motion from the nearest neighbor of q, towards q, on a segment in this case, the local planner is trivial and just executes the
of length δ = 45 cm. If q is closer than δ, the candidate is corresponding control. For every local motion in the training
retained as long as the distance is above 15 cm; otherwise, it set, we record S ∈ {0, 1}, which discriminates whenever a
is discarded. Based on the success score yS returned by the collision occurred during the local motion.
estimator, we assign a risk − log yS to each edge while we c) Dataset collection: We acquire data using a controller
consider any edge with a score lower than a threshold τ = 0.5 that randomly selects a new angular speed every 2 s. Each
as not feasible. We run RRT* to find the path with minimal time a collision occurs, the robot records it and inverts its
survival risk, as defined in Eq. (1); as RRT* is an anytime motion direction (i.e., starts moving backward if it was moving
algorithm that converges towards the optimal solution, we let forward, and vice versa). A motion capture system records the
the tree grow for a given computational time budget. position of all obstacles and the robot. The robot runs for a
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LRA.2020.2972849, IEEE Robotics
and Automation Letters
6 IEEE ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION LETTERS. PREPRINT VERSION. ACCEPTED JANUARY, 2020
total time of 120 min (in 6 different maps), during which about Anymal success Anymal duration Thymio success
1 1
460 collisions were recorded. After the acquisition, we process 15
0.8 0.8
p(S|yS )
p(S|yS )
the data to extract 1 s trajectories with constant controls: we
T [s]
0.6 10 0.6
assign S = 1 to those without collisions, while we assign S = 0 0.4 0.4
to those where a collision occurs (see Figure 4a). In total, we 0.2 5 0.2
0 0
collect a dataset of 104K samples of the form (P, v, ω, S). 0 0.5 1 5 10 0 0.5 1
yS yT [s] yS
d) Training: We adopt the CNN architecture depicted in
Figure 5, with the only difference that the output is only the
Fig. 6: Model evaluation (ground truth vs prediction) on local
success probability (no-collision) of the motion. We generate
motions for ANYmal (8700 samples, left and center) and
the dataset from three disjoint sets of maps: 52K samples were
Mighty Thymio (30K samples, right). In the success plots, we
used for training (3 maps), 20K for validation (1 map), and
group yS in 0.1 width bins. In the duration plot, dots mark
30K for evaluation (2 maps).
the mean value of T for outputs yT grouped in 1 s width bins,
e) Path planning: To take into account the differential
while the grey area is delimited by ± one standard deviation.
constraints of the robot’s motion, we use a variant of SST,
Perfect models are represented by dashed black lines.
which samples control inputs to reach a local target point.
More precisely, SST iteratively samples a random pose q ∈
SE(2) and several control inputs, among which it selects the dataset; the corresponding performance scores are listed in the
one that would lead the robot nearest to q from its nearest evaluation row of grey columns (related to testing single local
neighbor; the planner then adds an edge to the tree only if it motions) in Table I (AUC = 0.889). The model is very well
decreases the local cost-to-come. We discard any edge with calibrated for both outputs.
a success probability lower than τ = 0.98 and assign a fixed
cost of 1 (i.e., proportional to their duration) to feasible edges. TABLE I: ANYmal model evaluation for success prediction:
SST is an anytime algorithm that converges towards a nearly number of samples for the two classes and Area Under the
optimal solution; therefore, we let the tree grow for a fixed ROC (AUC). The columns contain the results for single local
amount of computational time. motions e (gray), paths π between random source and target
locations on selected maps (white), and all subpaths subπ
V. E XPERIMENTAL RESULTS extracted from such paths (blue).
How well are we able to predict the outcome of local dataset # successes # failures AUC
motions? Are the local models useful for path planning? Are e π subπ e π subπ e π subπ
the assumptions we made in Section III justified? In particular, evaluation 7.30K - - 1.40K - - 0.889 - -
are we justified to interpret yS as the success probability for rough map 18.4K 562 297K 185 185 49.7K 0.878 0.904 0.912
local motions and use it to compute the success probability surf map 22.4K 564 431K 237 237 63.5K 0.962 0.962 0.952
for an entire path? In this section, we present experimental
results that partially answer these questions for the two setups 2) Mighty Thymio: Similarly, we report in Table II and
introduced in Section IV. Figure 6:right the results for the Mighty Thymio model pre-
Qualitative tests, like those illustrated in Figures 3b and 4b, dicting success probability (AUC = 0.972). During data col-
show that the learned model’s predictions are coherent with lection, the robot had a relatively small number of collisions,
the map: the ANYmal model correctly estimates that motions which lead to training and evaluation datasets that are very
that step over the short wall are risky; the Mighty Thymio unbalanced (one failed sample every 25 successful samples),
model correctly predicts collisions. Similarly, computing paths which could explain the inferior calibration (compared to the
between hand-picked locations on interesting maps, like in ANYmal model) of a model that tends to overestimate the
Figures 3c and 4c, shows that the planner computes sensible success probability. Nonetheless, the model, with a threshold
paths: ANYmal avoids high steps and slopes, and Mighty τ = 0.98, yields a precision of 99.7% and a recall of 96.1%,
Thymio (with an arm on the right) stays on the left side of a which prove to be good enough for planning on our maps.
corridor to avoid collisions. The video in the supplementary
TABLE II: Mighty Thymio model evaluation: number of
material contains several examples of planned paths and their
samples for the two classes, Area Under the ROC (AUC),
executions.
and success probability for scores above τ = 0.98, which
In the rest of this section, we report quantitative, statistically
is the threshold we use to compute the plans according to
significant results. First, we present metrics on the evaluation
Section IV-B.
datasets for the prediction of local motions. Then, we report
results for the planned paths, focusing on the ANYmal case, successes failures AUC P(S = 1|yS > 0.98)
for which we gathered a large number of executed samples in 28913 1087 0.972 0.997
simulation.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LRA.2020.2972849, IEEE Robotics
and Automation Letters
GUZZI et al.: PATH PLANNING WITH LOCAL MOTION ESTIMATIONS 7
plan a path: we compute and then execute many paths between Table I compares the prediction performance of success for
target and source locations for the simulated ANYmal. In single segments, source-target paths, and all their subpaths. For
particular, we randomly sample 1000 pairs of source and both maps, the AUC is similar across the different datasets.3
target states in two different maps (rough and surf ) of size Performance on the rough map is comparable to the evaluation
10 m × 10 m illustrated at the top of Figure 8: we reject any dataset of single segments discussed before, while predictions
pair outside of the green areas (where we expect a successful on the surf map are easier.
spawning of the simulated robot) and any pair with a distance
shorter than 3 m. The two maps have not been used to train or rough map surf map
evaluate the model and have been hand-designed as realistic
(rough) and easy legible (surf, with a smooth, gradual slope)
outdoor terrains.
One evaluation of the model requires about 1 ms on a single,
modern desktop, CPU. We fix the RRT* planning duration to
120 s, which is sufficient to cover the maps with a granularity
of δ = 0.45 m, resulting in trees with about 10K edges and 10 0.8 10 1
that require about 100K model evaluations. 8 0.6 8 0.8
6 6 0.6
[m]
[m]
0.4
4 4 0.4
10 2 0.2 2 0.2
yS = 0.14, S = 0
yT = 157 s 0 0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
[m] [m]
8 success success
1 1
p(S|yS ) 0.8 0.8
p(S|yS )
yS = 0.90, S = 1 0.6 0.6
6 yT = 246 s, T = 265 s
0.4 0.4
[m]
0.2 0.2
0 0
4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
yS yS
e10 duration duration
e11 e20
2 400 400
T [s]
T [s]
yS = 0.57, S = 1
yT = 271 s, T = 293 s 200 200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 0
[m] 0 200 400 0 200 400
yT [s] yT [s]
Fig. 7: Three samples of paths from source (cyan arrow) to
target (blue arrow) and their execution on the rough map: Fig. 8: ANYmal model evaluation on about 400K subpaths
one failure (partly red) and two successes (all blue). For for two maps (rough left and surf right). The first row shows
any execution, we record ground truth and model prediction the 3D view of the terrain with a correctly sized robot. The
(yellow). Because of stochastic interactions with the terrain, second row depicts the heightmap (in meters) with spawning
multiple runs may have different outcomes; for examples, 30 areas in green. In the plots, dots marks mean values for binned
trials of the bottom path result in 14 failures and 16 successes, prediction outputs, while the area on the bottom plots covers
for which P(S = 1) ≈ 0.53 is remarkably near to the predicted ± one standard deviation.
value yS = 0.57, with failures distributed in 3 out of 34
segments (e10 : 7, e11 : 3, e20 : 4). Figure 8 illustrates the quality of the prediction when
applied to subpaths. In general, the success score is well
calibrated although it tends to overestimate the success chance
As illustrated2 in Figure 7, for any planned path, we spawn
of risky paths (i.e., those with low score); the model is better
the robot at the source location and pass the sequence of
calibrated on the rough map than on surf, which is smoother
intermediate target poses to the controller. We record the
but has steeper slopes. Instead, the duration of subpaths
success and duration of each segment of the path: in about
is systematically underestimated; we believe that this is an
80% of the cases the robot arrives safely at the target, while
artifact: in training, we record the time until a single pose
in the remaining cases we observe a failure to complete one
is reached, which may happen while the robot has not fully
segment. To increase the number of (path) samples (from 1K
stopped yet; instead, during path execution, the controller waits
to around 400K), from any path we extract all subpaths that
until the robot is still to start moving towards the next pose.
start before a failure (if any): each subpath has well-defined
Nonetheless, the error is relatively small at around 5%.
ground truth labels and predictions for success and duration.
3 We note that the vast majority of the segments along a path are successful,
2 The
supplementary video captures ANYmal planning queries on the surf which leads to local motions datasets on rough and surf that are significantly
map too and planning queries for Mighty Thymio. unbalanced.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/LRA.2020.2972849, IEEE Robotics
and Automation Letters
8 IEEE ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION LETTERS. PREPRINT VERSION. ACCEPTED JANUARY, 2020
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.