ROBOTIC TRAINING APPARATUS AND METHODS
Apparatus and methods for training of robotic devices. Robotic devices may be trained by a user guiding the robot along target trajectory using an input signal. A robotic device may comprise an adaptive controller configured to generate control commands based on one or more of the user guidance, sensory input, and/or performance measure. Training may comprise a plurality of trials. During first trial, the user input may be sufficient to cause the robot to complete the trajectory. During subsequent trials, the user and the robot's controller may collaborate so that user input may be reduced while the robot control may be increased. Individual contributions from the user and the robot controller during training may be may be inadequate (when used exclusively) to complete the task. Upon learning, user's knowledge may be transferred to the robot's controller to enable task execution in absence of subsequent inputs from the user
This application is a continuation of and claims priority to co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/918,338 of the same title filed Jun. 14, 2013, and issuing as U.S. Pat. No. 9,384,443 on Jul. 5, 2016, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONSThis application is related to co-pending and co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/918,298 entitled “HIERARCHICAL ROBOTIC CONTROLLER APPARATUS AND METHODS”, filed herewith, co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/918,620 entitled “PREDICTIVE ROBOTIC CONTROLLER APPARATUS AND METHODS”, filed Jun. 14, 2013 (now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,314,924), co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/907,734 entitled “ADAPTIVE ROBOTIC INTERFACE APPARATUS AND METHODS”, filed May 31, 2013 (now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,242,372), co-pending and co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/842,530 entitled “ADAPTIVE PREDICTOR APPARATUS AND METHODS”, filed Mar. 15, 2013, co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/842,562 entitled “ADAPTIVE PREDICTOR APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR ROBOTIC CONTROL”, filed Mar. 15, 2013, co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/842,616 entitled “ROBOTIC APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR DEVELOPING A HIERARCHY OF MOTOR PRIMITIVES”, filed Mar. 15, 2013, co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/842,647 entitled “MULTICHANNEL ROBOTIC CONTROLLER APPARATUS AND METHODS”, filed Mar. 15, 2013, and co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/842,583 entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR TRAINING OF ROBOTIC DEVICES”, filed Mar. 15, 2013, each of the foregoing being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
COPYRIGHTA portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material that is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent files or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
BACKGROUNDTechnological Field
The present disclosure relates to adaptive control and training of robotic devices.
Background
Robotic devices are used in a variety of applications, such as manufacturing, medical, safety, military, exploration, and/or other applications. Some existing robotic devices (e.g., manufacturing assembly and/or packaging) may be programmed in order to perform desired functionality. Some robotic devices (e.g., surgical robots) may be remotely controlled by humans, while some robots (e.g., iRobot Roomba®) may learn to operate via exploration.
Programming robots may be costly and remote control may require a human operator. Furthermore, changes in the robot model and/or environment may require changes in the programming code. Remote control typically relies on user experience and/or agility that may be inadequate when dynamics of the control system and/or environment (e.g., an unexpected obstacle appears in path of a remotely controlled vehicle) change rapidly.
SUMMARYOne aspect of the disclosure relates to a computerized controller apparatus configured to effectuate control of a robotic device. The apparatus comprises one or more processors configured to execute computer program modules. Executing the computer program modules may cause one or more processors to: (1) during a first training trial of a plurality of trials: determine a first signal based on a characteristic of an input provided to the controller apparatus by the robotic device; and cause the robotic device to perform a first action based on a first control signal, the first control signal being determined based on the first signal and a first user input, the first action being characterized by a first performance measure; and (2) during a second training trial of the plurality of training trials, the second training train being subsequent to the first training trial: determine a second signal based on the characteristic of the input and a first error, the first error being determined based on a proximity measure between the first action and a target action; and cause the robotic device to perform a second action based on a second control signal, the second control signal being determined based on the second signal and a second user input, the second action being characterized by a second error, the second error being determined based on a proximity measure between the second action and the target action. The second error may be smaller than the first error. The first error may be greater than a third error corresponding to a third action performed by the robotic device responsive to a third control signal configured based solely on the first user input.
In some implementations, the computer program modules may be executable to cause one or more processors to: during a third training trial of the plurality of trials, the third training trial being subsequent to the second training trial: determine a third signal based on the characteristic of the input and the second error; and cause the robotic device to perform a fourth action based on a fourth control signal, the fourth control signal being determined based on the third signal but absent user input, the fourth action being characterized by a fourth error, the fourth error being determined based on a proximity measure between the fourth action and the target action, the fourth error being lower than the first error.
In some implementations, the robotic device may comprise a motor configured to receive an operational directive capable of causing displacement of the motor. The user input may comprise one or more operational directives configured in accordance with the target action.
In some implementations, the robotic device may comprise a motor configured to receive an operational directive comprising an electrical signal characterized by one or more of amplitude, polarity, frequency, duration, or periodicity. The user input may comprise one or more operational directives configured in accordance with the target action.
In some implementations, the plurality of trials may comprise more than ten trials. Individual ones of the plurality of trials may be spaced by time intervals that are at most ten percent of duration of the plurality of trials. For a given iteration of the plurality of iterations, the computer program modules may be executable to cause one or more processors to effectuate the control of the robotic device based on a combination of the user input and a controller-generated signal configured based on the characteristic.
In some implementations, the first user input associated with the first trial may be characterized by a first signal parameter. The first signal parameter may be selected from the group consisting of signal amplitude, signal duration, signal periodicity, signal polarity, signal phase, and signal frequency. The second user input associated with the second trial may be characterized by a second signal parameter. The first signal parameter may be selected from the group consisting of signal amplitude, signal duration, signal periodicity, signal polarity, signal phase, and signal frequency. The second parameter may be different from the first parameter.
In some implementations, the first trial and the second trial may be characterized by one or both of different trial duration or a different inter-trial interval.
Another aspect of the disclosure relates to a robotic apparatus. The robotic apparatus may comprise a platform and a controller. The platform may comprise one or more controllable elements. The controller may comprise one or more processors configured to execute computer program modules configured to operate individual ones of the one or more controllable elements. The computer program modules may comprise a first logic module a second logic module, and a third logic module. The first logic module may be configured to receive a first input from a human. The second logic module may be configured to analyze the first input and to cause the platform to execute an action in accordance with the first input. The third logic module may be configured to receive a second input from the human subsequent to receipt of the first input. The second input may be configured to cause a corrected action by the platform. The corrected action may be characterized by a lower deviation from a target action. The action execution may be based on operation of individual ones of the one or more controllable elements.
In some implementations, the target action may correspond to operation of the platform based on teaching input from the human. The analysis of the first input may comprise determining a deviation between the first action and the target action data. The analysis may be configured to cause modification of a controller state in accordance with a learning process configured based on the performance measure.
In some implementations, the second logic module may comprise a predictor sub-module configured to determine a predicted control output based on a characteristic of sensory signal. The sensory signal may convey information associated with one or both of an environment of the robotic apparatus and a platform state. The first input and the second input may be configured based on the sensory signal. The action may be configured based on the predicted control output.
In some implementations, the predictor sub-module may be configured to provide a table configured to store a plurality of human inputs, a plurality of sensory signal characteristics, and a plurality of predicted control outputs. The analysis may comprise a selection of a given predicted control output based on a match between a given characteristic of sensory signal and an individual one of the plurality of sensory signal characteristics.
In some implementations, the given predicted control may be configured based on a search of the table. The search may be configured based on the user input.
In some implementations, the third logic module may comprise a combiner sub-module configured to determine a combined output based on the predicted control output and first user input. The combined output may be characterized by a transform function configured to combine the predicted control output and the first signal via one or more operations including an additive operation.
In some implementations, the transform function may be configured to combine the predicted control output and the control output via one or more operations including a union operation.
In some implementations, the learning process may comprise a supervised learning process configured based on the combined output. The learning process may be configured to be updated at time intervals. The modification of the controller may be based on an error measure between (i) the predicted control output generated at a first time instance and (ii) the first input determined at second time instance subsequent to the first time instance. The first time instance and the second time instance may be separated by one of the time intervals.
In some implementations, the corrected action may be effectuated based on a cooperative interaction with the human. The cooperative interaction may be characterized by a plurality of iterations. The first input may correspond to a first given iteration of the plurality of iterations. The second input may correspond to a second given iteration of the plurality of iterations. The second given iteration may occur subsequent to the first given iteration.
In some implementations, the second logic module may comprise a predictor sub-module configured to determine a plurality of predicted control outputs based on a characteristic of a sensory signal and a given user input. The sensory signal may be configured to convey information about one or both of an environment of the robotic apparatus and a platform state. The first input and the second input may be configured based on the sensory signal. The action may be configured based on a first predicted control output of the plurality of predicted control outputs. The first predicted control output may correspond to the first input. The corrected action may be configured based on second predicted control output of the plurality of predicted control outputs. The second predicted control output may correspond to the second input. The corrected action may be characterized by improved performance as compared to the action and a target action. The improved performance may be quantified based on a lower deviation of the corrected action from the target action compared to deviation between the action and the target action. The target action may be based solely on a training input by the human absent predicted control output.
Yet another aspect of the disclosure relates to a computerized robotic controller apparatus. The apparatus may comprise one or more processors configured to execute computer program modules. The computer program modules may be executable to cause one or more processors to: for a given iteration of a plurality of iterations: generate a first signal based on a sensory context; receive a second signal from a user associated with a target action configured based on the sensory context; and utilize the first signal and the second signal to perform an action. The plurality of iterations may be configured to occur within a time interval characterized by duration. A subsequent iteration of the plurality of iterations may be configured to cause the action to be closer to the target action. Upon expiration of the duration, the first signal may be configured to perform the action absent the second signal.
In some implementations, individual ones of the plurality of iterations may be spaced by time intervals that are at ten percent of the duration or less. The plurality of iterations may include more than seven iterations.
Still another aspect of the disclosure relates to a method of training a computerized robotic apparatus to perform a target action based on sensory context. The training may be effectuated via a plurality of iterations. The method may comprise: during a first iteration: causing the apparatus to generate a first control signal based on the sensory context; causing the apparatus to execute a first action based on the first control signal and a user input received from a user, the user input being indicative of the target action; and causing the apparatus to adjust a learning parameter based on a first performance determined based on the first action and the target action; and during a subsequent iteration: causing the apparatus to generate a second control signal based on the sensory context and the adjusted learning parameter; causing the apparatus to execute a second action based on the second control signal, the second action being characterized by a second performance. The plurality of iterations may be configured to occur within a time interval characterized by duration. The first iteration and the subsequent iteration may be separated by the duration. A provision of the user input during the subsequent iteration may be configured to cause the controller to execute a third action characterized by a third performance value. The second action may be configured closer to the target action as compared to the third action.
In some implementations, the performance measure may be determined by the apparatus. The first performance value may be lower than the second performance value.
In some implementations, the learning parameter adjustment may be configured based on a supervised learning process configured based on the sensory context and a combination of the control signal and the user input. The third performance value may be lower than the second performance value.
These and other objects, features, and characteristics of the present invention, as well as the methods of operation and functions of the related elements of structure and the combination of parts and economies of manufacture, will become more apparent upon consideration of the following description and the appended claims with reference to the accompanying drawings, all of which form a part of this specification, wherein like reference numerals designate corresponding parts in the various figures. It is to be expressly understood, however, that the drawings are for the purpose of illustration and description only and are not intended as a definition of the limits of the invention. As used in the specification and in the claims, the singular form of “a”, “an”, and “the” include plural referents unless the context clearly dictates otherwise.
All Figures disclosed herein are © Copyright 2016 Brain Corporation. All rights reserved.
DETAILED DESCRIPTIONImplementations of the present technology will now be described in detail with reference to the drawings, which are provided as illustrative examples so as to enable those skilled in the art to practice the technology. Notably, the figures and examples below are not meant to limit the scope of the present disclosure to a single implementation, but other implementations are possible by way of interchange of or combination with some or all of the described or illustrated elements. Wherever convenient, the same reference numbers will be used throughout the drawings to refer to same or like parts.
Where certain elements of these implementations can be partially or fully implemented using known components, only those portions of such known components that are necessary for an understanding of the present technology will be described, and detailed descriptions of other portions of such known components will be omitted so as not to obscure the disclosure.
In the present specification, an implementation showing a singular component should not be considered limiting; rather, the disclosure is intended to encompass other implementations including a plurality of the same component, and vice-versa, unless explicitly stated otherwise herein.
Further, the present disclosure encompasses present and future known equivalents to the components referred to herein by way of illustration.
As used herein, the term “bus” is meant generally to denote all types of interconnection or communication architecture that is used to access the synaptic and neuron memory. The “bus” may be optical, wireless, infrared, and/or another type of communication medium. The exact topology of the bus could be for example standard “bus”, hierarchical bus, network-on-chip, address-event-representation (AER) connection, and/or other type of communication topology used for accessing, e.g., different memories in pulse-based system.
As used herein, the terms “computer”, “computing device”, and “computerized device “may include one or more of personal computers (PCs) and/or minicomputers (e.g., desktop, laptop, and/or other PCs), mainframe computers, workstations, servers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), handheld computers, embedded computers, programmable logic devices, personal communicators, tablet computers, portable navigation aids, J2ME equipped devices, cellular telephones, smart phones, personal integrated communication and/or entertainment devices, and/or any other device capable of executing a set of instructions and processing an incoming data signal.
As used herein, the term “computer program” or “software” may include any sequence of human and/or machine cognizable steps which perform a function. Such program may be rendered in a programming language and/or environment including one or more of C/C++, C#, Fortran, COBOL, MATLAB™, PASCAL, Python, assembly language, markup languages (e.g., HTML, SGML, XML, VoXML), object-oriented environments (e.g., Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA)), Java™ (e.g., J2ME, Java Beans), Binary Runtime Environment (e.g., BREW), and/or other programming languages and/or environments.
As used herein, the terms “connection”, “link”, “transmission channel”, “delay line”, “wireless” may include a causal link between any two or more entities (whether physical or logical/virtual), which may enable information exchange between the entities.
As used herein, the term “memory” may include an integrated circuit and/or other storage device adapted for storing digital data. By way of non-limiting example, memory may include one or more of ROM, PROM, EEPROM, DRAM, Mobile DRAM, SDRAM, DDR/2 SDRAM, EDO/FPMS, RLDRAM, SRAM, “flash” memory (e.g., NAND/NOR), memristor memory, PSRAM, and/or other types of memory.
As used herein, the terms “integrated circuit”, “chip”, and “IC” are meant to refer to an electronic circuit manufactured by the patterned diffusion of trace elements into the surface of a thin substrate of semiconductor material. By way of non-limiting example, integrated circuits may include field programmable gate arrays (e.g., FPGAs), a programmable logic device (PLD), reconfigurable computer fabrics (RCFs), application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), and/or other types of integrated circuits.
As used herein, the terms “microprocessor” and “digital processor” are meant generally to include digital processing devices. By way of non-limiting example, digital processing devices may include one or more of digital signal processors (DSPs), reduced instruction set computers (RISC), general-purpose (CISC) processors, microprocessors, gate arrays (e.g., field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs)), PLDs, reconfigurable computer fabrics (RCFs), array processors, secure microprocessors, application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs), and/or other digital processing devices. Such digital processors may be contained on a single unitary IC die, or distributed across multiple components.
As used herein, the term “network interface” refers to any signal, data, and/or software interface with a component, network, and/or process. By way of non-limiting example, a network interface may include one or more of FireWire (e.g., FW400, FW800, etc.), USB (e.g., USB2), Ethernet (e.g., 10/100, 10/100/1000 (Gigabit Ethernet), 10-Gig-E, etc.), MoCA, Coaxsys (e.g., TVnet™), radio frequency tuner (e.g., in-band or OOB, cable modem, etc.), Wi-Fi (802.11), WiMAX (802.16), PAN (e.g., 802.15), cellular (e.g., 3G, LTE/LTE-A/TD-LTE, GSM, etc.), IrDA families, and/or other network interfaces.
As used herein, the terms “node”, “neuron”, and “neuronal node” are meant to refer, without limitation, to a network unit (e.g., a spiking neuron and a set of synapses configured to provide input signals to the neuron) having parameters that are subject to adaptation in accordance with a model.
As used herein, the terms “state” and “node state” is meant generally to denote a full (or partial) set of dynamic variables (e.g., a membrane potential, firing threshold and/or other) used to describe state of a network node.
As used herein, the term “synaptic channel”, “connection”, “link”, “transmission channel”, “delay line”, and “communications channel” include a link between any two or more entities (whether physical (wired or wireless), or logical/virtual) which enables information exchange between the entities, and may be characterized by a one or more variables affecting the information exchange.
As used herein, the term “Wi-Fi” includes one or more of IEEE-Std. 802.11, variants of IEEE-Std. 802.11, standards related to IEEE-Std. 802.11 (e.g., 802.11 a/b/g/n/s/v), and/or other wireless standards.
As used herein, the term “wireless” means any wireless signal, data, communication, and/or other wireless interface. By way of non-limiting example, a wireless interface may include one or more of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, 3G (3GPP/3GPP2), HSDPA/HSUPA, TDMA, CDMA (e.g., IS-95A, WCDMA, etc.), FHSS, DSSS, GSM, PAN/802.15, WiMAX (802.16), 802.20, narrowband/FDMA, OFDM, PCS/DCS, LTE/LTE-A/TD-LTE, analog cellular, CDPD, satellite systems, millimeter wave or microwave systems, acoustic, infrared (i.e., IrDA), and/or other wireless interfaces.
The controller 102 may be operable in accordance with a learning process (e.g., reinforcement learning and/or supervised learning). In one or more implementations, the controller 102 may optimize performance (e.g., performance of the system 100 of
Learning process of adaptive controller (e.g., 102 of
Individual spiking neurons may be characterized by internal state q. The internal state q may, for example, comprise a membrane voltage of the neuron, conductance of the membrane, and/or other parameters. The neuron process may be characterized by one or more learning parameter which may comprise input connection efficacy, output connection efficacy, training input connection efficacy, response generating (firing) threshold, resting potential of the neuron, and/or other parameters. In one or more implementations, some learning parameters may comprise probabilities of signal transmission between the units (e.g., neurons) of the network.
In some implementations, the training input (e.g., 104 in
During operation (e.g., subsequent to learning): data (e.g., spike events) arriving to neurons of the network may cause changes in the neuron state (e.g., increase neuron membrane potential and/or other parameters). Changes in the neuron state may cause the neuron to generate a response (e.g., output a spike). Teaching data may be absent during operation, while input data are required for the neuron to generate output.
In one or more implementations, such as object recognition, and/or obstacle avoidance, the input 106 may comprise a stream of pixel values associated with one or more digital images. In one or more implementations of e.g., video, radar, sonography, x-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or other types of sensing, the input may comprise electromagnetic waves (e.g., visible light, IR, UV, and/or other types of electromagnetic waves) entering an imaging sensor array. In some implementations, the imaging sensor array may comprise one or more of RGCs, a charge coupled device (CCD), an active-pixel sensor (APS), and/or other sensors. The input signal may comprise a sequence of images and/or image frames. The sequence of images and/or image frame may be received from a CCD camera via a receiver apparatus and/or downloaded from a file. The image may comprise a two-dimensional matrix of RGB values refreshed at a 25 Hz frame rate. It will be appreciated by those skilled in the arts that the above image parameters are merely exemplary, and many other image representations (e.g., bitmap, CMYK, HSV, HSL, grayscale, and/or other representations) and/or frame rates are equally useful with the present invention. Pixels and/or groups of pixels associated with objects and/or features in the input frames may be encoded using, for example, latency encoding described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/869,583, filed Aug. 26, 2010 and entitled “INVARIANT PULSE LATENCY CODING SYSTEMS AND METHODS”, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,467,623 on Jun. 18, 2013; co-owned U.S. Pat. No. 8,315,305, issued Nov. 20, 2012, entitled “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INVARIANT PULSE LATENCY CODING”; co-owned and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/152,084, filed Jun. 2, 2011, entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR PULSE-CODE INVARIANT OBJECT RECOGNITION”; and/or latency encoding comprising a temporal winner take all mechanism described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/757,607, filed Feb. 1, 2013 and entitled “TEMPORAL WINNER TAKES ALL SPIKING NEURON NETWORK SENSORY PROCESSING APPARATUS AND METHODS”, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,070,039 on Jun. 30, 2015, each of the foregoing being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
In one or more implementations, object recognition and/or classification may be implemented using spiking neuron classifier comprising conditionally independent subsets as described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/756,372 filed Jan. 31, 2013, and entitled “SPIKING NEURON CLASSIFIER APPARATUS AND METHODS USING CONDITIONALLY INDEPENDENT SUBSETS” (which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,195,934 on Nov. 24, 2015), and/or co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/756,382 filed Jan. 31, 2013, and entitled “REDUCED LATENCY SPIKING NEURON CLASSIFIER APPARATUS AND METHODS”, each of the foregoing being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
In one or more implementations, encoding may comprise adaptive adjustment of neuron parameters, such neuron excitability described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/623,820 entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR ENCODING OF SENSORY DATA USING ARTIFICIAL SPIKING NEURONS”, filed Sep. 20, 2012, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,047,568 on Jun. 2, 2015, the foregoing being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
In some implementations, analog inputs may be converted into spikes using, for example, kernel expansion techniques described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/623,842 filed Sep. 20, 2012, and entitled “SPIKING NEURON NETWORK ADAPTIVE CONTROL APPARATUS AND METHODS”, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,367,798 on Jun. 14, 2016, the foregoing being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. In one or more implementations, analog and/or spiking inputs may be processed by mixed signal spiking neurons, such as co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/313,826 entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR IMPLEMENTING LEARNING FOR ANALOG AND SPIKING SIGNALS IN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS”, filed Dec. 7, 2011, and/or co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/761,090 entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR GATING ANALOG AND SPIKING SIGNALS IN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS”, filed Feb. 6, 2013, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,213,937 on Dec. 15, 2015, each of the foregoing being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
The rules may be configured to implement synaptic plasticity in the network. In some implementations, the plastic rules may comprise one or more spike-timing dependent plasticity, such as rule comprising feedback described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/465,903 entitled “SENSORY INPUT PROCESSING APPARATUS IN A SPIKING NEURAL NETWORK”, filed May 7, 2012, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,224,090 on Dec. 29, 2015; rules configured to modify of feed forward plasticity due to the activity of neighboring neurons, described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/488,106, entitled “SPIKING NEURON NETWORK APPARATUS AND METHODS”, filed Jun. 4, 2012 and now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,098,811 on Aug. 4, 2015; conditional plasticity rules described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/541,531, entitled “CONDITIONAL PLASTICITY SPIKING NEURON NETWORK APPARATUS AND METHODS”, filed Jul. 3, 2012 and now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,111,215 on Aug. 18, 2015; plasticity configured to stabilize neuron response rate as described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/691,554, entitled “RATE STABILIZATION THROUGH PLASTICITY IN SPIKING NEURON NETWORK”, filed Nov. 30, 2012, and now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,275,326 on Mar. 1, 2016; activity-based plasticity rules described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/660,967, entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR ACTIVITY-BASED PLASTICITY IN A SPIKING NEURON NETWORK”, filed Oct. 25, 2012 and now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,972,315 on Mar. 3, 2015, co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/660,945, entitled “MODULATED PLASTICITY APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR SPIKING NEURON NETWORK”, filed Oct. 25, 2012 and now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,111,226 on Aug. 18, 2015; and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/774,934, entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR RATE-MODULATED PLASTICITY IN A SPIKING NEURON NETWORK”, filed Feb. 22, 2013; multi-modal rules described in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/763,005, entitled “SPIKING NETWORK APPARATUS AND METHOD WITH BIMODAL SPIKE-TIMING DEPENDENT PLASTICITY”, filed Feb. 8, 2013, each of the foregoing being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
In one or more implementations, neuron operation may be configured based on one or more inhibitory connections providing input configured to delay and/or depress response generation by the neuron, as described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/660,923, entitled “ADAPTIVE PLASTICITY APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR SPIKING NEURON NETWORK”, filed Oct. 25, 2012, the foregoing being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety
Connection efficacy updated may be effectuated using a variety of applicable methodologies such as, for example, event based updates described in detail in co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/239,255, filed Sep. 21, 2011, entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR SYNAPTIC UPDATE IN A PULSE-CODED NETWORK”; co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/588,774, entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR IMPLEMENTING EVENT-BASED UPDATES IN SPIKING NEURON NETWORKS”, filed Aug. 17, 2012; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/560,891 entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR EFFICIENT UPDATES IN SPIKING NEURON NETWORK”, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,256,823 each of the foregoing being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Neuron process may comprise one or more learning rules configured to adjust neuron state and/or generate neuron output in accordance with neuron inputs.
In some implementations, the one or more leaning rules may comprise state dependent learning rules described, for example, in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/560,902, entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR STATE-DEPENDENT LEARNING IN SPIKING NEURON NETWORKS”, filed Jul. 27, 2012, and now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,256,215 on Feb. 9, 2016, and/or co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/722,769 filed Dec. 20, 2012, and entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR STATE-DEPENDENT LEARNING IN SPIKING NEURON NETWORKS”, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,990,133 on Mar. 24, 2015, each of the foregoing being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
In one or more implementations, the one or more learning rules may be configured to comprise one or more reinforcement learning, unsupervised learning, and/or supervised learning as described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/487,499 entitled “STOCHASTIC APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR IMPLEMENTING GENERALIZED LEARNING RULES, filed Jun. 4, 2012 and now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,104,186 on Aug. 11, 2015, incorporated supra.
In one or more implementations, the one or more learning rules may be configured in accordance with focused exploration rules such as described, for example, in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/489,280 entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR REINFORCEMENT LEARNING IN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS”, filed Jun. 5, 2012, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,943,008 on Jan. 27, 2015, the foregoing being incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Adaptive controller (e.g., the controller apparatus 102 of
The control entity 212 may be configured to generate control signal 208 based on one or more of (i) sensory input (denoted 206 in
The adaptive predictor 222 may be configured to generate predicted control signal uP 218 based on one or more of (i) the sensory input 206 and the plant feedback 216_1. The predictor 222 may be configured to adapt its internal parameters, e.g., according to a supervised learning rule, and/or other machine learning rules.
Predictor realizations, comprising plant feedback, may be employed in applications such as, for example, wherein (i) the control action may comprise a sequence of purposefully timed commands (e.g., associated with approaching a stationary target (e.g., a cup) by a robotic manipulator arm); and (ii) the plant may be characterized by a plant state time parameter (e.g., arm inertia, and/or motor response time) that may be greater than the rate of action updates. Parameters of a subsequent command within the sequence may depend on the plant state (e.g., the exact location and/or position of the arm joints) that may become available to the predictor via the plant feedback.
The sensory input and/or the plant feedback may collectively be referred to as sensory context. The context may be utilized by the predictor 222 in order to produce the predicted output 218. By way of a non-limiting illustration of obstacle avoidance by an autonomous rover, an image of an obstacle (e.g., wall representation in the sensory input 206) may be combined with rover motion (e.g., speed and/or direction) to generate Context_A. When the Context_A is encountered, the control output 220 may comprise one or more commands configured to avoid a collision between the rover and the obstacle. Based on one or more prior encounters of the Context_A—avoidance control output, the predictor may build an association between these events as described in detail below.
The combiner 214 may implement a transfer function h( ) configured to combine the control signal 208 and the predicted control signal 218. In some implementations, the combiner 214 operation may be expressed as described in detail in co-owned and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/842,530 entitled “ADAPTIVE PREDICTOR APPARATUS AND METHODS”, filed Mar. 15, 2013, as follows:
û=h(u,uP). (Eqn. 1)
Various realization of the transfer function of Eqn. 1 may be utilized. In some implementations, the transfer function may comprise addition operation, union, a logical ‘AND’ operation, and/or other operations.
In one or more implementations, the transfer function may comprise a convolution operation. In spiking network realizations of the combiner function, the convolution operation may be supplemented by use of a finite support kernel such as Gaussian, rectangular, exponential, and/or other finite support kernel. Such a kernel may implement a low pass filtering operation of input spike train(s). In some implementations, the transfer function may be characterized by a commutative property configured such that:
û=h(u,uP)=h(uP,u). (Eqn. 2)
In one or more implementations, the transfer function of the combiner 214 may be configured as follows:
h(0,uP)=uP. (Eqn. 3)
In one or more implementations, the transfer function h may be configured as:
h(u,0)=u. (Eqn. 4)
In some implementations, the transfer function h may be configured as a combination of realizations of Eqn. 3-Eqn. 4 as:
h(0,uP)=uP, and h(u,0)=u, (Eqn. 5)
In one exemplary implementation, the transfer function satisfying Eqn. 5 may be expressed as:
h(u,uP)=(1−u)×(1−uP)−1. (Eqn. 6)
In one such realization, the combiner transfer function configured according to Eqn. 3-Eqn. 6, thereby implementing an additive feedback. In other words, output of the predictor (e.g., 218) may be additively combined with the control signal (208) and the combined signal 220 may be used as the teaching input (204) for the predictor. In some implementations, the combined signal 220 may be utilized as an input (context) signal 228 into the predictor 222.
In some implementations, the combiner transfer function may be characterized by a delay expressed as:
{circumflex over (u)}(ti+1)=h(u(ti),uP(ti)). (Eqn. 7)
In Eqn. 7, û(ti+i) denotes combined output (e.g., 220 in
It will be appreciated by those skilled in the arts that various other realizations of the transfer function of the combiner 214 (e.g., comprising a Heaviside step function, a sigmoidal function, such as the hyperbolic tangent, Gauss error function, or logistic function, and/or a stochastic operation) may be applicable.
Operation of the predictor 222 learning process may be aided by a teaching signal 204. As shown in
ud=û. (Eqn. 8)
In some implementations wherein the combiner transfer function may be characterized by a delay τ (e.g., Eqn. 7), the teaching signal at time ti may be configured based on values of u, uP at a prior time ti−1, for example as:
ud(ti)=h(u(ti−1),uP(ti−1)). (Eqn. 9)
The training signal ud at time ti may be utilized by the predictor in order to determine the predicted output uP at a subsequent time ti+1, corresponding to the context (e.g., the sensory input x) at time ti:
uP(ti+1)=F[xi,W(ud(ti))]. (Eqn. 10)
In Eqn. 10, the function W may refer to a learning process implemented by the predictor. In one or more implementations, such as illustrated in
Output 220 of the combiner e.g., 214 in
In some implementations of spiking signal output, the combiner 214 may comprise a spiking neuron network; and the control signal 208 may be communicated via two or more connections. One such connection may be configured to communicate spikes indicative of a control command to the combiner neuron; the other connection may be used to communicate an inhibitory signal to the combiner network. The inhibitory signal may inhibit one or more neurons of the combiner the one or more combiner input neurons of the combiner network thereby effectively removing the predicted control signal from the combined output (e.g., 220 in
The gating information may be provided to the combiner via a connection 224 from another entity (e.g., a human operator controlling the system with a remote control, and/or external controller) and/or from another output from the controller 212 (e.g. an adapting block, or an optimal controller). In one or more implementations, the gating information delivered via the connection 224 may comprise one or more of: a command, a memory address of a register storing a flag, a message, an inhibitory efficacy, a value (e.g., a weight of zero to be applied to the predicted control signal 218 by the combiner), and/or other information capable of conveying gating instructions to the combiner.
The gating information may be used by the combiner network to inhibit and/or suppress the transfer function operation. The suppression (or ‘veto’) may cause the combiner output (e.g., 220) to be comprised solely of the control signal portion 218, e.g., configured in accordance with Eqn. 4.
In one or more implementations, the gating signal 224 may comprise an inhibitory indication that may be configured to inhibit the output from the combiner. Zero combiner output may, in some realizations, may cause zero teaching signal (e.g., 214 in
The gating signal 224 may be used to veto predictor output 218 based on, for example, the predicted control output 218 being away from the target output by more than a given margin. The margin may be configured based on an application and/or state of the trajectory. For example, a smaller margin may be applicable in navigation applications wherein the platform is proximate to a hazard (e.g., a cliff) and/or an obstacle. A larger error may be tolerated when approaching one (of many) targets.
By way of a non-limiting illustration, if the turn is to be completed and/or aborted (due to, for example, a trajectory change and/or sensory input change), and the predictor output may still be producing turn instruction to the plant, the gating signal may cause the combiner to veto (ignore) the predictor contribution and to pass through the controller contribution.
Predicted control signal 218 and the control input 208 may be of opposite signs. In one or more implementations, positive predicted control signal (e.g., 218) may exceed the target output that may be appropriate for performance of as task (e.g., as illustrated by data of trials 8-9 in Table 3). Control signal 208 may be configured to comprise negative signal (e.g., −10) in order to compensate for overprediction by the predictor.
Gating and/or sign reversal of controller output may be useful, for example, responsive to the predictor output being incompatible with the sensory input (e.g., navigating towards a wrong target). Rapid (compared to the predictor learning time scale) changes in the environment (e.g., appearance of a new obstacle, target disappearance), may require a capability by the controller (and/or supervisor) to ‘overwrite’ predictor output. In one or more implementations compensation for overprediction may be controlled by a graded form of the gating signal delivered via the connection 224.
In some implementations, the predictor 232 may comprise a single multichannel predictor capable of generating N-dimensional (N>1) predicted signal 248 based on a multi-channel training input 234 and sensory input 36. In one or more implementations, the predictor 232 may comprise multiple individual predictor modules (232_1, 232_2) configured to generate individual components of the multi-channel output (248_1, 248_2). In some implementations, individual teaching signal may be de-multiplexed into multiple teaching components (234_1, 234_2). Predictor 232 learning process may be configured to adapt predictor state based on teaching signal 234.
The predicted signal UP may comprise a vector corresponding to a plurality of output channels (e.g., 238_1, 238_2 in
The combiner 242 may be operable in accordance with a transfer function h configured to combine signals 238, 248 and to produce single-dimensional control signal 240:
û=h(U,UP). (Eqn. 11)
In one or more implementations, the combined control signal 240 may be provided to the predictor as the training signal. The training signal may be utilized by the predictor learning process in order to generate the predicted output 248 (e.g., as described with respect to
In some implementations, a complex teaching signal may be decomposed into multiple components that may drive adaptation of multiple predictor blocks (associated with individual output channels. Prediction of a (given) teaching signal 234 may be spread over multiple predictor output channels 248. Once adapted, outputs of multiple predictor blocks 232 may be combined thereby providing prediction of the teaching signal (e.g., 234 in
In spiking neuron networks implementations, inputs (e.g., 238, 248 of
The use of multiple input signals (238_1, 238_2 in
Combiner 242 operation, comprising input decoding-output encoding methodology, may be based on an implicit output determination. In some implementations, the implicit output determination may comprise, determining one or more input values using latency and/or rate input conversion into e.g., floating point and/or integer; updating neuron dynamic process based on the one or more input values; and encoding neuron output into rate or latency. In one or more implementations, the neuron process may comprise a deterministic realization (e.g., Izhikevich neuron model, described for example in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/623,842, entitled “SPIKING NEURON NETWORK ADAPTIVE CONTROL APPARATUS AND METHODS”, filed Sep. 3, 2012, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,367,798 on Jun. 14, 2016, incorporated supra; and/or a stochastic process such as described, for example, in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/487,533, entitled “SYSTEMS AND APPARATUS FOR IMPLEMENTING TASK-SPECIFIC LEARNING USING SPIKING NEURONS”, filed Jun. 4, 2012, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,146,546 on Sep. 29, 2015, incorporated supra.
In some implementations, combiner operation, comprising input decoding-output encoding methodology, may be based on an explicit output determination, such as, for example, expressed by Eqn. 4-Eqn. 9, Eqn. 14.
In one or more implementations, a predictor may be configured to predict multiple teaching signals, as illustrated in
The adaptive controller system 270 may comprise a multiplexing predictor 272 and two or more combiner apparatus 279. Controller input U may be de-multiplexed into two (e.g., input 278_1 into combiners 279_1, 279_2) and/or more (input 278_2 into combiners 279_1, 279_2, 279_3). Individual combiner apparatus 279 may be configured to multiplex one (or more) controller inputs 278 and two or more predictor outputs UP 288 to form a combined signal 280. In some implementations, the predictor output for a given combiner may be spread (de-multiplexed) over multiple prediction channels (e.g., 288_1, 288_2 for combiner 279_2). In one or more implementations, teaching input to a predictor may be delivered via multiple teaching signal 274 associated with two or more combiners.
The predictor 272 may operate in accordance with a learning process configured to determine an input-output transformation such that the output of the predictor UP after learning is configured to match the output of the combiner h(U, UP) prior to learning (e.g., when UP comprises a null signal).
Predictor transformation F may be expressed as follows:
UP=F({circumflex over (U)}),Û=h(UP). (Eqn. 12)
In some implementations, wherein dimensionality of control signal U matches dimensionality of predictor output UP, the transformation of Eqn. 12 may be expressed in matrix form as:
UP=FÛ,Û=HUP,F=inv(H), (Eqn. 13)
where H may denote the combiner transfer matrix composed of transfer vectors for individual combiners 279 H=[h1, h2, . . . , hn], Û=[û1, û2, . . . ûn] may denote output matrix composed of output vectors 280 of individual combiners; and F may denote the predictor transform matrix. The combiner output 280 may be provided to the predictor 272 and/or another predictor apparatus as teaching signal 274 in
In some implementations of multi-channel predictor (e.g., 232, 272) and/or combiner (e.g., 242, 279) various signal mapping relationships may be utilized such as, for example, one to many, many to one, some to some, many to some, and/or other relationships (e.g., one to one).
In some implementations, prediction of an individual teaching signal (e.g., 234 in
Transfer function h (and or transfer matrix H) of the combiner (e.g., 242, 279 in
In implementations where the combiner is configured to perform the state-space transform (e.g., time-space to frequency space), the predictor may be configured to learn an inverse of that transform (e.g., frequency-space to time-space). Such predictor may be capable of learning to transform, for example, frequency-space input a into time-space output uP.
In some implementations, predictor learning process may be configured based on one or more look-up tables (LUT). Table 1 and Table 2 illustrate use of look up tables for learning obstacle avoidance behavior (e.g., as described with respect to Table 3-Table 5 and/or
Table 1-Table 2 present exemplary LUT realizations characterizing the relationship between sensory input (e.g., distance to obstacle d) and control signal (e.g., turn angle α relative to current course) obtained by the predictor during training. Columns labeled N in Table 1-Table 2, present use occurrence N (i.e., how many times a given control action has been selected for a given input, e.g., distance). Responsive to a selection of a given control action (e.g., turn of 15°) based on the sensory input (e.g., distance from an obstacle of 0.7 m), the counter N for that action may be incremented. In some implementations of learning comprising opposing control actions (e.g., right and left turns shown by rows 3-4 in Table 2), responsive to a selection of one action (e.g., turn of)+15° during learning, the counter N for that action may be incremented while the counter for the opposing action may be decremented.
As seen from the example shown in Table 1, as a function of the distance to obstacle falling to a given level (e.g., 0.7 m), the controller may produce a turn command. A 15° turn is most frequently selected during training for distance to obstacle of 0.7 m. In some implementations, predictor may be configured to store the LUT (e.g., Table 1) data for use during subsequent operation. During operation, the most frequently used response (e.g., turn of) 15° may be output for a given sensory input, in one or more implementations, In some implementations, the predictor may output an average of stored responses (e.g., an average of rows 3-5 in Table 1).
In some implementations of a control system, such as described with respect to
Action indications (e.g., 308, 348 in
Returning now to
The predictor 302 may be configured to generate the predicted action indication AP 318 based on the sensory context 306 and/or training signal 304. In some implementations, the training signal 304 may comprise the combined output A.
In one or more implementations, generation of the predicted action indication 318 may be based on the combined signal  being provided as a part of the sensory input (316) to the predictor. In some implementations comprising the feedback loop 318, 312, 316 in
In some implementations, generation of the predicted action indication AP by the predictor 302 may be effectuated using any of the applicable methodologies described above (e.g., with respect to
The predictor 302 may be further configured to generate the plant control signal 314 low level control commands/instructions based on the sensory context 306. The predicted control signal 314 may be interfaced to a plant. In some control implementations, such low-level commands may comprise instructions to rotate a right wheel motor by 30°, apply motor current of 100 mA, set motor torque to 10%, reduce lens diaphragm setting by 2, and/or other commands. The low-level commands may be configured in accordance with a specific implementation of the plant, e.g., number of wheels, motor current draw settings, diaphragm setting range, gear ration range, and/or other parameters.
In some implementations of target approach, such as illustrated in
Responsive to the ‘turn’ command arriving to the predictor proximate in time to the sensory context indicative of a target, the predictor may generate right/left turn control signal in the presence of the sensory context. Time proximity may be configured based on a particular application parameters (e.g., robot speed, terrain, object/obstacle size, location distance, and/or other parameters). In some applications to garbage collecting robot, the turn command may be time locked (to within +10 ms) from the sensory context indicative of a need to turn (for example toward a target). In some realizations, a target appearing to the right of the robot in absence of obstacles may trigger the action ‘turn right’.
During learning predictor may associate movement towards the target (behavior) with the action indication. Subsequently during operation, the predictor may execute the behavior (e.g., turn toward the target) based on a receipt of the action indication (e.g., the ‘turn’ instruction). In one or more implementations, the predictor may be configured to not generate control signal (e.g., 314 in
Such associations between the sensory input and the action indicator may form a plurality of composite motor primitive comprising an action indication (e.g., A=turn) and actual control instructions to the plant that may be configured in accordance with the plant state and sensory input.
In some implementations, the predictor may be configured to learn the action indication (e.g., the signal 308 in
Based on learning of associations between action tag-control command; and/or learning to generate action tags, the predictor may be able to learn higher-order control composites, such as, for example, ‘approach’, ‘fetch’, ‘avoid’, and/or other actions, that may be associated with the sensory input.
The control system 320 may comprise controller 342, predictor 322, plant 340, and one or more combiners 330, 350. The controller 342 may be configured to generate action indication A 348 based on sensory input 326 and/or plant feedback 336. The controller 342 may be further configured to generate one or more low-level plant control commands (e.g., 346) based on sensory input 326 and/or plant feedback 336. In some control implementations, the low-level commands 346 may comprise instructions to rotate a right wheel motor by 30°, apply motor current of 100 mA, set motor torque to 10%, reduce lens diaphragm setting by 2, and/or other commands. The low-level commands may be configured in accordance with a specific implementation of the plant, e.g., number of wheels, motor current draw settings, diaphragm setting range, gear ration range, and/or other parameters.
One or more of the combiners of the control system of
One or more of the combiners (e.g., 350) may be configured to combine a control command 346, provided by the controller, and the predicted control instructions uP 344, provided by the predictor, to produce plant control instructions û=h(u,uP) (e.g., 352).
The predictor 322 may be configured to perform prediction of (i) one or more action indications 348; and/or plant control signal uP 352 that may be associated with the sensory input 326 and/or plant feedback 336. The predictor 322 operation may be configured based on two or more training signals 324, 354 that may be associated with the action indication prediction and control command prediction, respectively. In one or more implementations, the training signals 324, 354 at time t2 may comprise outputs of the respective combiners 330, 350 at a prior time (e.g., t1=t2−dt), as described above with respect to Eqn. 7.
The predictor 322 may be operable in accordance with a learning process configured to enable the predictor to develop associations between the action indication input (e.g., 348_1) and the lower-level control signal (e.g., 352). In some implementations, during learning, this association development may be aided by plant control instructions (e.g., 346) that may be issued by the controller 342. One (or both) of the combined action indication signal (e.g., 332_1) and/or the combined control signal (e.g., 352) may be utilized as a training input (denoted in
In some implementations, the combined action indication signal (e.g., 332) and/or the combined control signal (e.g., 352) may be provided to the predictor as a portion of the sensory input, denoted by the arrows 356 in
In one or more implementations, two or more action indications (e.g., 348_1, 348_2 may be associated with the control signal 352. By way of a non-limiting example, illustrated for example in
Upon learning these composite tasks, the predictor 322 may be provided with a higher level action indication (e.g., 348_3). The term ‘higher level’ may be used to describe an action (e.g., ‘approach’/‘avoid’) that may comprise one or more lower level actions (e.g., 348_1, 348_2, ‘turn right’/‘turn left’). In some implementations, the higher level action indication (e.g., 348_3) may be combined (by, e.g., the combiner 330_3 in
Control action separation between the predictor 302, 322 (configured to produce the plant control signal 314, 352) and the controller 342 (configured to provide the action indication 348) described above, may enable the controller (e.g., 342 in
Control action separation between the predictor 302, 322 (configured to produce the plant control signal 314, 352) and the controller 342 (configured to provide the action indication 348) described above, may enable the controller (e.g., 342 in
The controller 342 may be operable in accordance with a reinforcement learning (RL) process. In some implementations, the RL process may comprise a focused exploration methodology, described for example, in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/489,280 entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR REINFORCEMENT LEARNING IN ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS”, filed Jun. 5, 2012, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,943,008 on Jan. 27, 2015, incorporated supra.
The predictor 322 may be operable in accordance with a supervised learning (SL) process. In some implementations, the supervised learning process may be configured to cause output that is consistent with the teaching signal. Output consistency may be determined based on one or more similarity measures, such as correlation, in one or more implementations.
Reinforcement learning process of the controller may rely on one or more exploration techniques. In some implementations, such exploration may cause control signal corresponding one or more local minima of the controller dynamic state. Accordingly, small changes in the controller input (e.g., sensory input 326 in
The sub-tasks (e.g., 410, 412, 414 in
Subtasks of a given level (e.g., 400, 408 and/or 410, 412, 414 in
As illustrated in
-
- O=1, w=30;
- O=0; and
- O=2, w=9; respectively.
The task 408 may correspond to avoid target and may invoke right/left turn and/or backwards motion tasks 410, 412, 416, respectively.
Individual tasks of the second level (e.g., 410, 412, 414, 416 in
-
- to execute right turn: rotate forward left motor with torque of 0.5; (w=0.5), rotate right motor backwards with torque of 0.5; (w=−0.5);
- to execute left turn: rotate right motor backwards with torque of 0.5; (w=−0.5), rotate forward right motor with torque of 0.5; (w=0.5);
- to move forward: rotate forward left motor with torque of 0.5; (w=0.5), rotate forward right motor with torque of 0.5; (w=0.5); and
- to move backwards: rotate left motor backwards with torque of 0.5; (w=−0.5), rotate right motor backwards with torque of 0.5; (w=−0.5).
The hierarchy illustrated in
In one or more implementations wherein the predictor comprises a spiking neuron network, learning a given behavior (e.g., obstacle avoidance and/or target approach) may be effectuated by storing an array of efficacies of connections within the predictor network. In some implementations, the efficacies may comprise connection weights, adjusted during learning using any applicable methodologies. In some implementations, connection plasticity (e.g., efficacy adjustment) may be implemented based on the teaching input as follows:
-
- based on a teaching input (e.g., spike) and absence of neuron output spike connections delivering input spikes into the neuron (active connection) that precede the teaching spike (within a plasticity window), may be potentiated; and/or
- based on neuron output spike in absence of teaching input, active connections delivering input spikes into the neuron (active connection)) that precede the output spike (within a duration specified by plasticity window), may be depressed.
In some implementations wherein the sensory input may be updated at 40 ms intervals and/or control signal may be updated at a rate of 1-1000 Hz, the duration of the plasticity window may be selected between 1 ms and 1000 ms. Upon learning a behavior, network configuration (e.g., an array of weights) may be stored for future use by the predictor.
Individual network portions may be configured to implement individual adaptive predictor realizations. In some implementations, one network portion may implement object approach predictor while another network portion may implement obstacle avoidance predictor. Another network portion may implement a task predictor (e.g., fetch). In some implementations, predictors implemented by individual network portions may form a hierarchy of predictors. Lower-level predictors may be configured to produce control (e.g., motor) primitives (also referred to as the pre-action and/or pre-motor output). Higher level predictors may provide output comprising predicted obstacle avoidance/target approach instructions (e.g., approach, avoid).
In some implementations of a fetch task (comprising for example target approach and/or obstacle avoidance), the lower level predictors may predict execution of basic actions (so called, motor primitives), e.g., rotate left with v=0.5 rad/s for t=10 s.
Predictors of a higher level within the hierarchy, may be trained to specify what motor primitive to run and with what parameters (e.g., v, t).
At a higher level of hierarchy, the predictor may be configured to plan a trajectory and/or predict an optimal trajectory for the robot movement for the given context.
At yet another higher level of the hierarchy, a controller may be configured to determine a behavior that is to be executed at a given time, e.g. now to execute the target approach and/or to avoid the obstacle.
In some implementations, a hierarchy actions may be expressed as:
-
- top level=behavior selection;
- 2nd level=select trajectory;
- 3rd level=activate motor primitives to execute given trajectory; and
- 4th level=issue motor commands (e.g. PWM signal for motors) to execute the given motor primitives.
In one or more implementations of hierarchy of predictors, lower level predictors may provide inputs to higher level predictors. Such configuration may advantageously alleviate the higher level predictor from performing all of the functionality that may be required in order to implement target approach and/or obstacle avoidance functionality.
The hierarchical predictor configuration described herein may be utilized for teaching a robotic device to perform new task (e.g., behavior B3 comprised of reaching a target (behavior B1) while avoiding obstacles (behavior B2). The hierarchical predictor realization may enable a teacher (e.g., a human and/or computerized operator) to divide the composite behavior B3 into two or more sub-tasks (B1, B2). In one or more implementations, performance of the sub-tasks may be characterized by lower processing requirements by the processing block associated with the respective predictor; and/or may require less time in order to arrive at a target level of performance during training, compared to an implementation wherein all of the behaviors (B1, B2, B3) are learned concurrently with one another. Predictors of lower hierarchy may be trained to perform sub-tasks B1, B2 in a shorter amount of time using fewer computational and/or memory resources, compared to time/resource budget that may be required for training a single predictor to perform behavior B3.
When training a higher hierarchy predictor to perform new task (e.g., B3 acquire a target), the approach described above may enable reuse of the previously learnt task/primitives (B1/B2) and configured the predictor to implement learning of additional aspects that may be associated with the new task B3, such as B3a reaching and/or B3b grasping).
If another behavior is to be added to the trained behavior list (e.g., serving a glass of water), previously learned behavior(s) (e.g., reaching, grasping, and/or others, also referred to as the primitives) may be utilized in order to accelerate learning compared to implementations of the prior art.
Reuse of previously learned behaviors/primitives may enable reduction in memory and/or processing capacity (e.g., number of cores, core clock speed, and/or other parameters), compared to implementations wherein all behaviors are learned concurrently. These advantages may be leveraged to increase processing throughput (for a given neuromorphic hardware resources) and/or perform the same processing with a reduced complexity and/or cost hardware platform, compared to the prior art.
Learning of behaviors and/or primitives may comprise determining an input/output transformation (e.g., the function F in Eqn. 10, and/or a matrix F of Eqn. 13) by the predictor. In some implementations, learning a behavior may comprise determining a look-up table and/or an array of weights of a network as described above. Reuse of previously learned behaviors/primitives may comprise restoring/copying stored LUTs and/or weights into predictor realization configured for implementing learned behavior.
Exemplary operation of adaptive controller system (e.g., 200, 230, 270 of
The control signal (e.g., 208 in
The transfer function of the combiner of the exemplary implementation of the adaptive controller apparatus 200, may be configured as follows:
û=h(u,uP)=u+uP. (Eqn. 14)
Training of the adaptive predictor (e.g., 222 of
In some implementations the trial duration may last longer (up to tens of second) and be determined based on a difference measure between current performance of the plant (e.g., current distance to an object) and a target performance (e.g., a target distance to the object). The performance may be characterized by a performance function as described in detail in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/487,499 entitled “STOCHASTIC APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR IMPLEMENTING GENERALIZED LEARNING RULES, filed Jun. 4, 2012 and now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,104,186 on Aug. 11, 2015, incorporated supra. Individual trials may be separated in time (and in space) by practically any duration commensurate with operational cycle of the plant. By way of illustration, individual trial when training a robot to approach objects and/or avoid obstacles may be separated by a time period and/or space that may be commensurate with the robot traversing from one object/obstacle to the next. In one or more implementations, the robot may comprise a rover platform, and/or a robotic manipulator arm comprising one or more joints.
-
- the predictor (e.g., 222 of
FIGS. 2A-2B ) may receive control signal u1 (e.g., turn right 45°) from control entity 212. The control signal may correspond to sensory input x1 (e.g., 206, 216 inFIG. 2A ) that may be received by the controller and/or the predictor; such signal may comprise a representation of an obstacle (e.g., a wall), and/or a target (e.g., a charging dock); - the predictor may be configured to generate predicted control signal (e.g., u1P=0°);
- the combiner may produce combined output u1′=45°; and
- the plant 210 may begin to turn right in accordance with the combined output (e.g., 220).
- the predictor (e.g., 222 of
During another trial at time T2>T1:
-
- the predictor 222 may receive control signal u2 (e.g., still turn right 45°) from the controller 212;
- the plant feedback may indicate to the predictor that the plant is executing a turn (in accordance with the prior combined output u1′); accordingly, the predictor may be configured to ‘mimic’ the prior combined output u1′ and to generate predicted control signal (e.g., u2P=10°);
- the combiner may produce new combined output u2′=55°; and
- the plant 210 may increase the turn rate in accordance with the updated control signal u2′.
During another trial at time T3>T2:
-
- the input x3 may indicate to the controller 212 that the plant turn rate is in excess of the target turn rate for the 40° turn; the controller 212 may reduce control signal to u3=35°,
- based on the input x3, indicative of e.g., the plant turn rate for u2′=55°, the predictor may be configured to increase its prediction to e.g., u3P=20°; and
- the combiner (e.g., 210 of
FIG. 2A ) may receive control signal u3 (e.g., turn right) 35° from the controller 212; the combiner may produce the combined output u3′=55°.
During other trials at times Ti>T3 the predictor output may be increased to the target plant turn of 45° and the control signal 208 may be reduced to zero. In some implementations, the outcome of the above operational sequence may be referred to as (gradual) transfer of the control signal to the predictor output. A summary of one implementation of the training process described above may be summarized using data shown in Table 1:
As seen from Table 3, when the predictor is capable to producing the target output (e.g., trial #10), the control signal (e.g., 208 in
In some implementations, the control entity (e.g., 212 in
In one or more implementations, the training steps outlined above (e.g., trials summarized in Table 3) may occur over two or more trials wherein individual trial extend over behavioral time scales (e.g., one second to tens of seconds).
In some implementations, the training steps may occur over two or more trials wherein individual trials may be characterized by control update scales (e.g., 1 ms to 1000 ms).
In some implementations, the operation of an adaptive predictor (e.g., 222 in
In one or more implementations, the teacher may employ a demonstration with so-called kinesthetic teaching, wherein the robot is physically guided (e.g., ‘dragged’) through the trajectory by the teacher. In this approach, the adaptive controller learning process may comprise an inverse model of the robotic platform. The adaptive controller may be configured to translate the changes in the observed robot sensory space to the motor actions that would result in the same sensory space.
In one or more implementations, the robot may employ learning by mimicking methodology. The robot may be configured to observe a demonstrator performing the desired task and is learning to perform the same task on its own.
While following the target trajectory, a learning process of the robot controller may learn (e.g., via adaptation of learning parameters) an interrelationship between the sensory input, the controller state, and/or the teaching input. In the realization illustrated in
Upon completion of one or more teacher-guided trials, the robot 622 may be configured to perform one or more teacher-assisted trials (e.g., the trials 624, 626, 628 in
The teacher may utilize a reset signal configured to reset to a base state configuration of the learning process. In some implementations, such reset may be used to reset neuron states and/or connection weights of a predictor based on predictor generating predicted signal that may be inconsistent (e.g., guides the robot away from a target in target approach task) with the target action.
In some implementations, the learning process may be configured to store intermediate learning stages corresponding to one or more portions of the trajectory traversal. By way of illustration, the trajectory portions 638, 640 in
During individual trials 624, 626, 628 user assistance may be provided one or more times, as illustrated by arrows 636, 646, 648 in
While following a trajectory during trials 624, 626, 628, a learning process of the robot controller may learn (e.g., via adaptation of learning parameters) an interrelationship between the sensory input, the controller state (e.g., predicted control signal), and/or the teaching input.
During successive trials 624, 626, 628 the performance of the robot may improve as determined based on a performance measure. In some implementations, the performance measure may comprise a discrepancy measure between the actual robot trajectory (e.g., 632, 634) and the target trajectory. The discrepancy measure may comprise one or more of maximum deviation, maximum absolute deviation, average absolute deviation, mean absolute deviation, mean difference, root mean squatter error, cumulative deviation, and/or other measures.
Upon completion of one or more teacher-assisted trials (e.g., 624, 628), the robot 622 may be configured to navigate the target trajectory absent user input (not shown in
Learning by the adaptive controller apparatus (e.g., 200
It is noteworthy that, in accordance with the principles of the present disclosure, the information transfer (such as described with respect to
In one or more implementations, the adaptive controller may be configured to generate the predicted signal uP such that it closely reproduces the initial control signal u. This is shown in Table 3, where predicted signal at trial 10 matches the initial control signal at trial 1.
In one or more implementations, such as described in co-owned and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/842,530 entitled “ADAPTIVE PREDICTOR APPARATUS AND METHODS”, filed Mar. 15, 2013, the adaptive controller may be configured to predict cumulative (e.g., integrated over the trial duration) outcome of the control action.
By way of non-limiting illustration, the waveforms of
Individual curves 721, 722, 723, 724, 726 may depict user input during individual trials (e.g., 620, 624, 626, in
It may be appreciated by those skilled in the arts that the user input signal waveforms illustrated in
The time intervals denoted by brackets 810, 812, 814 may refer to individual training trials (e.g., trials T1, T2, T3 described above with respect to Table 3). The arrow denoted 806 may refer to a trial duration being associated with, for example, a behavioral time scale.
The arrow denoted 808 may refer to inter-trial intervals and describe training time scale.
In some implementations, shown and described with respect to
Sensory input associated with the training configuration of trace 800 is depicted by rectangles on trace 830 in
Whenever the bottle may be visible in the sensory input, the robotic device may continue learning grasping behavior (B2) trials 822, 824. In some realizations, learning trials of two or more behaviors may overlap in time (e.g., 812, 822 in
Operation of the control entity 212 (e.g., 212 in
Responsive to the control entity (e.g., a user) detecting an obstacle (sensory input state x1), the control signal (e.g., 208 in
As shown in Table 4 during Trial 1, the control signal is configured at 9° throughout the training. The sensory, associated with the turning rover, is considered as changing for individual turn steps. Individual turn steps (e.g., 1 through 5 in Table 2) are characterized by different sensory input (state and/or context x1 through x5).
At presented in Table 4, during Trial 1, the predictor may be unable to adequately predict controller actions due to, at least in part, a different input being associated with individual turn steps. The rover operation during Trial 1 may be referred to as the controller controlled with the controller performing 100% of the control.
The Trial 2, summarized in Table 4, may correspond to another occurrence of the object previously present in the sensory input processes at Trial 1. At step 1 of Trial 2, the control signal may comprise a command to turn 9° based on appearance of the obstacle (e.g., x1) in the sensory input. Based on prior experience (e.g., associated with sensory states x1 through x5 of Trail 1), the predictor may generate predicted output uP=3° at steps 1 through 5 of Trial 2, as shown in Table 4. In accordance with sensory input and/or plant feedback, the controller may vary control signal u at steps 2 through 5. Overall, during Trial 2, the predictor is able to contribute about 29% (e.g., 15° out of 51°) to the overall control signal u. The rover operation during Trial 2 may be referred to as jointly controlled by the control entity (e.g., a human user) and the predictor. It is noteworthy, neither the predictor nor the controller are capable of individually providing target control signal of 45° during Trial 2.
The Trial 3, summarized in Table 4, may correspond to another occurrence of the object previously present in the sensory input processes at Trials 1 and 2. At step 1 of Trial 3, the control signal may reduce control signal 3° turn based on the appearance of the obstacle (e.g., x1) in the sensory input and/or prior experience during Trial 2, wherein the combined output u1′ was in excess of the target 9°. Based on the prior experience (e.g., associated with sensory states x1 through x5 of Trails 1 and 2), the predictor may generate predicted output uP=5°, 6° at steps 1 through 5 of Trial 3, as shown in Table 4. Variations in the predictor output uP during Trial 3 may be based on the respective variations of the control signal. In accordance with sensory input and/or plant feedback, the controller may vary control signal u at steps 2 through 5. Overall, during Trial 3, the predictor is able to contribute about 58% (e.g., 28° out of 48°) to the overall control signal û. The combined control signal during Trial 3 is closer to the target output of 48°, compared to the combined output (51°) achieved at Trial 2. The rover operation during Trial 2 may be referred to as jointly controlled by the control entity and the predictor. It is noteworthy, the neither the predictor nor the controller are capable of individually providing target control signal of 45° during Trial 3.
At a subsequent trial (not shown) the control signal may be reduced to zero while the predictor output may be increased to provide the target cumulative turn (e.g., 45°).
Training results shown and described with respect to Table 3-Table 4 are characterized by different sensory context (e.g., states x1 through x5) corresponding to individual training steps. Step-to-step sensory novelty may prevent the predictor from learning control signal during the duration of the trial, as illustrated by constant predictor output uP in the data of Table 3-Table 4.
Table 5 presents training results for an adaptive predictor apparatus (e.g., 222 of
As shown in Table 5, sensory state x1 may persist throughout the training steps 1 through 3 corresponding, for example, a view of a large object being present within field of view of sensor. The sensory state x2 may persist throughout the training steps 4 through 5 corresponding, for example, another view the large object being present sensed.
At steps 1,2 of Trial of Table 5, the controller may provide control signal comprising a 9° turn control command. At step 3, the predictor may increase its output to 3°, based on a learned association between the control signal u and the sensory state x1.
At step 3 of Trial of Table 5, the controller may reduce its output u to 7° based on the combined output u2′=12° of the prior step exceeding the target output of 9°. The predictor may increase its output based on determining a discrepancy between the sensory state x1 and its prior output (3°).
At step 4 of Trial of Table 5, the sensory state (context) may change, due to for example a different portion of the object becoming visible. The predictor output may be reduced to zero as the new context x2 may not have been previously observed.
At step 5 of Trial of Table 5, the controller may reduce its output u to 2° based on determining amount of cumulative control signal (e.g., cumulative turn) achieved at steps 1 through 4. The predictor may increase its output from zero to 3° based on determining a discrepancy between the sensory state x2 and its prior output u4P=0°. Overall, during the Trial illustrated in Table 5, the predictor is able to contribute about 25% (e.g., 5° out of 48°) to the overall control signal û.
ε(ti)=|uP(ti−1)−ud(ti)|. (Eqn. 15)
In other words, the error may be determined based on (how well) the prior predictor output matches the current teaching (e.g., target) input. In one or more implementations, predictor error may comprise a root-mean-square deviation (RMSD), coefficient of variation, and/or other parameters.
As shown in
Various implementations, of methodology for training of robotic devices are now described. An exemplary training sequence of adaptive controller apparatus (e.g., 200 of
During first trial at time T1:
-
- the control entity may detect sensory input (e.g., 206, 216_1 in
FIG. 2A ) containing x1 and may generate output u1; - the predictor may receive the sensory input x1 (or a portion of thereof), and may be configured to generate predicted control signal (e.g., u1P=0°);
- the combiner may produce the combined output û1=45°; this output may be provided to the predictor as the teaching (target) signal at a subsequent time instance; and
- the plant 210 may begin to turn right in accordance with the combined control signal (e.g., 220) û1=45°.
- the control entity may detect sensory input (e.g., 206, 216_1 in
During another trial at time T2>T1:
-
- the control entity may detect a sensory input (e.g., 206, 216_1 in
FIG. 2A ) containing x1 and may generate output u2=45°; - the predictor may receive the sensory input x1 (or a portion of thereof), and the teaching (target) signal û1=45° produced by the combiner at a prior trial (e.g., T1); the predictor may be configured to ‘mimic’ the combined output û; the predictor may be configured to generate predicted control signal (e.g., u2P=30°) based on the sensory input, plant feedback and/or the teaching signal;
- the combiner may produce the combined output û2=75° (e.g., in accordance with, for example, Eqn. 7); and
- the plant 210 may increase the turn rate with the control signal û2.
- the control entity may detect a sensory input (e.g., 206, 216_1 in
During another trial at time T3>T2:
-
- the control entity may determine that the rate of turn is in excess of the target turn of 45°, and may generate control signal u3=0°;
- the predictor may receive the sensory input x (or a portion of thereof), and the teaching (target) signal û2=75° produced by the combiner at a prior trial (e.g., T2); the predictor may be configured to generate predicted control signal (e.g., u3P=50°) based on the sensory input, plant feedback and/or the teaching signal;
- the combiner may produce the combined output û3=50° (e.g., in accordance with, for example, Eqn. 7); and
- the plant 210 may execute the turn in accordance with the control signal u3.
Subsequently, at times T4, T5, TM>T2 the predictor output to the combiner 234 may result in the control signal 220 to turn the plant by 45° and the control signal 208 may be reduced to zero. In some implementations, the outcome of the above operational sequence may be referred to as (gradual) transfer of the control signal to the predictor output. When the predictor is capable to producing the target output, the control signal (e.g., 208 in
In one or more implementations comprising spiking control and/or predictor signals (e.g., 208, 218, 248, 220, 240 in
In some implementations, methods 1000, 1020, 1040 may be implemented in one or more processing devices (e.g., a digital processor, an analog processor, a digital circuit designed to process information, an analog circuit designed to process information, a state machine, and/or other mechanisms for electronically processing information and/or execute computer program modules). The one or more processing devices may include one or more devices executing some or all of the operations of methods 1000, 1020, 1040 in response to instructions stored electronically on an electronic storage medium. The one or more processing devices may include one or more devices configured through hardware, firmware, and/or software to be specifically designed for execution of one or more of the operations of methods 1000, 1020, 1040.
At operation 1002 of method 1000, illustrated in
At operation 1004, an input may be received from a trainer. In some implementations, the input may comprise a control command (e.g., rotate right/left wheel and/or other command) configured based on the sensory context (e.g., appearance of a target in field of view of the robot's camera, and/or other sensory context) and provided by a human user. In one or more implementations, the teacher input signal may comprise an action indications (e.g., proceed straight towards the target) provided by a computerized agent.
At operation 1006, the input and the context may be analyzed. In one or more implementations, the analyses of operation 1006 may comprise generation of a predicted control signal (e.g., 218 of
At operation 1008 of method 1000, an action may be executed in accordance with the input and the context. In one or more implementations, the action execution may be based on a combined control signal, e.g., the signal 240 generated by the combiner 214 in accordance with any of the methodologies described herein (e.g., using the transfer function of Eqn. 6).
At operation 1010 of method 1000, controller learning process may be updated based on a performance measure associated with executing the action at operation 1008. In one or more implementations, the performance may be determined based on a deviation between the target trajectory (e.g., 630 in
At operation 1022 of method 1020 robot may perform a target action based on user input and characteristic of robot environment. In some implementations, the environment characteristic may comprise a relative positioning of the robot (e.g., 622, in
At operation 1024, learning process of the robotic device may be adjusted based on the action and the characteristic. In one or more implementations, the adjustment may be based on a performance measure configured, e.g., based on a deviation between the target trajectory (e.g., 630 in
At operation 1026, a control signal may be generated by the robotic apparatus based on the characteristic and the updated learning process. In one or more implementations, the control signal may be generated by the adaptive predictor (e.g., 222 of
At operation 1028 of method 1020, the robot may perform an action based on the control signal and user input. In some implementations, the user input may comprise a control command (e.g., rotate right/left wheel) configured based on the sensory context (e.g., appearance of a target in field of view of the robot's camera) and provided by a human user. In one or more implementations, the teacher input signal may comprise an action indications (e.g., proceed straight towards the target) provided by a computerized agent.
At operation 1030 of method 1020, performance measure may be determined. In some implementations, the performance determination may be based on a deviation measure between the target action and the executed action. In one or more implementations, the performance may be determined based on an error measure of Eqn. 15. In some implementations, operation 1024, 1026, 1028, 1030 may correspond to one or more training trial (e.g., 624, 626, 628 of
At operation 1032, a determination may be made as to whether additional trials are to be performed. Responsive to a determination that additional trials are to be performed, the method 1020 may proceed to operation 1024.
At operation 1042 of method 1040 a target trajectory execution may be demonstrated to the robotic device. In one or more implementations, the demonstration may comprise a human user guiding the robot via a remote control and/or by hand. In some implementations, operation 1042 may correspond to the initial training trial (e.g., 620 in
At operation 1044, the action may be executed based on a collaboration between the robot and the user. In one or more implementations, the collaboration may be based on a combiner (e.g., 214) configured to combine user control signal with the predicted control signal.
At operation 1046 of method 1040, performance measure may be determined. In some implementations, the performance determination may be based on a deviation measure between the target action and the executed action. In one or more implementations, the performance may be determined based on an error measure of Eqn. 15. In some implementations, operation 1024, 1026, 1028, 1030 may correspond to one or more training trial (e.g., 624, 626, 628 of
At operation 1048 a determination may be made as to whether performance at operation 1044 has improved compared to the performance at achieved at operation 1042 (the target trajectory).
Responsive to the determination at operation 1048 that the performance has not improved, the user control input may be maintained and/or increased at operation 1050.
Responsive to the determination at operation 1048 that the performance has improved, the user control input may be reduced at operation 1052.
At operation 1054, a determination may be made as to whether additional trials are to be performed. Responsive to a determination that additional trials are to be performed, the method 1020 may proceed to operation 1044.
One or more objects (e.g., an obstacle 1174, a target 1176, and/or other objects) may be present in the camera field of view. The motion of the objects may result in a displacement of pixels representing the objects within successive frames, such as described in co-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/689,717, entitled “APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR OBJECT DETECTION VIA OPTICAL FLOW CANCELLATION”, filed Nov. 29, 2012, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 9,193,075 on Nov. 24, 2015, incorporated supra.
When the robotic apparatus 1160 is in motion, such as shown by arrow 1164 in
Various exemplary computerized apparatus may be utilized with the robotic training methodology of the disclosure. In some implementations, the robotic apparatus may comprise one or more processors configured to execute the adaptation methodology described herein. In some implementations, an external processing entity (e.g., a cloud service, computer station and/or cluster) may be utilized in order to perform computations during training of the robot (e.g., operations of methods 1000, 1020, 1040).
Robot training methodology described herein may advantageously enable training of robotic controllers. In some implementations, training of the robot may be based on a collaborative training approach wherein the robot and the user collaborate on performing a task. Initially, a user may guide (demonstrate) to a robot the target task.
The collaborative training approach described herein may advantageously enable users to train robots characterized by complex dynamics wherein description of the dynamic processes of the robotic platform and/or environment may not be attainable with precision that is adequate to achieve the target task (e.g., arrive to a target within given time). The collaborative training approach may enable training of robots in changing environment (e.g., train vacuum cleaner robot to avoid displaced and/or newly placed objects while cleaning newly vacant areas).
The methodology described herein may enable users without robotic experience (e.g., children) to train robotic devices through repetition and/or demonstration. Users who may be training experts (e.g., working with dogs, horses) may apply their training knowledge via the collaborative training of robotic devices.
In one or more implementations, training methodology described herein may be applied to robots learning their own kinematics and/or dynamics (e.g., by the robot learning how to move its platform). Adaptive controller of the robot may be configured to monitor the discrepancy and once one or more movements in a given region of the working space are learned, the controller may attempt to learn other movements and/or complex movements that may be composed of a sequence of previously learned movements. In some implementations, the controller may be configured to learn consequences robot actions on the world: e.g. the robot pushes an object and the controller learns to predict the consequences (e.g., if the push too weak nothing may happen (due to friction); if the push is stronger, the object may start moving with an acceleration being a function of the push force)
In some implementations, the controller may be configured to learn associations between observed two or more sensory inputs. In one or more safety applications, the controller may be configured to observe action of other robots that may result in states that may be deemed dangerous (e.g., result in the robot being toppled over) and/or safe. Such approaches may be utilized in robots learning to move their body and/or learning to move or manipulate other objects.
It will be recognized that while certain aspects of the disclosure are described in terms of a specific sequence of steps of a method, these descriptions are only illustrative of the broader methods of the invention, and may be modified as required by the particular application. Certain steps may be rendered unnecessary or optional under certain circumstances. Additionally, certain steps or functionality may be added to the disclosed implementations, or the order of performance of two or more steps permuted. All such variations are considered to be encompassed within the disclosure disclosed and claimed herein.
While the above detailed description has shown, described, and pointed out novel features of the disclosure as applied to various implementations, it will be understood that various omissions, substitutions, and changes in the form and details of the device or process illustrated may be made by those skilled in the art without departing from the disclosure. The foregoing description is of the best mode presently contemplated of carrying out the invention. This description is in no way meant to be limiting, but rather should be taken as illustrative of the general principles of the invention. The scope of the disclosure should be determined with reference to the claims.
Claims
1.-23. (canceled)
24. A robotic apparatus, comprising:
- a platform comprising one or more controllable elements; and
- a controller communicatively coupled to the platform to operate individual ones of the one or more controllable elements, the controller configured to:
- receive a first input from a human;
- analyze the first input and cause the platform to execute a first action in accordance with the first input, wherein the analysis of the first input comprises a determination of a deviation between the first action and a target action; and
- receive a second input from a human subsequent to the receipt of the first input, the second input being configured to cause a corrected action by the platform, the corrected action being characterized at least in part by a lower deviation from the target action.
25. The robotic apparatus of claim 24, wherein the first action is based on the operation of the individual ones of the one or more controllable elements of the platform.
26. The robotic apparatus of claim 24, wherein the first input and the second input are sensory signals configured to convey information associated with one or both of an environment of the robotic apparatus and a state of the platform.
27. The robotic apparatus of claim 24, wherein the controller is further configured to generate a predicted control output based at least in part on the first input, wherein the first action is determined based at least in part on the predicted control output.
28. The robotic apparatus of claim 24, wherein the controller is further configured to search a predetermined table correlating a plurality of human inputs, a plurality of sensory signal characteristics, and a plurality of predicted control outputs, wherein the first action is determined based at least in part on at least one of the predicted control outputs correlated to the first input.
29. The robotic apparatus of claim 24, wherein the platform further comprises an actuator configured to actuate the one or more controllable elements.
30. The robotic apparatus of claim 24, wherein the target action is based at least in part on a training input by a human.
31. The robotic apparatus of claim 24, further comprising a user interface configured to receive inputs from a human.
32. A method of operating a robot, comprising:
- receiving a first input from a human;
- analyzing the first input and causing one or more controllable elements to execute a first action in accordance with the first input, wherein analyzing the first input comprises determining a deviation between the first action and a target action; and
- receiving a second input from a human subsequent to the receipt of the first input, the second input being configured to cause a corrected action by the platform, the corrected action being characterized at least in part by a lower deviation from the target action.
33. The method of claim 32, further comprising operating individual ones of the one or more controllable elements of the platform based at least in part on the first action.
34. The method of claim 32, further comprising generating a sensory signal based at least in part upon determined information of one or both of an environment of the robot and a state of the one or more controllable elements.
35. The method of claim 34, further comprising determining one or more predicted control outputs based at least in part on the sensor signal.
36. The method of claim 32, further comprising generating a predicted control output based at least in part on the first input, and determining the first action based at least in part on the predicted control output.
37. The method of claim 36, further comprising generating a combined output by combining the predicted control output and the first input.
38. The method of claim 37, further comprising performing a supervised learning process based at least in part on the combined output.
39. The method of claim 32, further comprising effectuating the corrected action based at least in part on a cooperative interaction with a human, wherein the cooperative interaction characterized by a plurality of iterations.
40. A computerized robotic controller apparatus, comprising:
- one or more processors configured to execute computer program modules to cause the one or more processors to:
- for a given iteration of a plurality of iterations:
- generate a first signal based on a sensory context;
- receive a second signal from a user associated with a target action configured based on the sensory context; and
- utilize the first signal based on the sensory context and the second signal from the user to perform an action;
- wherein:
- the plurality of iterations is configured to occur within a time interval characterized by a predetermined duration;
- a subsequent iteration of the plurality of iterations is configured to cause the action to deviate less from the target action; and
- upon expiration of the predetermined duration, the first signal is configured to perform the action absent the second signal.
41. The apparatus of claim 40, wherein:
- individual ones of the plurality of iterations are spaced by time intervals that are at ten percent of the predetermined duration or less; and
- the plurality of iterations include more than seven iterations.
42. The apparatus of claim 40, individual ones of the plurality of iterations further include determining a performance measure based at least in part on the action and the target action.
43. The apparatus of claim 42, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to adjust a learning parameter based at least in part on the performance measure of the individual ones of the plurality of iterations, and the action is further based on the learning parameter.
Type: Application
Filed: Jul 1, 2016
Publication Date: Jan 5, 2017
Inventors: Jean-Baptiste Passot (Solana Beach, CA), Oleg Sinyavskiy (San Diego, CA), Filip Ponulak (San Diego, CA), Patryk Laurent (San Diego, CA), Borja Ibarz Gabardos (La Jolla, CA), Eugene Izhikevich (San Diego, CA)
Application Number: 15/200,959
