2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.cad.2015.07.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficient global penetration depth computation for articulated models

Abstract: We present an algorithm for computing the global penetration depth between an articulated model and an obstacle or between the distinctive links of an articulated model. In so doing, we use a formulation of penetration depth derived in configuration space. We first compute an approximation of the boundary of the obstacle regions using a support vector machine in a learning stage. Then, we employ a nearest neighbor search to perform a runtime query for penetration depth. The computational complexity of the runt… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
1
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These samples can be drawn guided by an acquisition function in Bayesian optimization (Niculescu et al 2006) or from an expert algorithm (De Raedt, Passerini, and Teso 2018). Active learning has been applied to approximate the boundary of the configuration space (Pan, Zhang, and Manocha 2013;Tian et al 2016;Das, Gupta, and Yip 2017), where the feasible domain of collision constraints is parameterized using kernel SVM. However, this method is limited to rigid or articulated deformation and is not applicable to general 3D deformations.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These samples can be drawn guided by an acquisition function in Bayesian optimization (Niculescu et al 2006) or from an expert algorithm (De Raedt, Passerini, and Teso 2018). Active learning has been applied to approximate the boundary of the configuration space (Pan, Zhang, and Manocha 2013;Tian et al 2016;Das, Gupta, and Yip 2017), where the feasible domain of collision constraints is parameterized using kernel SVM. However, this method is limited to rigid or articulated deformation and is not applicable to general 3D deformations.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The method described here for computing an implicit contact manifold for an articulated body is essentially the same as one described in [30].…”
Section: Projecting Onto the Contact Manifoldmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This does not relate to the total required transformation of two dynamic bodies, nor is it meaningful if only the “static” body is free to move. Most works, however, define one of the bodies as the dynamic one in advance [ZKM07b,TK14,PZM13, KMK15, TZW*16, HPLM16]. This makes this variation only an upper bound of the symmetrical PD g ; while sensible for motion planning, it is an arbitrary measure for two dynamic objects as the rotation of one of them is never taken into account.…”
Section: Background and Previous Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[PZM13] have applied offline active learning methods to learn the contact space, however, their query time is still on the order of 1 ms. Additionally, their collision resolution method must separately recognize the contact‐areas, which in itself is slower than the combined query and gradient estimation time presented here. [KMK15,TZW*16] estimated the PD g using a samples database as well, though they are mainly aimed towards motion planning and do not address the computation of the additional data required for collision resolution. The query‐time of the latter is 0.03–3 ms. [HPLM16] is aimed towards dynamic simulations, but no collision resolution method is specified.…”
Section: Background and Previous Workmentioning
confidence: 99%