Vision-based Reinforcement Learning for Lane-Tracking Control

Posted on June 8, 2024 | by Duckietown Admin

General Information

Vision-based reinforcement learning for lane-tracking control

What is Vision-based Reinforcement Learning? A few important topics:

Reinforcement Learning: a machine learning paradigm where an agent learns to make decisions by interacting with an environment to achieve a goal. In this context, reinforcement learning is used to teach a vehicle how to drive within Duckietown lanes by providing rewards or penalties based on its actions.

Vision-based Control: The control of the vehicle is based on visual inputs, specifically images captured by a forward-facing camera. These images are processed by a neural network to determine appropriate steering actions, allowing the vehicle to track lanes and avoid collisions.

Simulation-to-Reality (sim2real) Transfer Learning: The trained policy, which learns to control the vehicle in a simulated environment, is transferred to real-world scenarios. The effectiveness of the trained model in real-world driving situations is evaluated, demonstrating the ability to generalize learning from simulation to reality.

Domain Randomization: This technique involves introducing variations or randomizations into the simulation environment during training. By exposing the agent to a wide range of simulated scenarios with different lighting conditions, road surfaces, and other environmental factors, domain randomization helps improve the model’s ability to generalize to unseen real-world conditions.

Learn about RL, navigation and other robot autonomy topics at the link below!

Abstract

The present study focused on vision-based end-to-end reinforcement learning in relation to vehicle control problems such as lane following and collision avoidance. The controller policy presented in this paper is able to control a small-scale robot to follow the right-hand lane of a real two-lane road, although its training has only been carried out in a simulation.

This model, realised by a simple, convolutional network, relies on images of a forward-facing monocular camera and generates continuous actions that directly control the vehicle. To train this policy, proximal policy optimization was used, and to achieve the generalisation capability required for real performance, domain randomisation was used. A thorough analysis of the trained policy was conducted by measuring multiple performance metrics and comparing these to baselines that rely on other methods.

To assess the quality of the simulation-to-reality transfer learning process and the performance of the controller in the real world, simple metrics were measured on a real track and compared with results from a matching simulation. Further analysis was carried out by visualising salient object maps.

Highlights - Vision-based reinforcement learning for lane-tracking control

Here is a visual tour of the work of the authors. For more details, check out the full paper.

Fig 1. Illustration of the policy architecture with the notations used.

Fig 2. Explanation of the proposed orientation reward

Fig 3. Examples of domain randomised observations

Fig 4. .a) Test track used for simulated reinforcement learning and baseline evaluations; b) and c) real and simulated test track used for the evaluation of the simulation-to-reality transfer.

Fig 5. Learning curves for the reinforcement learning agent with different action representations and reward functions.

Sequence of robot positions in a collision avoidance experiment with a policy trained using the modified orientation reward. After 𝑡=6 s, the controlled robot follows the vehicle in front at a short but safe distance until the end of the episode (approximate distance is calculated as the distance between the centre points of the robots minus the length of a robot). — Fig 6. Sequence of Robot Positions in Collision Avoidance Experiment with Modified Orientation Reward Trained Policy

Fig 7. Salient objects highlighted on observations in different domains and tasks. Blue regions represent high activations throughout the network.

Conclusion

Here are the conclusions from the authors of this paper:

“This work presented a solution to the problem of complex, vision-based lane following in the Duckietown environment using reinforcement learning to train an end-to-end steering policy capable of simulation-to-real transfer learning. It was found that the training is sensitive to problem formulation, such as the representation of actions.

This study has demonstrated that by using domain randomisation, a moderately detailed and accurate simulation is sufficient for training end-to-end lane-following agents that operate in a real environment. The performance of these agents was evaluated by comparing some basic metrics to match real and simulated scenarios.

Agents were also successfully trained to perform collision avoidance in addition to lane following. Finally, salient object visualisation was used to give an illustrative explanation of the inner workings of the policies in both the real and simulated domains.”.

Project Authors

András Kalapos is a Machine Learning PhD Student at Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary.

Csaba Gór is a Machine Learning Engineer at Turbine, in Hungary.

Róbert Moni is a Senior Machine Learning Engineer at Continental.

István Harmati is an Associate Professor at Budapest University of Technology and Economics.

Learn more

Duckietown is a platform for creating and disseminating robotics and AI learning experiences.

It is modular, customizable and state-of-the-art, and designed to teach, learn, and do research. From exploring the fundamentals of computer science and automation to pushing the boundaries of knowledge, Duckietown evolves with the skills of the user.

End-to-end Deep RL (DRL) systems: in autonomous driving environments that rely on visual input for vehicle control face potential security risks, including:

State Adversarial Perturbations: Subtle alterations to visual input that mislead the DRL agent, causing incorrect decision-making.
Reward Tampering: Manipulation of the reward signal to misguide the learning process, leading the agent to adopt unsafe or inefficient policies.

These vulnerabilities can compromise the safety and reliability of self-driving vehicles.

Deep Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Navigation on Duckietown Platform: Evaluation of Adversarial Robustness

Evaluating Adversarial Robustness in Duckietown Navigation

Posted on June 4, 2024 | by Duckietown Admin

General Information

Deep Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Navigation on Duckietown Platform: Evaluation of Adversarial Robustness
Abdullah Hosseini, Saeid Houti, Junaid Qadir
Qatar University
A. Hosseini, S. Houti and J. Qadir, "Deep Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Navigation on Duckietown Platform: Evaluation of Adversarial Robustness," 2023 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC), Doha, Qatar, 2023, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ISNCC58260.2023.10323905.

Deep RL for Autonomous Navigation on Duckietown Platform: Evaluation of Adversarial Robustness

What is adversarial robustness in navigation tasks all about? A few important topics:

Reinforcement Learning (RL) is a type of machine learning where agents learn to make decisions by receiving rewards or penalties based on their actions in an environment. This is great because it removed the need for curated training datasets.

Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) enhances RL by using deep neural networks to process complex inputs and make decisions. Deep networks are neural networks with multiple layers.

Adversarial Robustness refers to a system’s ability to resist and maintain performance despite deliberate attacks or input perturbations.

Navigation is the task of finding feasible paths between points in the environment like Google Maps or similar systems provide us in everyday life.

Learn about RL, navigation and other robot autonomy topics at the link below.

Abstract

Self-driving cars have gained widespread attention in recent years due to their potential to revolutionize the transportation industry. However, their success critically depends on the ability of reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms to navigate complex environments safely. In this paper, we investigate the potential security risks associated with end-to-end deep RL (DRL) systems in autonomous driving environments that rely on visual input for vehicle control, using the open-source Duckietown platform for robotics and self-driving vehicles.

We demonstrate that current DRL algorithms are inherently susceptible to attacks by designing a general state adversarial perturbation and a reward tampering approach. Our strategy involves evaluating how attacks can manipulate the agent’s decision-making process and using this understanding to create a corrupted environment that can lead the agent towards low-performing policies. We introduce our state perturbation method, accompanied by empirical analysis and extensive evaluation, and then demonstrate a targeted attack using reward tampering that leads the agent to catastrophic situations.

Our experiments show that our attacks are effective in poisoning the learning of the agent when using the gradient-based Proximal Policy Optimization algorithm within the Duckietown environment. The results of this study are of interest to researchers and practitioners working in the field of autonomous driving, DRL, and computer security, and they can help inform the development of safer and more reliable autonomous driving systems.

Highlights - Evaluation of Adversarial Robustness Results

Here is a visual tour of the work of the authors. For more details, check out the paper link.

Fig. 1 - An illustration of the MDP framework, a fundamental concept in RL, where an agent interacts with an environment in a sequential manner to learn an optimal policy.

Fig. 2 - High-level architecture for training a DRL agent.

Average reward obtained by the agent for various reward functions in Duckietown — Fig. 3 - Average reward obtained by the agent for various reward functions.

Average reward of the agent under two different reward functions. Increasing the value of ϵ resulted in a decrease in the agent’s distance traveled and position-orientation reward as it completely deviated from the roadable area and faced towards the wrong direction — Fig. 4 - Average reward of the agent under two different reward functions.

Adversarial Navigation Robustness - Sequence of robot positions with DRL agent trained under adversarial and non-adversarial settings in a lane following experiment. The UAPFGSM method, making the agent move in circular movements with minimal perturbations, while adversarial reward tampering forces it to move in the opposite direction of the road. — Fig. 5 - Sequence of robot positions with DRL agent trained under adversarial and non-adversarial settings in a lane following experiment. The UAP- FGSM method, making the agent move in circular movements with minimal perturbations, while adversarial reward tampering forces it to move in the opposite direction of the road.

Fig. 6 - Saliency map provides insight into this aspect of the model’s behavior, particularly in the context of adversarial attacks. Due to the universal perturbation of the UAP-FGSM attack, the agent’s attention to nearby yellow- dashed lines is reduced.

Conclusion

Here are the conclusions from the authors of this paper:

“The focus of our study was to address adversarial attacks on deep reinforcement learning (DRL) agents, specifically examining state adversarial attacks and reward-tampering attacks.

We developed a parametric framework for state adversarial attacks and a non-parametric framework for reward tampering attacks, which enabled us to create effective attacks. We found that the performance of a DRL agent declined rapidly after the attack, and the deviation from the road was worse than that of standard DRL.

We used salient maps to provide a clear explanation of the policies’ internal operations in both the adversarial and non-adversarial aspects. Our research provides insight into the potential vulnerabilities of DRL agents and highlights the need for more robust and secure agents to mitigate the risk of adversarial attacks.

Moving forward, future work will focus on incorporating real-world analysis to test the performance of the DuckieBot under both adversarial and non-adversarial settings”.

Project Authors

Abdullah Hosseini is a Research and Development Specialist at Weill Cornell Medicine in Qatar.

Saeid Houti is a Software Developer at Ministry of Education and Higher Education Qatar.

Junaid Qadir is a Professor of Computer Engineering at Qatar University.

Learn more

Duckietown is a platform for creating and disseminating robotics and AI learning experiences.

End-to-end Deep RL (DRL) systems: in autonomous driving environments that rely on visual input for vehicle control face potential security risks, including:

State Adversarial Perturbations: Subtle alterations to visual input that mislead the DRL agent, causing incorrect decision-making.
Reward Tampering: Manipulation of the reward signal to misguide the learning process, leading the agent to adopt unsafe or inefficient policies.

These vulnerabilities can compromise the safety and reliability of self-driving vehicles.

Visual deep reinforcement learning paper snippet

Vision-Based DRL Autonomous Driving Agent with Sim2Real Transfer

Posted on May 6, 2024 | by Duckietown Admin

General Information

Vision-Based DRL Autonomous Driving Agent with Sim2Real Transfer

One way to obtain quick and cheap training data is to use simulation instead of real-world experiments. The question remains if the learnings of a simulation-trained agent apply to the real world. Sim2Real transfer is the field of research that studies this problem.

The challenge is particularly meaningful when using vision as the primary sensing capability for robots. Vision-based deep reinforcement learning (DRL) refers to a technique where ML agents, typically modeled as multi-layered neural networks, learn to “make decisions” directly from visual input.

The essence of RL is training robotic agents based on policies that reward desirable outcomes. This family of techniques typically leads to increased adaptability to operational scenarios.

To learn about RL and its place in the larger context of robot autonomy, check out the resources below.

Abstract

To achieve fully autonomous driving, vehicles must be capable of continuously performing various driving tasks, including lane keeping and car following, both of which are fundamental and well-studied driving ones. However, previous studies have mainly focused on individual tasks, and car following tasks have typically relied on complete leader-follower information to attain optimal performance.

To address this limitation, we propose a vision-based deep reinforcement learning (DRL) agent that can simultaneously perform lane-keeping and car-following maneuvers.

To evaluate the performance of our DRL agent, we compare it with a baseline controller and use various performance metrics for quantitative analysis. Furthermore, we conduct a real-world evaluation to demonstrate the Sim2Real transfer capability of the trained DRL agent.

To the best of our knowledge, our vision-based car following and lane-keeping agent with Sim2Real transfer capability is the first of its kind.

Highlights - Sim2Real transfer results

Here is a visual tour of the work of the authors. For all the details, check out the paper link.

Fig. 1. The proposed DRL framework for vision-based multi-task autonomous driving agents. The perception module leverages camera images to produce impact attributes regarding the environment, then the DRL control module utilizes the information to control the agent with enhanced generalization.

Duckiebot DB21 — Fig. 2. Robot car [Duckiebot] used during the real-world evaluation. (a) Side view of the robot car which equipped with front-view camera and Jetson Nano 2GB. (b) Back view of the car with a pattern of circles.

Fig. 3. An example velocity trajectory for the leading vehicle generated by the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process for the training process.

Fig. 4. Training results of PPO agent with ten independent seeds over one million steps.

Fig. 5. Example trajectories of DRL agent (red) and baseline controller (green) following random leader trajectory (orange) during the evaluation.

Fig. 6. Distribution of TTC and time headway for DRL agent (red) and baseline controller (green).

Fig. 7. Example trajectories of DRL agent (red) and baseline controller (green) following a self defined external leader trajectory (orange) during the evaluation.

Conclusion

This study proposes a vision-based DRL agent that can simultaneously perform lane-keeping and car-following tasks.

The overall system is divided into two modules: the perception module and the control module. The perception module extracts task-relevant attributes of the surroundings, while the control module is a DRL agent that takes these attributes as input. To evaluate the performance of the DRL agent, we compare it with a baseline algorithm in both simulation and real-world environments.

In the simulation, we compare the car following and lane-keeping capabilities of the DRL agent and baseline controller using various performance metrics. In the real-world environment, we demonstrate that the DRL agent can follow the leading vehicle while maintaining lane-keeping ability.

In future work, we plan to enhance our DRL agent by incorporating a comfort factor to address unstable driving behavior. Additionally, we aim to deploy more advanced algorithms for improved generalization.

Project Authors

Dianzhao Li is a research assistant at the Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.

Ostap Okhrin is Chair of Statistics and Econometrics at the Institute of Economics and Transport, School of Transportation, Technische Universitat Dresden in Germany.

Learn more

Duckietown is a platform for creating and disseminating robotics and AI learning experiences.

Learning Skills to Navigate without a Master: A Sequential Multi-Policy Reinforcement Learning Algorithm

Posted on April 4, 2024 | by Duckietown Admin

General Information

Learning Skills to Navigate without a Master: A Sequential Multi-Policy Reinforcement Learning Algorithm
Ambedkar Dukkipati, Rajarshi Banerjee, Ranga Shaarad Ayyagari, Dhaval Parmar Udaybhai
Indian Institute of Science
A. Dukkipati, R. Banerjee, R. S. Ayyagari and D. P. Udaybhai, "Learning Skills to Navigate without a Master: A Sequential Multi-Policy Reinforcement Learning Algorithm," 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Kyoto, Japan, 2022, pp. 2483-2489, doi: 10.1109/IROS47612.2022.9981607.

Learning Skills to Navigate without a Master: A Sequential Multi-Policy Reinforcement Learning Algorithm

Reinforcement learning (RL) is a rising star approach for developing autonomous robot agents. The essence of RL is training agents based on policies that reward desirable outcomes, which leads to increased adaptability to operational scenarios. Through iterations, robots refine their decision-making, optimizing actions based on rewards and penalties. This method provides robots with the flexibility to handle unpredictable situations, enhancing their efficiency and effectiveness in real-world tasks. To learn about RL with Duckietown, check out the resources below.

Abstract

Solving complex problems using reinforcement learning necessitates breaking down the problem into manageable tasks, and learning policies to solve these tasks. These policies, in turn, have to be controlled by a master policy that takes high-level decisions. Hence learning policies involves hierarchical decision structures. However, training such methods in practice may lead to poor generalization, with either sub-policies executing actions for too few time steps or devolving into a single policy altogether. In our work, we introduce an alternative approach to learn such skills sequentially without using an overarching hierarchical policy. We propose this method in the context of environments where a major component of the objective of a learning agent is to prolong the episode for as long as possible. We refer to our proposed method as Sequential Soft Option Critic. We demonstrate the utility of our approach on navigation and goal-based tasks in a flexible simulated 3D navigation environment that we have developed. We also show that our method outperforms prior methods such as Soft Actor-Critic and Soft Option Critic on various environments, including the Atari River Raid environment and the Gym-Duckietown self-driving car simulator.

Highlights

Here is a visual tour of the work of the authors.

For all the details, check out the paper link!

(a) An illustration of policies learned in our approach. (b) A representation of the state space partitioned by the termination functions of the options. Each oval corresponds to the set of states classified as non-termination states by the corresponding nested termination function. — Fig. 1. (a) An illustration of policies learned in our approach. Different policies learn different skills out of necessity to traverse the environment and not terminate the episode. The trajectory spawned by the sequence of policies that correctly learns to avoid terminating the episode is shown in green. The policy π1 is used when the agent is in the middle of the corridor. When the end of the corridor is reached, π2 is selected to take a turn and avoid a collision. (b) A representation of the state space partitioned by the termination functions of the options. Each oval corresponds to the set of states classified as non-termination states by the corresponding nested termination function.

Learning Skills to Navigate without a Master: A Sequential Multi-Policy Reinforcement Learning Algorithm image — Fig. 2. (a) & (b) The input to the neural network in our 3D navigation environment. These images obtained from the simulation are scaled (and also transformed to grayscale in the case of (a)) and appended with K previous images, and sent to the agent as input. (c) A view of the Duckietown environment.

Autonomous robot Navigation performance results obtained on various environments: SAC, SOC, SAC with HER — Fig. 3. The results obtained on various environments.

Outputs of the three learned policies when fed the corresponding input shown on the left. πω1 : orange, πω2 : blue, πω3 : green. Each policy outputs a Gaussian distribution, the active policy is the one filled with color. A positive value for the output action corresponds to turning right, and a negative value indicates a left turn. — Fig. 4. Outputs of the three learned policies when fed the corresponding input shown on the left. πω_1: orange, πω_2 : blue, πω_3 : green. Each policy outputs a Gaussian distribution, the active policy is the one filled with color. A positive value for the output action corresponds to turning right, and a negative value indicates a left turn.

Conclusion

In this paper, the authors proposed an algorithm called “Sequential Soft Option Critic” that allows adding new skills dynamically without the need for a higher-level master policy. This can be applicable to environments where a primary component of the objective is to prolong the episode. We show that this algorithm can be used to effectively incorporate diverse skills into an overall skill set, and it outperforms prior methods in several environments.

Learn more

Duckietown is a platform for creating and disseminating robotics and AI learning experiences.

Duckietown is modular, customizable and state-of-the-art. It is designed to teach, learn, and do research: from exploring the fundamentals of computer science and automation to pushing the boundaries of knowledge.

Monocular Robot Navigation with Self-Supervised Pretrained Vision Transformers

Posted on May 9, 2022 | by Ivano Marocchi

Monocular Robot Navigation with Self-Supervised Pre-trained Vision Transformers

Duckietown’s infrastructure is used by researchers worldwide to push the boundaries of knowledge. Of the many outstanding works published, today we’d like to highlight “Monocular Robot Navigation with Self-Supervised Pretrained Vision Transformers” by Saavedra-Ruiz et al. at the University of Montreal.

Using visual transformers (ViT) for understanding their surroundings, Duckiebots are made capable of detecting and avoiding obstacles, while safely driving inside lanes. ViT is an emerging machine vision technique that has its root in Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications. The use of this architecture is recent and promising in Computer Vision. Enjoy the read and don’t forget to reproduce these results on your Duckiebots!

Abstract

“In this work, we consider the problem of learning a perception model for monocular robot navigation using few annotated images. Using a Vision Transformer (ViT) pretrained with a label-free self-supervised method, we successfully train a coarse image segmentation model for the Duckietown environment using 70 training images. Our model performs coarse image segmentation at the 8×8 patch level, and the inference resolution can be adjusted to balance prediction granularity and real-time perception constraints. We study how best to adapt a ViT to our task and environment, and find that some lightweight architectures can yield good single-image segmentations at a usable frame rate, even on CPU. The resulting perception model is used as the backbone for a simple yet robust visual servoing agent, which we deploy on a differential drive mobile robot to perform two tasks: lane following and obstacle avoidance.”

Authors

Pipeline

“We propose to train a classifier to predict labels for every 8×8 patch in an image. Our classifier is a fully-connected network which we apply over ViT patch encodings to predict a coarse segmentation mask:”

Conclusions

“In this work, we study how embodied agents with visionbased motion can benefit from ViTs pretrained via SSL methods. Specifically, we train a perception model with only 70 images to navigate a real robot in two monocular visual-servoing tasks. Additionally, in contrast to previous SSL literature for general computer vision tasks, our agent appears to benefit more from small high-throughput models rather than large high-capacity ones. We demonstrate how ViT architectures can flexibly adapt their inference resolution based on available resources, and how they can be used in robotic application depending on the precision needed by the embodied agent. Our approach is based on predicting labels for 8×8 image patches, and is not well-suited for predicting high-resolution segmentation masks, in which case an encoder-decoder architecture should be preferred. The low resolution of our predictions does not seem to hinder navigation performance however, and we foresee as an interesting research direction how those high-throughput low-resolution predictions affect safety-critical applications. Moreover, training perception models in an SSL fashion on sensory data from the robot itself rather than generic image datasets (e.g., ImageNet) appears to be a promising research avenue, and is likely to yield visual representations that are better adapted to downstream visual servoing applications.”

Learn more

The Duckietown platform offers robotics and AI learning experiences.

AI Driving Olympics 2021: Urban League Finalists

Posted on December 8, 2021 | by Jacopo Tani

AI Driving Olympics 2021 - Urban League Finalists

This year’s embodied urban league challenges were lane following (LF), lane following with vehicles (LFV) and lane following with intersections, (LFI). To account for differences between the real world and simulation, this edition finalists can make one additional submission to the real challenges to improve their scores. Finalists are the authors of AI-DO 2021 submissions in the top 5 ranks for each challenge. This year’s finalists are:

LF

András Kalapos
Bence Haromi
Sampsa Ranta
ETU-JBR Team
Giulio Vaccari

LFV

Sampsa Ranta
Adrian Brucker
Andras Beres
David Bardos

LFI

András Kalapos
Sampsa Ranta
Adrian Brucker
Andras Beres

The deadline for submitting the “final” submissions is Dec. 9th, 2 pm CET. All submissions received after this time will count towards the next edition of AI-DO.

Don’t forget to join the #aido channel on the Duckietown Slack for updates!

Congratulations to all the participants, and best of luck to the finalists!

Join the AI Driving Olympics, 6th edition, starting now!

Posted on November 1, 2021 | by Ivano Marocchi

The 2021 AI Driving Olympics

Compete in the 2021 edition of the Artificial Intelligence Driving Olympics (AI-DO 6)!

The AI-DO serves to benchmark the state of the art of artificial intelligence in autonomous driving by providing standardized simulation and hardware environments for tasks related to multi-sensory perception and embodied AI.

Duckietown traditionally hosts AI-DO competitions biannually, with finals events held at machine learning and robotics conferences such as the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) and the Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS).

AI-DO 6 will be in conjunction with NeurIPS 2021 and have three leagues: urban driving, advanced perception, and racing. The winter champions will be announced during NeurIPS 2021, on December 10, 2021!

Urban driving league

The urban driving league uses the Duckietown platform and presents several challenges, each of increasing complexity.

The goal in each challenge is to develop a robotic agent for driving Duckiebots “well”. Baseline implementations are provided to test different approaches. There are no constraints on how your agents are designed.

Each challenge adds a layer of complexity: intersections, other vehicles, pedestrians, etc. You can check out the existing challenges on the Duckietown challenges server.

AI-DO 2021 features four challenges: lane following (LF), lane following with intersections (LFI), lane following with vehicles (LFV) and lane following with vehicles and intersections, multi-body, with full information (LFVI-multi-full).

All challenges have a simulation and hardware component (,), except for LFVI-multi-full, which is simulation () only.

The first phase (until Nov. 7) is a practice one. Results do not count towards leaderboards.

The second phase (Nov. 8-30) is the live competition and results count towards official leaderboards.

Selected submissions (that perform well enough in simulation) will be evaluated on hardware in Autolabs. The submissions scoring best in Autolabs will access the finals.

During the finals (Dec. 1-8) one additional submission is possible for each finalist, per challenge.

Winners (top 3) of the resulting leaderboard will be declared AI-DO 2021 winter champions and celebrated live during NeurIPS 2021. We require champions to submit a short video (2 mins) introducing themselves and describing their submission.

Winners are invited to join (not mandatory) the NeurIPS event, on December 10th, 2021, starting at 11.25 GMT (Zoom link will follow).

Overview

🎯	Goal: develop robotic agents for challenges of increasing complexity
🚙	Robot: Duckiebot (`DB21M/J`)
👀	Sensors: camera, wheel encoders

Schedule

	Practice: Nov. 1-7
	Competition: Nov. 8-30
	Finals: Dec. 1 – 8
	Winners: Dec. 10

Rules

	Practice: unlimited non-competing submissions
	Competition: best in sim are evaluated on hardware in Autolabs
	Finals: one additional submission for Autolabs
	Winners: 2 mins video submission description for NeurIPS 2021 event.

The challenges

Lane following

LF – The most traditional of AI-DO challenges: have a Duckiebot navigate a road loop without intersection, pedestrians (duckies) nor other vehicles. The objective is to travel the longest path in a given time while staying in the lane, i.e., not committing driving infractions.

Current AI-DO leaderboards: LF-sim-validation, LF-sim-testing.

Previous AI-DO leaderboards: sim-validation, sim-testing, real-validation.

Lane following with intersections

LFI – This challenge builds upon LF by increasing the complexity of the road network, now featuring 3 and/or 4-way intersections, defined according to the Duckietown appearance specifications. Traffic lights will not be present on the map. The objective is to drive the longest distance while not breaking the rules of the road, now more complex due to the presence of traffic signs.

Current AI-DO leaderboards: LFI-sim-validation, LFI-sim-testing.

Previous AI-DO leaderboards: sim-validation, sim-testing.

Lane following with vehicles

LFV – In this traditional AI-DO challenge, contestants seek to travel the longest path in a city without intersections nor pedestrians, but with other vehicles on the road. Non-playing vehicles (i.e., not running the user’s submitted agent) can be in the same and/or opposite lanes and have variable speed.

Current AI-DO leaderboards: LFV-sim-validation, LFV-sim-testing.

Previous AI-DO leaderboards: (LFV-multi variant): sim-validation, sim-testing, real-validation.

Lane following with vehicles and intersections (stateful)

LFVI-multi-full – this debuting challenge brings together roads with intersections and other vehicles. The submitted agent is deployed on all Duckiebots on the map (-multi), and is provided with full information, i.e., the state of the other vehicles on the map (-full). This challenge is in simulation only.

Leaderboards: LFVI_multi_full-sim-validation

Getting started

All you need to get started and participate in the AI-DO is a computer, a good internet connection, and the ambition to challenge your skills against the international community!

We provide webinars, operation manuals, and baselines to get started.

May the duck be with you!

Thank you to our generous sponsors!

Automatic Wheels and Camera Calibration for Monocular and Differential Mobile Robots

Posted on July 21, 2021 | by Konstantin Chaika

Automatic Wheels and Camera Calibration for Monocular and Differential Mobile Robots

After assembling the robot, components such as the camera and wheels need to be calibrated. This requires human participation and depends on human factors. We describe the approach to fully automatic calibration of a robot’s camera and wheels.

The camera calibration collects the necessary set of images by automatically moving the robot in front of the chess boards, and then moving it on the marked floor, assessing its trajectory curvature. As a result of the calibration, coefficient k is calculated for the wheels, and camera matrix K (which includes the focal length, the optical center, and the skew coefficient) and distortion coefficients D are calculated for the camera.

Proposed approach has been tested on duckiebots in Alexander Popov’s International Innovation Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity and Communication, SPbETU “LETI”. This solution is comparable to manual calibrations and is capable of replacing a human for this task.

Camera calibration process

The initial position of the robot is a part of the floor with chessboards in front, where the robot is located from the very beginning, on which its camera is directed and the floorsurface is marked with aruco markers on the other side of it.

There can be any number of chessboards, determined by the amount of free space around the robot. To a greater extent, the accuracy of calibration is affected by the frames with different positions of the boards, e.g., boards located at different distances from the robot and at different angles. The physical size and type of all the boards around the robot must be the same.

In fact, the camera calibration implies that the robot is rotating around its axis and taking pictures of all the viewable chessboards in turn. In this case, the ability to make several “passes” during the shooting process should be provided for, to control which of the boards the robot is currently observing and in which direction it should turn. As a result, the algorithm can be represented as a sequence of actions: “get a frame from the camera” and “turn” a little. The final algorithm comprises the following sequence of actions:

Obtain frame from the camera;
Find a chessboard on the camera frame;
Save information about board corners found in the image;
Determine the direction of rotation according to the schedule;
Make a step;
Either repeat the steps described above, or complete the data
collection and proceed with the camera calibration using OpenCV.

Wheels calibration process

Floor markers should be oriented towards the chessboards and begin as close to the robot as possible. The distance between the markers depends on camera’s resolution, as well as its height and angle of inclination, but it must be such that at least three recognizable markers can simultaneously be in the frame. For ours experiments, the distance between the markers was set as 15 cm with a marker size of 6.5 cm. The algorithm does not take into account the relative position of the markers against each other; however, the orientation of all markers must be strictly the same.

Let us consider the first iteration of the automatic wheel calibration algorithm:

The robot receives the orientation of the marker closest to it and remembers it.
Next, the robot moves forward with thespeeds of the left and right wheels equal to
ω₁ω₂ for some fixed time t. The speeds are calculated taking into account the calibration
coefficient k, which for the first iteration is chosen to equal 1 – that is, it is assumed that
the real wheel speeds are equal.
The robot obtains the orientation of the marker closest to it again and calculates the
difference in angles between them.
The coefficient k_i for this step is calculated.
The robot moves back for the same time t.

In order to reduce the influence of the error in calculating ki, coefficient k is refined only by the value of (k_i−1)/2 after each iteration. It is important to complete this step after the robot moves back, because it reduces the chance of the robot moving outside the area width. If, after the next step, the modulus of the difference between (k_i−1)/2 and 1.0 becomes less than the pre-selected E, then at this iteration (k_i−1)/2 is not taken into account. If after three successive iterations k_i is not taken into account, the wheel calibration is considered to be completed.

Accuracy Evaluation

To compare camera calibration errors, the knowledge of how to calculate these errors is needed. Since the calibration mechanism is used by the OpenCV library, the error is also calculated by the method offered by this library.

As noted earlier, with respect to calibration factors, the approach used to calibrate the camera is not applicable. Therefore, the influence of the coefficient on the robot’s trajectory curvature is estimated. To do this, the robot was located at a certain fixed distance from a straight line, along which it was oriented and then moved in manual mode strictly directly to a distance of two meters from the start point along the axis, relative to which it was oriented. Then, the robot stopped and the distance between the initial distance to the line and the final one was calculated.

Two metrices were estimated – reprojection error and straight line deviation. First one shows the quality of camera calibration, and the second one represents the quality of wheels calibration. Two pictures below present result of 10 independent tests in comparison with manual calibration.

The tests found that the suggested solution, on average, shows that the results are not much worse, than the classical manual solution when calibrating the camera, as well as when calibrating the wheels with a well known calibrated camera. However, when calibrating both the wheels and the camera, the wheel calibration can be significantly affected by the camera calibration effect. As a result of testing, a clear relationship was found between the reprojection error and the straight line deviation.

Method Modifications

After the integration of this approach, it became necessary to automate the last step-moving the robot to the field. Due to the fact that after the calibration step completion the robot becomes fully prepared for launching autonomous driving algorithms on it, the automation of this step further reduces the time spent by the operator when calibrating the robot, since instead of moving the robot to the field manually, he can place the next robot at the starting position. In our case, the calibration field was located at the side of the road lane so that the floor markers used to calibrate the wheels are oriented perpendicular to the road lane.

Thus, the first stage of the robot automatic removal from the calibration zone is to return its orientation back to the same state, as it was at the moment when the wheel calibration started. This was carried out using exactly the same approach that was described earlier—depending on the orientation of the floor marker closest to the robot, the robot rotates step by step about its axis clockwise or counterclockwise until the value of the robot’s orientation angle is modulo less than some preselected value.

At this point, the robot is still on the wheel calibration field, but in this case, it is oriented towards the lane. Thus, the last step is to move the robot outside the border of the field with markers. To do this, it is enough to give the robot a command to move directly until it stops observing the markers, when the last marker is hidden from the camera view. This means that the robot has left the calibration zone, and the robot can be put into the lane following mode.

Future Work

During the robot’s operation, the wheels calibration may become irrelevant. It can be influenced by various factors: a change in the wheel diameter due to wear of the wheel coating, a slight change in the characteristics of motors due to the wear of the gearbox plastic, and a change in the robot’s weight distribution, e.g., laying the cables on the other side of the case after charging the robot, and so a slight calibration mismatch can occur. However, all these factors have a rather small impact, and the robot will still have a satisfactory calibration. There is no need to re-perform the calibration process, just a little refinement of the current one seems to be enough. To do this, a section of the road along which the robots will be guaranteed to pass regularly, was selected.

Further, markers were placed in this lane according to the rules described earlier: the distance between the markers is 15 cm; the size of the marker is 6.5 cm. The markers are located in the center of the lane. The distance between the markers may be not completely accurate, but they should be oriented in the same direction and co-directed with the movement in the lane on which they are placed.

The first marker in the direction of travel must have a predefined ID. It can be anything, the only limitation is that it must be unique for a current robot environment. Further, the following changes were made to the algorithm for the standard control of the robot: when the robot recognizes the first marker with a predetermined ID while driving right in the lane, it corrects its orientation relative to this marker and continues to move strictly straight ahead. Further, the algorithm is similar to the one described earlier—the robot recognizing the next marker can refine its wheel calibration coefficient, apply it, and change the orientation coaxially with the next marker.

Conclusions

As a result, a solution was developed that allows a fully automatic calibration of the camera and the Duckiebot’s wheels. The main feature is the autonomy of the process, which allows one person to run the calibration of an arbitrary number of robots in parallel and not be blocked during their calibration. In addition, the robot is able to improve its calibration as it operates in default mode.

Comparing the developed solution with the initial one resulted in finding a slight deterioration in accuracy, which is primarily associated with the accuracy of the camera calibration; however, the result obtained is sufficient for the robot’s initial calibration and is comparable to manual calibration.

Did you find this interesting?

Embedded out-of-distribution detection on an autonomous robot platform

Posted on July 13, 2021 | by michaelj004

Embedded out-of-distribution detection on an autonomous robot platform

Introduction

Machine learning is becoming more and more common in cyber-physical systems; many of these systems are safety critical, e.g. autonomous vehicles, UAVs, and surgical robots. However, machine learning systems can only provide accurate outputs when their input data is similar to their training data. For example, if an object detector in an autonomous vehicle is trained on images containing various classes of objects, but no ducks, what will it do when it encounters a duck during runtime? One method for dealing with this challenge is to detect inputs that lie outside the training distribution of data: out-of-distribution (OOD) detection. Many OOD detector architectures have been explored, however the cyber-physical domain adds additional challenges: hard runtime requirements and resource constrained systems. In this paper, we implement a real-time OOD detector on the Duckietown framework and use it to demonstrate the challenges as well as the importance of OOD detection in cyber-physical systems.

Out-of-Distribution Detection

Machine learning systems perform best when their test data is similar to their training data. In some applications unreliable results from a machine learning algorithm may be a mere nuisance, but in other scenarios they can be safety critical. OOD detection is one method to ensure that machine learning systems remain safe during test time. The goal of the OOD detector is to determine if the input sample is from a different distribution than that of the training data. If an OOD sample is detected, the detector can raise a flag indicating that the output of the machine learning system should not be considered safe, and that the system should enter a new control regime. In an autonomous vehicle, this may mean handing control back to the driver, or bringing the vehicle to a stop as soon as practically possible.

In this paper we consider the existing β-VAE based OOD detection architecture. This architecture takes advantage of the information bottleneck in a variational auto-encoder (VAE) to learn the distribution of training data. In this detector the VAE undergoes unsupervised training with the goal of minimizing the error between a true prior probability in input space p(z), and an approximated posterior probability from the encoder output p(z|x). During test time, the Kullback-Leibler divergence between these distributions p(z) and q(z|x) will be used to assign an OOD score to each input sample. Because the training goal was to minimize the distance between these two distributions on in-distribution data, in-distribution data found at runtime should have a low OOD score while OOD data should have a higher OOD score.

Duckietown

We used Duckietown to implement our OOD detector. Duckietown provides a natural test bed because:

It is modular and easy to learn: the focus of our research is about implementing an OOD detector, not building a robot from scratch
It is a resource constrained system: the RPi on the DB18 is powerful enough to be capable of navigation tasks, but resource constrained enough that real-time performance is not guaranteed. It servers as a good analog for a system in which an OOD detector shares a CPU with perception, planning, and control software.
It is open source: this eliminates the need to purchase and manage licenses, allows us to directly check the source code when we encounter implementation issues, and allows us to contribute back to the community once our project is finished.
It is low-cost: we’re not made of money 🙂

In our experiment, we used the stock DB18 robot. Because we took advantage of the existing Duckietown framework, we only had to write three ROS nodes ourselves:

Lane following node: a simple OpenCV-based lane follower that navigates based on camera images. This represents the perception and planning system for the mobile robot that we are trying to protect. In our system the lane following node takes 640×480 RGB images and updates the planned trajectory at a rate of 5Hz.
OOD detection node: this node also takes images directly from the camera, but its job is to raise a flag when an OOD input appears (image with an OOD score greater than some threshold). On the RPi with no GPU or TPU, it takes a considerable amount of time to make an inference on the VAE, so our detection node does not have a target rate, but rather uses the last available camera frame, dropping any frames that arrive while the OOD score is being computed.
Motor control node: during normal operation it takes the trajectory planned by the lane following node and sends it to the wheels. However, if it receives a signal from the OOD detection node, it begins emergency breaking.

The Experiment

Our experiment considers the emergency stopping distance required for the Duckiebot when an OOD input is detected. In our setup the Duckiebot drives forward along a straight track. The area in front of the robot is divided into two zones: the risk zone and the safe zone. The risk zone is an area where if an obstacle appears, it poses a risk to the Duckiebot. The safe zone is further away and to the sides; this is a region where unknown obstacles may be present, but they do not pose an immediate threat to the robot. An obstacle that has not appeared in the training set is placed in the safe zone in front of the robot. As the robot drives forward along the track, the obstacle will eventually enter the risk zone. Upon entry into the risk zone we measure how far the Duckiebot travels before the OOD detector triggers an emergency stop.

We defined the risk zone as the area 60cm directly in front of our Duckiebot. We repeated the experiment 40 times and found that with our system architecture, the Duckiebot stopped on average 14.5cm before the obstacle. However, in 5 iterations of the experiment, the Duckiebot collided with the stationary obstacle.

We wanted to analyze what lead to the collision in those five cases. We started by looking at the times it took for our various nodes to run. We plotted the distribution of end-to-end stopping times, image capture to detection start times, OOD detector execution times, and detection result to motor stop times. We observed that there was a long tail on the OOD execution times, which lead us to suspect that the collisions occurred when the OOD detector took too long to produce a result. This hypothesis was bolstered by the fact that even when a collision had occurred, the last logged OOD score was above the detection threshold, it had just been produced too late. We also looked at the final two OOD detection times for each collision and found that in every case the final two times were above the median detector execution time. This highlights the importance of real-time scheduling when performing OOD detection in a cyber-physical system.

We also wanted to analyze what would happen if we adjusted the OOD detection threshold. Because we had logged the the detection threshold every time the detector had run, we were able to interpolate the position of the robot at every detection time and discover when the robot would have stopped for different OOD detection thresholds. We observe there is a tradeoff associated with moving the detection threshold. If the detection threshold is lowered, the frequency of collisions can be reduced and even eliminated. However, the mean stopping distance is also moved further from the obstacle and the robot is more likely to stop spuriously when the obstacle is outside of the risk zone.

Next Steps

In this paper we successfully implemented an OOD detector on a mobile robot, but our experiment leaves many more questions:

How does the performance of other OOD detector architectures compare with the β-VAE detector we used in this paper?
How can we guarantee the real-time performance of an OOD detector on a resource-constrained system, especially when sharing a CPU with other computationally intensive tasks like perception, planning, and control?
Does the performance vary when detecting more complex OOD scenarios: dynamic obstacles, turning corners, etc.?

Did you find this interesting?

AI Driving Olympics 5th edition: results

Posted on December 19, 2020 | by Ivano Marocchi

AI-DO 5: Urban league winners

This year’s challenges were lane following (LF), lane following with pedestrians (LFP) and lane following with other vehicles, multibody (LFV_multi).

Let’s find out the results in each category:

LF

Andras Beres 🇭🇺
Zoltan Lorincz 🇭🇺
András Kalapos 🇭🇺

LFP

Bea Baselines 🐤
Melisande Teng 🇨🇦
Raphael Jean 🇨🇦

LFV_multi

Robert Moni 🇭🇺
Márton Tim 🇭🇺
Anastasiya Nikolskay 🇷🇺

Congratulations to the Hungarian Team from the Budapest University of Technology and Economics for collecting the highest rankings in the urban league!

Here’s how the winners in each category performed both in the qualification (simulation) and in the finals running on real hardware:

Andras Beres - Lane following (LF) winner

Melisande Teng - Lane following with pedestrians (LFP) winner

Robert Moni - Lane following with other vehicles, multibody (LFV_multi) winner

AI-DO 5: Advanced Perception league winners

Great participation and results in the Advanced Perception league! Check out this year’s winners in the video below:

AI-DO 5 sponsors

Many thanks to our amazing sponsors, without which none of this would have been possible!

Stay tuned for next year AI Driving Olympics. Visit the AI-DO page for more information on the competition and to browse this year’s introductory webinars, or check out the Duckietown massive open online course (MOOC) and prepare for next year’s competition!