Multi-criteria optimization manipulator trajectory planning

In the last twenty years genetic algorithms (GAs) were applied in a plethora of fields such as: control, system identification, robotics, planning and scheduling, image processing, and pattern and speech recognition (Bäck et al., 1997). In robotics the problems of trajectory planning, collision avoidance and manipulator structure design considering a single criteria has been solved using several techniques (Alander, 2003). Most engineering applications require the optimization of several criteria simultaneously. Often the problems are complex, include discrete and continuous variables and there is no prior knowledge about the search space. These kind of problems are very more complex, since they consider multiple design criteria simultaneously within the optimization procedure. This is known as a multi-criteria (or multiobjective) optimization, that has been addressed successfully through GAs (Deb, 2001). The overall aim of multi-criteria evolutionary algorithms is to achieve a set of non-dominated optimal solutions known as Pareto front. At the end of the optimization procedure, instead of a single optimal (or near optimal) solution, the decision maker can select a solution from the Pareto front. Some of the key issues in multi-criteria GAs are: i) the number of objectives, ii) to obtain a Pareto front as wide as possible and iii) to achieve a Pareto front uniformly spread. Indeed, multi-objective techniques using GAs have been increasing in relevance as a research area. In 1989, Goldberg suggested the use of a GA to solve multi-objective problems and since then other researchers have been developing new methods, such as the multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) (Fonseca & Fleming, 1995), the non-dominated sorted genetic algorithm (NSGA) (Deb, 2001), and the niched Pareto genetic algorithm (NPGA) (Horn et al., 1994), among several other variants (Coello, 1998). In this work the trajectory planning problem considers: i) robots with 2 and 3 degrees of freedom (dof ), ii) the inclusion of obstacles in the workspace and iii) up to five criteria that are used to qualify the evolving trajectory, namely the: joint traveling distance, joint velocity, end effector / Cartesian distance, end effector / Cartesian velocity and energy involved. These criteria are used to minimize the joint and end effector traveled distance, trajectory ripple and energy required by the manipulator to reach at destination point. Bearing this ideas in mind, the paper addresses the planning of robot trajectories, meaning the development of an algorithm to find a continuous motion that takes the manipulator from a given starting configuration up to a desired end position without colliding with any obstacle in the workspace. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the trajectory planning and several approaches proposed in the literature. Section 3 formulates the problem, namely the representation adopted to solve the trajectory planning and the objectives considered in the optimization. Section 4 studies the algorithm convergence. Section 5 studies a 2R manipulator (i.e., a robot with two rotational joints/links) when the optimization trajectory considers two and five objectives. Sections 6 and 7 show the results for the 3R redundant manipulator with five goals and for other complementary experiments are described, respectively. Finally, section 8 draws the main conclusions.

An optimal boundary fair scheduling

Nowadays, many real-time operating systems discretize the time relying on a system time unit. To take this behavior into account, real-time scheduling algorithms must adopt a discrete-time model in which both timing requirements of tasks and their time allocations have to be integer multiples of the system time unit. That is, tasks cannot be executed for less than one time unit, which implies that they always have to achieve a minimum amount of work before they can be preempted. Assuming such a discrete-time model, the authors of Zhu et al. (Proceedings of the 24th IEEE international real-time systems symposium (RTSS 2003), 2003, J Parallel Distrib Comput 71(10):1411–1425, 2011) proposed an efficient “boundary fair” algorithm (named BF) and proved its optimality for the scheduling of periodic tasks while achieving full system utilization. However, BF cannot handle sporadic tasks due to their inherent irregular and unpredictable job release patterns. In this paper, we propose an optimal boundary-fair scheduling algorithm for sporadic tasks (named BF TeX ), which follows the same principle as BF by making scheduling decisions only at the job arrival times and (expected) task deadlines. This new algorithm was implemented in Linux and we show through experiments conducted upon a multicore machine that BF TeX outperforms the state-of-the-art discrete-time optimal scheduler (PD TeX ), benefiting from much less scheduling overheads. Furthermore, it appears from these experimental results that BF TeX is barely dependent on the length of the system time unit while PD TeX —the only other existing solution for the scheduling of sporadic tasks in discrete-time systems—sees its number of preemptions, migrations and the time spent to take scheduling decisions increasing linearly when improving the time resolution of the system.

A filter inexact-restoration method for nonlinear programming

A new iterative algorithm based on the inexact-restoration (IR) approach combined with the filter strategy to solve nonlinear constrained optimization problems is presented. The high level algorithm is suggested by Gonzaga et al. (SIAM J. Optim. 14:646–669, 2003) but not yet implement—the internal algorithms are not proposed. The filter, a new concept introduced by Fletcher and Leyffer (Math. Program. Ser. A 91:239–269, 2002), replaces the merit function avoiding the penalty parameter estimation and the difficulties related to the nondifferentiability. In the IR approach two independent phases are performed in each iteration, the feasibility and the optimality phases. The line search filter is combined with the first one phase to generate a “more feasible” point, and then it is used in the optimality phase to reach an “optimal” point. Numerical experiences with a collection of AMPL problems and a performance comparison with IPOPT are provided.