ProNav: Proprioceptive Traversability Estimation for Legged Robot Navigation in Outdoor Environments

Autonomous robot navigation in challenging environments requires robots to perceive the real world through their sensors. To this end, robots often incorporate onboard exteroceptive, and proprioceptive sensors. We briefly review the existing work on exteroceptive and proprioceptive perception in the following sub-sections.

Recently, many approaches have been proposed to leverage the agile mobility of legged robots [30, 31] in unstructured outdoor environments, which is challenging for wheeled robots [32]. Some of these works use cost maps to represent the traversability of the environments [33].Semantic Belief Graph are utilized in [34] to train a policy for trajectory generation in extreme environments. Moreover, a traversability uncertainty-based method is proposed in [35]. In [36], the authors presented a traversability estimator that uses a classifier (or a regressor) neural network based on elevation maps. Artplanner [31] is a navigation planner designed for the DARPA Subterranean Challenge that uses geometric reachability checking and a motion cost neural network to compute optimal paths. Proprioceptive feedback is also used in the literature [6, 14, 29]. In [6], Lee et al. utilized proprioceptive feedback to train a robot controller using reinforcement learning. Their approach shows zero-shot capabilities when tested in outdoor settings. However, an inherent limitation of proprioception is its inability to preview terrain features before the robot directly interacts with them. This limitation motivates the integration of ProNav with an exteroceptive-based navigation method, ensuring a more comprehensive navigation strategy.

We assume a quadrupedal robot with 12 degrees of freedom (DOF), with 2-DOFs in the hip, and 1-DOF in the knee of each leg. We assign numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 to denote the front-left, front-right, rear-left, and rear-right legs respectively, and $i$ to denote each leg. A robot coordinate frame is established at its center of mass with positive X, Y, Z pointing forward, left, and up respectively. Frames with similar conventions are established at each hip and knee joint. The hip has two actuators, one is moving along the X-axis direction and the other one along the Y-axis direction. Moreover, the knee actuator moves along the Z direction. We also measure the positions $p^{hip,i}_{x},p^{hip,i}_{y}$, $p^{knee,i}_{z}$, velocity $v^{hip,i}_{x},v^{hip,i}_{y}$, $v^{knee,i}_{z}$, and force $f^{hip,i}_{x},f^{hip,i}_{y},f^{knee,i}_{z}$ exerted at a time instant $t$. Several widely used legged robot platforms possess these specifications and capability to measure these parameters [37, 38, 39].

Position and velocity data at the joints are measured using encoder sensors, and the forces experienced are measured using the internal tactile sensing mechanism. Finally, we assume that the current drawn ($I(t)$) from the robot’s battery can be measured using an ammeter or a current sensor while traversing various terrains. We define $\mathbf{X}_{t}\in\mathbb{R}^{36}$ as the set of all positions (3), velocities (3), and forces (3) obtained from all four legs of the robot. Based on our setup and notation, we have formulated the state vector at a given time instant $t$ for our traversability estimation method as,

The focus of our approach is to enhance the navigational capabilities of legged robots traversing through a variety of terrains (e.g. densely vegetated, granular, rocky) using proprioceptive feedback to adapt to changes in surface conditions. In these terrains, the robot’s legs could slip, trip, sink, or get entangled. A robot falling to the ground (we define as a crash) which could be caused by one of the following reasons:

To traverse various terrains, we assume a legged robot with a locomotion model that can alternate between three gaits: trot, crawl, and amble [29, 30]. Trot is the standard walking gait where the robot walks with two of its feet on the ground at a time instance, allowing fast movements. It is stable on hard surfaces, with moderate power consumption. On the other hand, during crawl and amble, the robot has three of its feet on the ground at a time instance, leading to more stable behaviors in uneven, granular, deformable surfaces. Amble helps to traverse through environments with high resistance to motion while also maintaining stability, which also helps handle poor foothold terrains. Similarly, crawl maintains high stability in granular terrains and regions with poor footholds while consuming minimal power. The maximum velocities for each gait follows the trend $v^{trot}_{max}=v^{amble}_{max}>v^{crawl}_{max}$, and the current consumption for each gait follows $I^{Amble}>I^{Trot}>I^{Crawl}$. Based on these definitions, our formulation can be stated as follows,

Our goal is to choose the fewest number of proprioceptive signals (i.e., the minimum subset $\mathbf{Y}_{t}\subset\mathbf{X}_{t}$ at every time instant $t$) that are also excellent indicators of stability. Deducing the minimum subset helps reduce the input dimensionality of our approach, which in turn improves its real-time factor.

Our goal in preprocessing the chosen force and position data is to obtain quantities that change drastically on various terrains, thus indicating their properties. Vectors of the processed data are then analyzed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

To estimate a terrain’s traversability using our preprocessed proprioceptive signals, we first apply Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to reduce its 9 dimensions into two principal components as,

Continuously plotting the PCA points corresponding to traversing a terrain $T$ with gait $g$ for a time period results in a distribution/cluster of points as shown in Fig. 5a. We obtain several key insights from our analysis: 1. The variance of the data along the two principal components differentiates stable (low variance/small cluster) and unstable (high variance/big cluster) terrains, 2. Terrain-gait pairs that have similar stability characteristics have similar clusters (e.g. concrete-trot and asphalt-trot), and 3. The position of the PCA points can also aid in predicting imminent crashes with noticeable shifts during the moments immediately before and after crashes (see Fig. 5b).

We extend this analysis to using all three gaits on terrains with poor footholds, granularity, and high resistance to motion, and obtained a unique cluster of points for each terrain-gait pair. By fitting a 2D Gaussian to each cluster, we obtain a characteristic ellipse (see Fig. 7a) that forms the boundary of the cluster. Similar to our previous insights, the size/area of each ellipse denotes the robot’s stability on a terrain while using a certain gait.

Since our objective is to maintain high stability in all terrain types, while also maintaining a fast progress towards the robot’s goal while navigating, we consider only the ellipses with the lowest area to maximum velocity of the gait ratio (Fig. 7b). We refer to them as high stability ellipses for each terrain type. Of these ellipses, we observe that trotting on stable, flat terrains such as concrete/asphalt creates the ellipse with the smallest area, and highest stability. We refer to this ellipse and its enclosing region as the Low Variance Zone (LVZ), highlighted in Fig. 7b. Ideally, the current PCA point $\mathbf{p}_{t}$ indicating the robot’s stability should lie within the LVZ. However, on other challenging terrains, $\mathbf{p}_{t}$ would most likely lie outside the LVZ. Next, we detail how $\mathbf{p}_{t}$ and the other ellipses in Fig. 7b can be used to select a stabilizing gait when $\mathbf{p}_{t}\notin LVZ$ without any exteroceptive feedback.

A key insight from Fig. 7 is that when the appropriate gait for a terrain is chosen (e.g. crawl for granular terrains) at time $t$, the point $\mathbf{p}_{t+i}\,\forall i>0$ would be contained within the corresponding high stability ellipse (e.g. granular-crawl ellipse) as represented in Fig. 7b. Conversely, if an inappropriate gait is chosen, $\mathbf{p}_{t+i}\forall i>0$ will not lie within the high stability ellipse for that terrain. A key challenge is selecting the appropriate gait without knowing the terrain type.

To determine the most appropriate stabilizing gait $g^{*}$ (with the corresponding ellipse $\mathcal{E}^{*}$) for a terrain, we only consider the four ellipses and their enclosing areas in Fig. 7b, and refer to them as $\mathcal{E}_{1}=LVZ,\mathcal{E}_{2},\mathcal{E}_{3},\mathcal{E}_{4}$, as marked. We refer to their union as the Stable Zone ($SZ$). Let us consider two points in subsequent time instances $\mathbf{p}_{t}$ and $\mathbf{p}_{t+1}$. At time instant $t$, if $\mathbf{p}_{t}\notin LVZ$, and $\mathbf{p}_{t}$ lies in the intersection of any of the other ellipses, we calculate the minimum area ellipse as $\mathcal{E}^{MA}_{t}=argmin_{i}(area(\mathcal{E}_{i})),\forall\mathcal{E}_{i}\in\{\text{Ellipses in the intersection}\}$. We set $\mathcal{E}^{*}_{t}=\mathcal{E}^{MA}_{t}$, and $g^{*}_{t}$ as the associated gait calculated as $gait(\mathcal{E}^{*}_{t})$. If $g^{*}_{t}$ is the appropriate gait for the terrain, $\mathbf{p}_{t+1}\in\mathcal{E}^{*}_{t}$, and the robot can continue to execute the same gait, i.e., $g^{*}_{t+1}=g^{*}_{t}$.

However, if $g^{*}_{t}$ is not the appropriate gait, then $\mathbf{p}_{t+1}\notin\mathcal{E}^{*}_{t}$. This leads to two scenarios: $\mathbf{p}_{t+1}\in SZ$, or $\mathbf{p}_{t+1}\notin SZ$. If $\mathbf{p}_{t+1}\in SZ$, then we can compute the minimum area ellipse as before, $\mathcal{E}^{MA}_{t}=argmin_{i}(area(\mathcal{E}_{i})),\forall\mathcal{E}_{i}\in\{\text{Ellipses in the intersection}\}$. If $\mathbf{p}_{t+1}\notin SZ$, we select a high stability ellipse based on its distance from $\mathbf{p}_{t+1}$. That is, $\mathcal{E}^{MD}_{t+1}=argmin_{i}(dist(\{\mathcal{E}_{2},\mathcal{E}_{3},\mathcal{E}_{4}\}-\{\mathcal{E}^{*}_{t}\},\mathbf{p}_{t+1}))$. In both cases, $g^{*}_{t+1}=gait(\mathcal{E}^{*}_{t+1})$. We temporarily remove $\mathcal{E}^{*}_{t}$ from consideration, as the gait corresponding to it caused $\mathbf{p}_{t}$ to leave the stable zone $SZ$ at time $t$. Intuitively, removing the ellipse allows the formulation to converge to the correct ellipse corresponding to the current terrain type, and its associated gait. The ellipse is added back to consideration for future gait calculations when a gait change is required. To summarize,

We also noted a significant pattern in the behavior of $(pc_{1}(t),pc_{2}(t))$ leading up to a crash. Specifically, for three seconds before a crash, there is a noticeable shift along the PC2 axis (Fig. 5b). Also, the data distribution preceding a crash exhibits high variances, indicating a lack of stability. Based on this observation, we adopted a preventative measure of halting the robot in these scenarios to mitigate the risk of crashes.

Although proprioceptive modalities help to estimate the traversability of the terrain the robot is walking on, they lack look-ahead capability (whenever terrain is visible) that exteroceptive sensing affords. That is because the traversability of terrains ahead of the robot cannot be assessed using past and current proprioceptive data. Therefore, fusing exteroception and proprioception helps bring out the best of both worlds.

ProNav can be easily combined with any navigation method that uses exteroceptive sensing such as RGB images, 3D point clouds, etc. An overview of such a hybrid architecture is shown in Fig. 8. The collision-free, goal-directed velocities $(v^{*},\omega^{*})$ are extracted from an exteroception-based planner [40, 25, 5], and the gait evaluated to be the most stable for the current scenario by ProNav (equation 4) are used by the robot. $(v^{*},\omega^{*})$ ensures the robot’s safety in terms of avoiding solid obstacles, and ProNav ensures walking stability and low power consumption.

Our approach is implemented on a Spot robot, a 12-degree-of-freedom (DOF) quadruped from Boston Dynamics. The robot provides joint feedback from its 12 actuators and the battery current data during its operation. Our data collection was carried out at the University of Maryland College Park campus, on different terrains including concrete, asphalt, grass, rocks, sand, bushes, mulch, etc. The resulting dataset represents approximately 9 hours of operation, during which the joint feedback and battery current were continuously recorded. ProNav runs at 16 Hz on an Intel NUC edge computer equipped with an Intel i7 CPU, and an Nvidia RTX2060 GPU.

We combine ProNav with VERN [5] and compare its performance with exteroceptive, and proprioceptive navigation techniques:

• •

  Spot’s in-built planner: Uses $360^{\degree}$ RGB-D cameras to detect and avoid obstacles. It also automatically adapts the robot’s leg raise heights based in the terrain.

• •

  VERN [5]: Uses RGB images and 3D point clouds to differentiate pliable vegetation from solid obstacles and traverse vegetated environments.

• •

  GA-Nav [8]: Uses RGB images for semantic segmentation, computing traversability costs for various terrains. It is combined with a planner [40] to compute trajectories on low-cost terrains and avoid obstacles.

• •

  Random Forest Classifier (RFC) [9]: Uses proprioceptive signals’ input vector $\mathbf{A}(t)$ to classify the terrain type. We used the dataset described in section V.A to train the classifier to identify between four different terrain types (granular, poor foothold, high resistance and stable). Also, RFC is combined with VERN to generate goal-directed velocities $(v^{*},\omega^{*})$.

• •

  Success Rate: The ratio of successful navigation trials where the robot was able to reach its goal without freezing or colliding with obstacles.

• •

  Mean power consumption: The amount of power (in Watts)consumed from the robot’s battery averaged over all trials.

• •

  Mean Velocity: The robot’s average velocity along its trajectory as it traverses various surfaces.

• •

  Time to Goal: The robot’s average time to reach its goal in the successful trials.

• •

  Vibration Cost: The cumulative sum of deviations in hip joint positions from a stable reference, measured at each time instant $t$. Deviations for each hip joint $j$ in the x- and y-axes are calculated as follows:

  $$\delta_{j}(t)=\begin{cases}\left|p^{j}(t)-\min(p^{j}_{\text{ref}})\right|&\text{if }p^{j}(t)<\min(p^{j}_{\text{ref}}),\\ \left|p^{j}(t)-\max(p^{j}_{\text{ref}})\right|&\text{if }p^{j}(t)>\max(p^{j}_{\text{ref}}).\\ \end{cases}$$

  Here, $p^{j}(t)$ is the position of joint $j$ at time $t$, and $p^{j}_{\text{ref}}$ represents reference positions from a stable terrain (for this work concrete is considered a stable terrain). The total Vibration Cost at time $t$ is then computed as $\text{Vibration Cost}(t)=\sum_{j}\delta_{j}(t)$.

• •

  IMU Energy Density : The mean of the aggregated squared acceleration values measured by the IMU sensors across the x, y, and z axes, calculated over the successful trials. The relevant equations implemented are adopted from [41]:

  $$E_{i}=\sum_{n=1}^{N}a_{i}^{2},$$

  (5)

  $$E_{\text{Total}}=E_{ax}+E_{ay}+E_{az},$$

  (6)

  where $a_{i}$ represents one of the three acceleration signals (x, y, and z axes), and $N$ is the IMU readings along the trajectory.

• •

  Scenario 1: Granular terrains (small rocks and sand).

• •

  Scenario 2: Concrete, rocks, and vegetation.

• •

  Scenario 3: Sparse tall grass, fallen logs, and trees.

• •

  Scenario 4: Dense vegetation and bushes.

In this section, we evaluate qualitatively and quantitatively the performance of our method and compare it with other methods. Figure 9 provides a visual representation of the trajectories in different terrains. Our method showcases its superiority in navigating through dense vegetation (Fig. 1), granular (Fig. 9a), rocky (Fig. 9b), and unstructured forested terrains (Fig. 9c). Notably, our method adapts by choosing crawl on sand (scenario 1) and amble in other scenarios whenever poor footholds and resistance to motion dominate, and $\mathbf{p}_{t}\notin LVZ$. RFC exhibited effective terrain analysis using proprioception in the granular scenario. However, the classifier’s performance declined in the other scenarios due to their unstructured nature. This complexity led to either frequent gait changes, or no gait change resulting in instability, or failure often caused by entanglements in vegetation. Spot’s built-in system faces challenges in vegetation-rich scenarios (2, 3 and 4) due to its default trot gait leading to leg entanglement, as reflected in its lower success rates. It also exhibits unstable behavior when the ground contains branches, and rocks of various sizes, as it considers them as obstacles that should be circumvented. VERN also encounters failure instances due to leg entanglements, particularly in scenario 4 with denser vegetation. GA-Nav, similar to RFC shows efficiency in open and uncovered terrains like in scenario 1, but in vegetated scenarios (3 and 4), often struggles to accurately identify the correct terrain type, primarily due to motion blur caused by entanglements. Also, strong lighting (Scenario 3), and low lighting (Scenario 4) drastically affect VERN’s and GA-Nav’s performance. This leads to either frequent gait changes, or changing to an inappropriate gait (e.g. crawl in dense vegetation which causes further leg entanglement). Conversely, our method achieves the highest success rate in all scenarios with its appropriate gait adaption without requiring visual feedback. ProNav halts in extreme cases to prevent imminent crashes, particularly in dense vegetation scenarios (3 and 4). Compared to the second best method, our method improves the success rate by 25%, 28.57%, 28.57%, and 40% in scenarios 1,2,3, and 4, respectively.

We compute the success rate improvement using the following equation:

Where, $SR_{\text{ours}}$ and $SR_{\text{2nd}}$ represent the success rates of our method and the second-best method, respectively.

We note that our approach consistently yields the lowest power consumption in all evaluated terrains. This efficiency is a result of its capability to assess stability and its superiority in gait selection. VERN, while comparable in certain scenarios, has increased power consumption in the fourth scenario due to its default trot gait leading to more entanglements and consequent motion resistance. Likewise, GA-Nav exhibits increased power consumption in scenario 4, primarily due to its multiple changes in gait selection. Moreover, our method consistently records the lowest vibration levels (in terms of the vibration cost and the IMU energy density metrics). Conversely, the frequent changes in gait exhibited by RFC lead to increased vibration costs when traversing through dense vegetation. In scenario 4, RFC and GA-Nav show high vibration in scenario 4 due to entanglements and gait alternations. Also, Spot’s in-built system experiences the highest vibration costs due to sinkage (scenario 1), slippage (scenario 2), and motion resistance (scenarios 3 and 4). In the mean velocity metric, ProNav shows a reduced pace, particularly during the gait switch to crawl in scenario 1. ProNav’s time to goal is comparable to other methods, except in scenario 1, where the exteroceptive-based methods used a faster, yet high vibration gait.

Ablation Study on Proprioceptive Signals: Our ablation analysis focused on two proprioceptive signals of ProNav: current drawn from the battery and hip joints’ positions. In our evaluations (Table I), omitting battery current resulted in notably delayed or incorrect traversability estimations, notably impacting power consumption and vibration costs, especially evident in scenario 4 in dense vegetation. Removing hip joints’ positions also hindered performance but to a lesser extent. Despite their relative performance, neither ablated configuration could exceed the performance of the fully integrated ProNav system. We did not remove the knee force for our ablation study, since a PCA cluster could not be formed without it, which hinders the comparison.

Table II shows navigation comparisons when using a single stable gait (crawl or amble) as well as ProNav with its adaptive gait adjustment. We observe that crawl gait has the lowest power consumption and vibration levels compared to the amble gait. However, its application in dense vegetation presents challenges; the robot moves slowly, leading to its legs getting entangled with the vegetation. For instance, in scenario 4, we note elevated power consumption and vibration levels alongside a significantly low velocity. In contrast, the amble gait consistently achieves superior velocities and reaches the goal quickly relative to crawl and ProNav. Also, it has high mean power consumption which reduces the risk of entanglement (as the robot exerts more torque), and consequently lower vibration cost. ProNav on the other hand provides the best trade-off between the average power consumption, vibration cost and mean velocity.