skip to main content
10.1145/3445814.3446746acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesasplosConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Open Access

Robomorphic computing: a design methodology for domain-specific accelerators parameterized by robot morphology

Published:17 April 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Robotics applications have hard time constraints and heavy computational burdens that can greatly benefit from domain-specific hardware accelerators. For the latency-critical problem of robot motion planning and control, there exists a performance gap of at least an order of magnitude between joint actuator response rates and state-of-the-art software solutions. Hardware acceleration can close this gap, but it is essential to define automated hardware design flows to keep the design process agile as applications and robot platforms evolve. To address this challenge, we introduce robomorphic computing: a methodology to transform robot morphology into a customized hardware accelerator morphology. We (i) present this design methodology, using robot topology and structure to exploit parallelism and matrix sparsity patterns in accelerator hardware; (ii) use the methodology to generate a parameterized accelerator design for the gradient of rigid body dynamics, a key kernel in motion planning; (iii) evaluate FPGA and synthesized ASIC implementations of this accelerator for an industrial manipulator robot; and (iv) describe how the design can be automatically customized for other robot models. Our FPGA accelerator achieves speedups of 8× and 86× over CPU and GPU when executing a single dynamics gradient computation. It maintains speedups of 1.9× to 2.9× over CPU and GPU, including computation and I/O round-trip latency, when deployed as a coprocessor to a host CPU for processing multiple dynamics gradient computations. ASIC synthesis indicates an additional 7.2× speedup for single computation latency. We describe how this principled approach generalizes to more complex robot platforms, such as quadrupeds and humanoids, as well as to other computational kernels in robotics, outlining a path forward for future robomorphic computing accelerators.

References

  1. Oriol Arcas-Abella, Geofrey Ndu, Nehir Sonmez, Mohsen Ghasempour, Adria Armejach, Javier Navaridas, Wei Song, John Mawer, Adrián Cristal, and Mikel Luján. 2014. An empirical evaluation of high-level synthesis languages and tools for database acceleration. In 2014 24th International Conference on Field Programmable Logic and Applications (FPL). IEEE, 1-8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Michael Bloesch, Marco Hutter, Mark A Hoepflinger, Stefan Leutenegger, Christian Gehring, C David Remy, and Roland Siegwart. 2013. State estimation for legged robots-consistent fusion of leg kinematics and IMU. Robotics 17 ( 2013 ), 17-24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Boston Dynamics. Accessed in 2020. Atlas® | Boston Dynamics. https://www. bostondynamics.com/atlas Available: bostondynamics.com/atlas.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Boston Dynamics. Accessed in 2020. Spot® | Boston Dynamics. https://www. bostondynamics.com/spot Available: bostondynamics.com/spot.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Justin Carpentier and Nicolas Mansard. 2018. Analytical Derivatives of Rigid Body Dynamics Algorithms. Robotics: Science and Systems ( 2018 ).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Justin Carpentier, Guilhem Saurel, Gabriele Buondonno, Joseph Mirabel, Florent Lamiraux, Olivier Stasse, and Nicolas Mansard. 2019. The Pinocchio C++ library: A fast and flexible implementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical derivatives. In 2019 IEEE/SICE International Symposium on System Integration (SII). IEEE, 614-619.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Yu-Hsin Chen, Joel Emer, and Vivienne Sze. 2016. Eyeriss: A spatial architecture for energy-eficient dataflow for convolutional neural networks. In ISCA. ACM/IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jared Di Carlo, Patrick M Wensing, Benjamin Katz, Gerardo Bledt, and Sangbae Kim. 2018. Dynamic locomotion in the mit cheetah 3 through convex modelpredictive control. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 1-9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Moritz Diehl, Hans Joachim Ferreau, and Niels Haverbeke. 2009. Eficient numerical methods for nonlinear MPC and moving horizon estimation. In Nonlinear model predictive control. Springer, 391-417.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Tom Erez, Kendall Lowrey, Yuval Tassa, Vikash Kumar, Svetoslav Kolev, and Emanuel Todorov. 2013. An integrated system for real-time model predictive control of humanoid robots. In 2013 13th IEEE-RAS International conference on humanoid robots (Humanoids). IEEE, 292-299.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Christer Ericson. 2004. Real-time collision detection. CRC Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Farbod Farshidian, Edo Jelavic, Asutosh Satapathy, Markus Giftthaler, and Jonas Buchli. 2017. Real-time motion planning of legged robots: A model predictive control approach. In 2017 IEEE-RAS 17th International Conference on Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids). IEEE, 577-584.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Eyal Fayneh, Marcelo Yufe, Ernest Knoll, Michael Zelikson, Muhammad Abozaed, Yair Talker, Ziv Shmuely, and Saher Abu Rahme. 2016. 14nm 6th-generation Core processor SoC with low power consumption and improved performance. In 2016 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC). IEEE, 72-73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Roy Featherstone. 2008. Rigid body dynamics algorithms. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Tom Feist. 2012. Vivado design suite. White Paper 5 ( 2012 ), 30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin L. Felis. 2016. RBDL: an eficient rigid-body dynamics library using recursive algorithms. Autonomous Robots ( 2016 ), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10514-016-9574-0 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Gianluca Garofalo, Christian Ott, and Alin Albu-Schäfer. 2013. On the closed form computation of the dynamic matrices and their diferentiations. In 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2364-2359.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Markus Giftthaler, Michael Neunert, Markus Stäuble, Marco Frigerio, Claudio Semini, and Jonas Buchli. 2017. Automatic diferentiation of rigid body dynamics for optimal control and estimation. Advanced Robotics 31, 22 ( 2017 ), 1225-1237.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kartik Hegde, Hadi Asghari-Moghaddam, Michael Pellauer, Neal Crago, Aamer Jaleel, Edgar Solomonik, Joel Emer, and Christopher W Fletcher. 2019. ExTensor: An Accelerator for Sparse Tensor Algebra. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture. 319-333.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Carsten Heinz, Yannick Lavan, Jaco Hofmann, and Andreas Koch. 2019. A Catalog and In-Hardware Evaluation of Open-Source Drop-In Compatible RISC-V Softcore Processors. In 2019 International Conference on ReConFigurable Computing and FPGAs (ReConFig). IEEE, 1-8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. John L Hennessy and David A Patterson. 2019. A new golden age for computer architecture. Commun. ACM ( 2019 ).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Michael G Hollars, Dan E Rosenthal, and Michael A Sherman. 1991. SD/FAST User's Manual. Symbolic Dynamics Inc ( 1991 ).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Norman P Jouppi, Clif Young, Nishant Patil, David Patterson, Gaurav Agrawal, Raminder Bajwa, Sarah Bates, Suresh Bhatia, Nan Boden, Al Borchers, Rick Boyle, Pierre-luc Cantin, Cliford Chao, Chris Clark, Jeremy Coriell, Mike Daley, Matt Dau, Jefrey Dean, Ben Gelb, Tara Vazir Ghaemmaghami, Rajendra Gottipati, William Gulland, Robert Hagmann, C. Richard Ho, Doug Hogberg, John Hu, Robert Hundt, Dan Hurt, Julian Ibarz, Aaron Jafey, Alek Jaworski, Alexander Kaplan, Harshit Khaitan, Daniel Killebrew, Andy Koch, Naveen Kumar, Steve Lacy, James Laudon, James Law, iemthu DLe, Chris Leary, Zhuyuan Liu, Kyle Lucke, Alan Lundin, Gordon MacKean, Adriana Maggiore, Maire Mahony, Kieran Miller, Rahul Nagarajan, Ravi Narayanaswami, Ray Ni, Kathy Nix, Thomas Norrie, Mark Omernick, Narayana Penukonda, Andy Phelps, Jonathan Ross, Matt Ross, Amir Salek, Emad Samadiani, Chris Severn, Gregory Sizikov, Matthew Snelham, Jed Souter, Dan Steinberg, Andy Swing, Mercedes Tan, Gregory Thorson, Bo Tian, Horia Toma, Erick Tuttle, Vijay Vasudevan, Richard Walter, Walter Wang, Eric Wilcox, and Doe Hyun Yoon. 2017. In-datacenter performance analysis of a tensor processing unit. In ISCA. ACM/IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Claudia Kalb. 2020. Could a robot care for grandma? National Geographic (Jan 2020 ).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Myron King, Jamey Hicks, and John Ankcorn. 2015. Software-driven hardware development. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field-Programmable Gate Arrays. 13-22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Jonas Koenemann, Andrea Del Prete, Yuval Tassa, Emanuel Todorov, Olivier Stasse, Maren Bennewitz, and Nicolas Mansard. 2015. Whole-body modelpredictive control applied to the HRP-2 humanoid. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 3346-3351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Twan Koolen and Robin Deits. 2019. Julia for robotics: Simulation and real-time control in a high-level programming language. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 604-611.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Srivatsan Krishnan, Zishen Wan, Kshitij Bhardwaj, Paul Whatmough, Aleksandra Faust, Gu-Yeon Wei, David Brooks, and Vijay Janapa Reddi. 2020. The Sky Is Not the Limit: A Visual Performance Model for Cyber-Physical Co-Design in Autonomous Machines. IEEE Computer Architecture Letters 19, 1 ( 2020 ), 38-42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Eric Krotkov, Douglas Hackett, Larry Jackel, Michael Perschbacher, James Pippine, Jesse Strauss, Gill Pratt, and Christopher Orlowski. 2017. The DARPA robotics challenge finals: results and perspectives. Journal of Field Robotics 34, 2 ( 2017 ), 229-240.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Scott Kuindersma, Robin Deits, Maurice Fallon, Andrés Valenzuela, Hongkai Dai, Frank Permenter, Twan Koolen, Pat Marion, and Russ Tedrake. 2016. Optimization-based locomotion planning, estimation, and control design for the atlas humanoid robot. Autonomous Robots 40, 3 ( 2016 ), 429-455.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. KUKA AG. Accessed in 2020. LBR iiwa | KUKA AG. https://www.kuka. com/products/robotics-systems/industrial-robots/lbr-iiwa Available: kuka.com/ products/robotics-systems/industrial-robots/lbr-iiwa.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Steven M LaValle. 2006. Planning algorithms. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Shiqi Lian, Yinhe Han, Xiaoming Chen, Ying Wang, and Hang Xiao. 2018. Dadu-p: A scalable accelerator for robot motion planning in a dynamic environment. In 2018 55th ACM/ESDA/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC). IEEE, 1-6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Courtney Linder. 2019. A Cave Is No Place for Humans, So DARPA Is Sending In the Robots. Popular Mechanics (Aug 2019 ).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. J Luh, M Walker, and R Paul. 1980. Resolved-acceleration control of mechanical manipulators. IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control 25, 3 ( 1980 ), 468-474.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Frigerio Marco, Buchli Jonas, Darwin G Caldwell, and Semini Claudio. 2016. RobCoGen: a code generator for eficient kinematics and dynamics of articulated robots, based on Domain Specific Languages. Journal of Software Engineering in Robotics 7, 1 ( 2016 ), 36-54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Carlos Mastalli, Rohan Budhiraja, Wolfgang Merkt, Guilhem Saurel, Bilal Hammoud, Maximilien Naveau, Justin Carpentier, Ludovic Righetti, Sethu Vijayakumar, and Nicolas Mansard. 2020. Crocoddyl: An Eficient and Versatile Framework for Multi-Contact Optimal Control. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Sean Murray, William Floyd-Jones, Ying Qi, George Konidaris, and Daniel J Sorin. 2016. The microarchitecture of a real-time robot motion planning accelerator. In MICRO. IEEE/ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Maximilien Naveau, Justin Carpentier, Sébastien Barthelemy, Olivier Stasse, and Philippe Souères. 2014. METAPOD: Template META-PrOgramming applied to dynamics: CoP-CoM trajectories filtering. In Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2014 14th IEEE-RAS International Conference on. IEEE, 401-406.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Sabrina M Neuman, Twan Koolen, Jules Drean, Jason E Miller, and Srinivas Devadas. 2019. Benchmarking and Workload Analysis of Robot Dynamics Algorithms. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Michael Neunert, Cédric De Crousaz, Fadri Furrer, Mina Kamel, Farbod Farshidian, Roland Siegwart, and Jonas Buchli. 2016. Fast nonlinear model predictive control for unified trajectory optimization and tracking. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2016 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1398-1404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Michael Neunert, Farbod Farshidian, Alexander W Winkler, and Jonas Buchli. 2017. Trajectory optimization through contacts and automatic gait discovery for quadrupeds. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2, 3 ( 2017 ), 1502-1509.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Rishiyur Nikhil. 2004. Bluespec System Verilog: eficient, correct RTL from high level specifications. In Proceedings. Second ACM and IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design, 2004. MEMOCODE'04. IEEE, 69-70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. KeJun Ning and Florentin Wörgötter. 2009. A novel concept for building a hyper-redundant chain robot. IEEE transactions on robotics ( 2009 ).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Cagdas D Onal and Daniela Rus. 2013. Autonomous undulatory serpentine locomotion utilizing body dynamics of a fluidic soft robot. Bioinspiration & biomimetics 8, 2 ( 2013 ), 026003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Zherong Pan, Bo Ren, and Dinesh Manocha. 2019. GPU-based contact-aware trajectory optimization using a smooth force model. In Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation. ACM, 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Brian Plancher and Scott Kuindersma. 2018. A Performance Analysis of Parallel Diferential Dynamic Programming on a GPU. In International Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics (WAFR).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Nicolaus A Radford, Philip Strawser, Kimberly Hambuchen, Joshua S Mehling, William K Verdeyen, A Stuart Donnan, James Holley, Jairo Sanchez, Vienny Nguyen, Lyndon Bridgwater, Reginald Berka, Robert Ambrose, Christopher McQuin, John D. Yamokoski, Stephen Hart, Raymond Guo, Adam Parsons, Brian Wightman, Paul Dinh, Barrett Ames, Charles Blakely, Courtney Edmonson, Brett Sommers, Rochelle Rea, Chad Tobler, Heather Bibby, Brice Howard, Lei Nui, Andrew Lee, Michael Conover, Lily Truong, David Chesney, Robert Platt Jr., Gwendolyn Johnson, Chien-Liang Fok, Nicholas Paine, Luis Sentis, Eric Cousineau, Ryan Sinnet, Jordan Lack, Matthew Powell, Benjamin Morris, and Aaron Ames. 2015. Valkyrie: NASA's first bipedal humanoid robot. Journal of Field Robotics 32, 3 ( 2015 ), 397-419.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Brandon Reagen, Paul Whatmough, Robert Adolf, Saketh Rama, Hyunkwang Lee, Sae Kyu Lee, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato, Gu-Yeon Wei, and David Brooks. 2016. Minerva: Enabling low-power, highly-accurate deep neural network accelerators. In ISCA. ACM/IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Federico Renda and Lakmal Seneviratne. 2018. A geometric and unified approach for modeling soft-rigid multi-body systems with lumped and distributed degrees of freedom. In ICRA. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Jacob Sacks, Divya Mahajan, Richard C Lawson, and Hadi Esmaeilzadeh. 2018. RoboX: An end-to-end solution to accelerate autonomous control in robotics. In 2018 ACM/IEEE 45th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA). IEEE, 479-490.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Claudio Semini, Nikos G Tsagarakis, Emanuele Guglielmino, Michele Focchi, Ferdinando Cannella, and Darwin G Caldwell. 2011. Design of HyQ-a hydraulically and electrically actuated quadruped robot. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering 225, 6 ( 2011 ), 831-849.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Jonathan Shaw. 2020. The Coming Eldercare Tsunami. Harvard Magazine (Jan 2020 ).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Anthony Stentz, Herman Herman, Alonzo Kelly, Eric Meyhofer, G Clark Haynes, David Stager, Brian Zajac, J Andrew Bagnell, Jordan Brindza, Christopher Dellin, Michael George, Jose Gonzalez-Mora, Sean Hyde, Morgan Jones, Michel Laverne, Maxim Likhachev, Levi Lister, Matt Powers, Oscar Ramos, Justin Ray, David Rice, Justin Scheiflee, Raumi Sidki, Siddhartha Srinivasa, Kyle Strabala, Jean-Philippe Tardif, Jean-Sebastien Valois, J. Michael Vande Weghe, Michael Wagner, and Carl Wellington. 2015. CHIMP, the CMU highly intelligent mobile platform. Journal of Field Robotics 32, 2 ( 2015 ), 209-228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Soumya Sudhakar, Sertac Karaman, and Vivienne Sze. 2020. Balancing Actuation and Computing Energy in Motion Planning. In ICRA. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Amr Suleiman, Zhengdong Zhang, Luca Carlone, Sertac Karaman, and Vivienne Sze. 2018. Navion: a fully integrated energy-eficient visual-inertial odometry accelerator for auto. nav. of nano drones. In VLSI Circuits. IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Yuval Tassa, Tom Erez, and Emanuel Todorov. 2012. Synthesis and stabilization of complex behaviors through online trajectory optimization. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on. IEEE, 4906-4913.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Manish Vachharajani, Neil Vachharajani, David A Penry, Jason A Blome, and David I August. 2002. Microarchitectural exploration with Liberty. In 35th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, 2002.(MICRO-35). Proceedings. IEEE, 271-282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Alexa VanHattum, Rachit Nigam, Vincent T Lee, James Bornholt, and Adrian Sampson. 2020. A Synthesis-Aided Compiler for DSP Architectures (WiP Paper). In The 21st ACM SIGPLAN/SIGBED Conference on Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems. 131-135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Guang-Zhong Yang, Bradley J. Nelson, Robin R. Murphy, Howie Choset, Henrik Christensen, Steven H. Collins, Paolo Dario, Ken Goldberg, Koji Ikuta, Neil Jacobstein, Danica Kragic, Russell H. Taylor, and Marcia McNutt. 2020. Combating COVID-19-The role of robotics in managing public health and infectious diseases. Science Robotics (Mar 2020 ).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Robomorphic computing: a design methodology for domain-specific accelerators parameterized by robot morphology

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        ASPLOS '21: Proceedings of the 26th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems
        April 2021
        1090 pages
        ISBN:9781450383172
        DOI:10.1145/3445814

        Copyright © 2021 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 17 April 2021

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate535of2,713submissions,20%

        Upcoming Conference

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader