Feasibility Distance Fields for Heterogeneous Constraints in Robot Configuration Space

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Robot manipulators are monitored by constraint-specific indicators whose units and gradient scales are not comparable, so they do not provide a common measure of the configuration-space motion remaining before violation. We define the feasibility distance field (FDF) as the distance, under a fixed positive-definite joint-space metric, to the union of infeasible configuration sets. Classical distance-to-set theory gives 1-Lipschitz continuity, almost-everywhere differentiability, and unit dual-gradient norm wherever the nearest projection is unique. The robotics contribution is an admissibility analysis showing when practical constraints define non-empty closed sets. We derive admissible formulations for external and self-collision, joint limits, dexterity, Cartesian and task-projected compliance, joint torque under payload, and dynamic manipulability. Since every field uses the same metric, heterogeneous constraints compose by a pointwise minimum, conditioned constraints retain a fixed distance space, and multi-robot constraints produce block-sparse gradients that identify which robots must react. We generate projection-based labels and train neural approximations with a distance loss and an Eikonal penalty. Simulations on a UR5e and a dual-arm cell evaluate seven fields using value, projection, sign, gradient, composition, and moving-obstacle diagnostics. Across 8,000 configurations, the largest feasible-side secant ratio is 0.920, mean learned gradient norms range from 0.994 to 0.998, and projection residuals range from 0.011 to 0.034 rad. Across 24 random obstacle paths, the external and composed collision fields achieve 90.4% and 91.6% success within 3 cm, with sign-error rates below 2%. The results support a common configuration-space margin and identify approximation errors near medial axes and sparsely sampled boundaries.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments