Parallelised Diffeomorphic Sampling-based Motion Planning
Anonymous Author(s)
AfﬁliationAddress email
Abstract: We propose Parallelised Diffeomorphic Sampling-based Motion Planning (PDMP).
PDMP is a novel parallelised framework that uses bijective and differentiable mappings, or diffeomorphisms , to transform sampling distributions ofsampling-based motion planners, in a manner akin to normalising ﬂows.
Unlikenormalising ﬂow models which use invertible neural network structures to represent these diffeomorphisms, we develop them from gradient information of desiredcosts, and encode desirable behaviour, such as obstacle avoidance.
These transformed sampling distributions can then be used for sampling-based motion planning.
A particular example is when we wish to imbue the sampling distributionwith knowledge of the environment geometry, such that drawn samples are lessprone to be in collisions.
To this end, we propose to learn a continuous occupancyrepresentation from environment occupancy data, such that gradients of the representation deﬁnes a valid diffeomorphism and is amenable to fast parallel evaluation.
We use this to “morph” the sampling distribution to draw far fewer collisionprone samples.
PDMP is able to leverage gradient information of costs, to injectspeciﬁcations, in a manner similar to optimisation-based motion planning methods, but relies on drawing from a sampling distribution, retaining the tendency toﬁnd more global solutions, thereby bridging the gap between trajectory optimisation and sampling-based planning methods.
Introduction
This paper addresses the problem of motion planning, and bridges together two motion planningparadigms: trajectory optimisation approaches and sampling-based approaches .
Trajectory optimisation views robot trajectories as solutions of an optimisation problem.
The optimisation problem typically incorporates the environment occupancy, along with additionally speciﬁed requirements into acost function.
Gradients of the cost function are often assumed to be accessible, allowing for its efﬁcient optimisation.
However, trajectory optimisation approaches are known to suffer from local minima, and are generally not anytime .
On the other hand, sampling-based planners have a complementary set of beneﬁts.
Sampling-based planners are probabilistically complete, and are able to quicklyﬁnd a feasible solution and improve upon it.
However, unlike trajectory optimisation approaches,sampling-based planners are unable to utilise gradient information, either from environment occupancy or from user speciﬁcation.
We propose a novel motion planning framework, Parallelised Diffeomorphic Sampling-based Motion Planning (PDMP), which combines the beneﬁts of both sampling-based and trajectory optimisation methods.
PDMP is capable of ﬁnding globally optimal solutions, while beneﬁting from gradient information of cost functions to speed up motion planning.
In broad strokes, our method leverages gradient information from speciﬁed cost functions, which can be learned from environment dataor user speciﬁed, to construct differentiable bijections, or diffeomophisms .
Like normalising ﬂows,
PDMP uses diffeomorphisms to shape a simple base sampling distribution into a sampling distribution that is more informative.
However, to learn invertible transformations for normalising ﬂows, onetypically assumes that samples from a desired target distribution are accessible.
This is typically not the case when learning sampling distributions: generally, we are given information about the occupancy in the environment, as well as designed costs, rather than samples from a “good” samplingdistribution.
We demonstrate that with relatively mild assumptions, we can obtain diffeomorphisms,from provided cost functions, that allows us to deform the sampling distribution.
We provide a speciﬁc example of learning a diffeomorphism that conforms to environment occupancy.
The “morphing” of sampling distributions allows sampling-based planners, such as Rapidly-exploring
Random Trees (RRTs) and its variants, to more efﬁciently create connections, speeding-up the planning process.
Additionally, the transformation of the sampling distribution can be viewed as a parallel process, while building the expanding trees is an inherently sequential process.
We integrate CPUand GPU parallelism: we use GPUs to shape the sampling distribution, which can be processed in parallel, while simultaneously using the CPU to build the expanding tree, which is a sequential process.
Concretely, our contributions are as follows: (1) We propose a method of shaping sampling distributions of sampling-based planners, such that gradient information, for example from environmentoccupancy gradient or user speciﬁed information can be incorporated, allowing for faster motionplanning; (2) We provide an efﬁcient implementation of our method integrated into an RRT motionplanner which leverages the parallel capabilities of GPUs.
We demonstrate that the shaping of thesampling distribution can be done efﬁciently in parallel in a GPU, simultaneously with the sequential tree-building process resulting in no additional time cost.
We empirically evaluate PDMP on challenging planning scenarios, and ﬁnd that it is able to consistently ﬁnd solutions faster than existing sampling-based motion planners.
Related Works
Sampling-based Motion Planning: Sampling-based planners are a class of predominant methodsto compute motion trajectories for robots.
They pose the motion planning problem in a probabilisticsetting, where the construction of motion plans are formulated as a graph or tree building procedure.
PRM [1] was ﬁrst proposed to creates a random roadmap of connectivity in the conﬁguration spaceto avoid the curse of dimensionality.
On the other hand, tree-based RRT [2] follows a similar ideabut uses tree structures to obtaining solution quicker, which inspire a whole new class of motionplanning methods [3, 4, 5, 6].
Since sampling is one of the core component in sampling-based motionplanners, there are a lot of methods that tries to improve the sampling distribution.
For example,formulating a restricted distribution to improve planning time [7, 8].
There are also method to learnthe sampling distribution from experience using neural network methods [9, 10, 11].
However, mostlearning-based methods learns a skewed distribution based purely from a subset of successful motionplans conﬁgurations, which requires a mixture with uniform distribution to maintain the probabilisticcompleteness guarantee [12].
Gradient-based Cost Optimisation in Motion Planning:
Outside of sampling-based motion planner, many other paradigms of motion planning make use of gradient information of some deﬁnedcost function.
Trajectory optimisation approaches, such as CHOMP [13], STOMP[14] and TrajOpt[15], and potential ﬁeld approaches [16] are prominent examples of this.
These approaches ﬁnd asingle solution by descending in the direction of lower cost, guided by the negative gradient.
Likewise, our approach transform a distribution such that samples have lower cost by descending basedon negative gradients.
Diffeomorphisms and Normalising Flows:
The transforming of distributions via invertible anddifferentiable mappings is known as normalising ﬂows [17].
These invertible and differentiablemappings are known as “ﬂows” [17] or more generally as “diffeomorphisms” [18, 19].
Normalisingﬂows are typically learned using invertible structures [20, 21], with data drawn from the desiredtarget distribution.
We take a different approach, and develop invertible mappings from cost gradients,which can be hand speciﬁed or learned from other sources of data, such as occupancy information.
Parallelised Diffeomorphic Sampling-based Motion Planning
We shall detail the proposed Parallelised Diffeomorphic Sampling-based Motion Planning (PDMP)framework.
In section 3.1, we begin by introducing neural network representations of occupancy,which allows for fast batched querying of coordinates via the GPU.
This occupancy representa- tion will be used to construct diffeomorphisms which transforms a sampling distribution, such thatsamples have lower likelihood of being in occupied space.
Details on constructing this diffeomorphism, along with those from an arbitrary cost function, are elaborated in section 3.2.
Finally, in section 3.3, we expand on how we can leverage both the GPU, for the highly parallelisable transformation of samples, and the CPU, for the inherently sequential tree-building process, to achieve improvedperformance with the same time budget, for tree-building sampling-based motion planning methods.
3.1 Learning Continuous Occupancy Representations with Neural Networks
[Figure]
(corresponds to Fig. 6).
Occupancy in an environment have traditionally been represented by occupancy grid maps, which discretise the world into grid-cells and computeoccupancy independently for each cell.
Recent advancements in machinelearning have brought continuous analogues of occupancy maps [22], andcontinuous distance-based methods [23].
Here we present a straightforward approach of learning the occupancy via a neural network, which isfast to query, fast to obtain derivatives with respect to inputs, and inherently parallelised.
These properties are beneﬁcial for querying of largebatches of coordinates.
We are assumed to have a dataset of n pairs, containing coordinates anda binary value, which indicates whether the coordinate is occupied, i.e. D = { ( x i , y i ) } ni =1 , where y i ∈ { 0 , 1 } for i = 1 , . . . , n .
A dataset of thisformat can be obtained from depth sensors.
Our aim is now to learn amapping f map between a coordinate of interest x and the probability ofbeing occupied at x , f map ( x )
= p ( y = 1 | x ) .
We shall model f map as afully-connected neural network, with tanh activation functions betweenhidden layers, and a sigmoid activation layer at the output.
The resultingsetup is a binary classiﬁcation problem, which can be learned via a binarycross entropy loss with gradient descent optimisers.
Derivatives of theneural network can be obtained efﬁciently, via batched computation on a GPU.
3.2 Cost-informed Diffeomorphisms for Sampling Distributions
In this section we elaborate on building differentiable bijections, or diffeomorphisms, to transforma base distribution such that the “morphed” target distribution density is concentrated at where aprovided cost function is low.
That is, samples from the target distribution are more likely thanthe base distribution to be sampled from regions with low cost.
Diffeomorphisms ensure that thetransformed sampling distribution will have the same topology as the base distribution.
For example,if the base distribution has inﬁnite support, then the transformed sampling distribution also hasinﬁnite support, and will not have “holes” where there is no probability density.
Constructing Diffeomorphisms via integral curves: Diffeomorphisms can be generated by takingintegral curves on the vector ﬁeld deﬁned by the negative gradients of the cost function.
We consideran n -dimensional state vector y ∈ R n to be an initial time, provided a cost f c : R n → R , an integralcurve for some time t ∈ R , can be written as an initial value problem (IVP):
[Equation]
where z ∈ R n results from the Picard–Lindelöf theorem [24] (existence and uniqueness of IVPs),which states that if ∇ y ( s ) f c is Lipschitz continuous with respect to y ( s ) , then the solution of the IVP exists and is unique.
We shall restrict our discussion to cost functions with Lipschitz derivatives,this includes the continuous occupancy representations introduced in section 3.1.
Then, φ ( y ) is adiffeomorphism, and the inverse is given by:
[Equation]
Therefore, we can use numerical integration techniques, such as Euler’s method, to solve the IVP toevaluate the diffeomorphism efﬁciently.
Bringing Diffeomorphisms into Conﬁguration Space: Motion-planning in robotics typically requires plans to be made in the conﬁguration space (C-space) of the robot.
On the other hand, coststo shape robot behaviour can be, and is often, deﬁned in the Cartesian task space.
For example, collision checking requires information about the task space geometry of the robot to determine whetherit overlaps with objects in the environment.
We assume that the sampling distribution is deﬁned inthe C-space of the robot, and diffeomorphisms need to operate in the C-space.
We shall in particulardiscuss robot manipulators, where the states in the C-space are joint angles.
We denote the C-spaceas Q ⊆ R n , where there are n joints.
Joint conﬁgurations, q ∈ Q , are elements of the C-space, while
Cartesian coordinates in task space are denoted as x ∈ R 3 .
We outline how to pull a cost gradientdeﬁned in the task space to the C-space, and construct a diffeomorphism there. [Figure]
We start by deﬁning b body points on the robot, each with a forward kinematics function mapping conﬁgurations to the Cartesiancoordinates at the body point, ψ i : Q → R 3 , for each i = 1 , . . .
, b .
This allows us to make use of the Jacobian of the forward kinematics functions with respect to the joint conﬁgurations.
The Jacobian of the i th kinematics function is denoted as J iψ ( · ) =
d ψ i d q ( · ) .
A cost potential f c which operates on the body points, such as theoccupancy cost potential, can be pulled into the C-space:
[Equation]
we can then deﬁne a diffeomorphism, via solving the IVP as in (1),in the C-space of the robot. Fig.
2 illustrates two instances of diffeomorphism, from a (left) base to a (right) morphed distribution. Drawing Samples from the Morphed Target Distribution: Wecan draw samples from the morphed distribution by drawingsamples from the known base distribution, then passing the points through the diffeomorphism φ .
Unlike normalising ﬂows for density estimation, which are computationally burdened by having tocompute the determinant of the Jacobian of φ , we only require the mapping of sampled points, whichcan be done efﬁciently, and does not require the Jacobian of φ .
Furthermore, we note that morphingthe sampled points from the base distribution to the transformed distribution can be done in parallel if the cost gradients can be parallelised.
In particular, occupancy gradients as introduced in section 3.1 can be batch computed on a GPU efﬁciently.
In the following sections, we shall elaborate onhow to exploit the parallel nature of the morphing sampled points.
3.3 Parallelised Diffeomorphic Transform of Sampling Distribution
Rapidly-exploring random trees (RRTs), its variants, along with its graph-based counter parts aresome of the most widely-used motion planning algorithms.
In this section, we develop the Parallelised Diffeomorphic Sampling-based Motion Planning (PDMP) algorithm to transform the samplingdistribution while constructing trees, efﬁciently integrating CPU and GPU parallelism.
We elaborateon the diffeomorphic sampler , which can be largely parallelised, and the motion planner main thread ,which consists of sequential operations.
An overview ﬂow-diagram is shown in Fig.
Motion Planner Main Thread Building random trees is inherently a sequential process—sampling arandom conﬁguration, searching for nearest neighbour in the k-d tree, collision-checking of potentialtree edges, connecting the candidate node , and rewiring of other existing nodes.
This process requiresknowledge of nodes that are currently connected by the tree, and valid nodes are connected to the treeas soon as they are found.
Such a sequential process is repeated until the time budget exhausted.
Weshall denote this sequential process as the Motion Planner main thread.
Similar to existing methods,we conduct the tree-building on the CPU.
However, we proceed with optimising the sampled pointsin background threads that are parallelised in GPUs.
When the planning request is ﬁrst received, the main thread spawns a background boostrap threadthat prepares all necessary house keeping works such as constructing a concurrent queue S .
Then,the main thread will proceed with the rest of the typical tree-building procedures, following the traditional RRT-variant literature.
The main modiﬁcation in this sequenital process lies in the samplingstep.
Typically, RRT samples from some distribution (e.g. uniform distribution q rand ∼ U (0 , 1) ) within the same thread.
Instead, in our PDMP framework we draw samples from the previously constructed concurrent queue S , which is one of the only communication contacts in between the mainthread and the diffeomorphic sampler thread , to avoid any other synchronisation overhead (the othercommunication happens when the main thread requests the background diffeomorphic sampler toexits due to time budget being exhausted).
This concurrent bucket is ﬁlled by our diffeomorphicsampler thread .
In the event the planner attempts to draw from an empty bucket, sample pointsare immediately drawn from a simple prior distribution q ∼ Q prior , reverting back to a standardsampling-based planner.
Therefore, the main thread does not need to do a blocking-wait on the background thread; which implies that, in the rare event of degraded GPUs performance, PDMP will onlybe reverting back to the typical planner performance.
Motion Planner Main Thread
Prepare problem setup, and
Setup -Space sampler
Retrieve next
Sample from distribution Checks if
Search for nearest neighbour in graph/tree
Call collision checker on state transistion
Create and add new node Performs rewire procedure and house keeping
Check for end point and terminate condition
Finalise planning problem spawns
Diffeomorphic Sampler
Concurrent Queue of Morphed samples
Worker Thread
Seed random device Prepare robot model
Sample a mini-batch from prior distribution where , collects body points with and the respective kinematic jacobian
Calls vectorised GPU operationsEnque the morphed to the concurrent queue
Terminates thread no yes Exiting?
Bootstrap Thread
Prepare concurrent queue and spawns worker threads
e nqu e
u
e
GPU Stream, collects with the continuous differentiable occupancy map
Morph by using to maps back to no
yes
Exiting?
yes ?
Sample draws no
218 Diffeomorphic Sampler
The diffeomorphic sampler leverages parallelismon the GPU to provide more informedsamples.
When the bootstrap thread is created, it ﬁrst spawns multiple backgroundthreads that are equal to the target computer’s parallelisation power (e.g. the number of CPUs or hyper-threads).
Each background thread is in-charge of generatingsample points from the morphed distribution in a mini-batch fashion.
In contrastto CPUs, we can use the GPU to sample alarge batch from a prior distribution.
Thesebackgroud threads within diffeomorphicsampler in Fig.
3 will also collect the necessary kinematic Jacobians into batches for forward pass in the GPUs.
The batch of samples is thenpassed through the diffeomorphism to obtain the informed samples.
The pass through the diffeomoprhism can be done efﬁciently when leveraging the parallel computing capabilities of the GPUs, ifthe gradients of the cost potential can be done in batch.
This is often the case if the cost gradients canbe expressed analytically.
This is particularly the case, if given by the derivative of a neural network.
3.4 Probabilistic Completeness
We shall demonstrate that drawing sample points from the transformed distribution maintains theprobabilistic-completeness of the popular RRT-based sampling-based method.
We begin by considering the support of the prior distribution and the transformed distribution.
Let P y be the prior probability measure on space Y , with the diffeomorphism F : Y
→ Z . Let P z ( z ) : = P y ( F − 1 ( z )) , withz ∈ Z . Deﬁnition 3.1 (Support of probability measure) .
Let P y be a measure on a topological space Y, thenthe support of P y is the set, suppP y :
=
{ y ∈ Y | P y ( y ) > 0 } ,
Intuitively, the support of a probability distribution is the set of possible values of a random variablehaving non-zeros probability density.
We shall study how the support of the prior and the transformeddistribution change depending on F .
In particular we consider when the support of the prior andtransformed distributions are equal.
Lemma 3.1 ([25] Equation 4) .
The support of the prior and transformed probability measure areequal, i.e. suppP y = suppP
z , if Y and Z are homeomorphic i.e., isomorphic as topological spaces.
As F : Y → Z is a diffeomorphism , that is a differentiable homeomophism, suppP y = suppP z .
Theorem 1 (Probabilistic Completeness) .
If a RRT-algorithm, drawing samples from random variable y , is probabilistic complete, then the RRT-algorithm drawing samples from f ( y ) , where f is adiffeomorphism, is also probabilistic complete.
Proof.
As random variables y and f ( y ) are linked by diffeomorphism f , by lemma 3.1, they have thesame support.
Clearly, as the sampling time t → + ∞ , the set of created vertices with the samplingdistribution y , V ( y ) , and set of created vertices with the sampling distribution f ( y ) , V ( f ( y )) , areequal.
Then by Theorem 23 from [26], the probabilistic completeness follows directly from theprobabilistic completeness of RRT with sampling distribution y .
We note that the above theorem proves that, for samples that are drawn from the morphed distribution,there are non-zero probability regions that they will cover everywhere in the space.
However, certainparts of the space can be stretched arbitrarily thin such that it might reduce the quality of the planner(although still remaining complete ).
One can deploy a strategy such as sampling with epsilon-biastowards a uniform distribution to circumvent the possibility of a highly skewed distribution.
Thefollowing experiments utilise a purely morphed distribution and do not employ such a strategy.
Experimental Results
We empirically analyse our proposed Parallel Diffeomorphic Sampling-based Motion Planning(PDMP) method.
In the following sections, we investigate the performance of ﬁnding valid motionplans, with gradients from a cost potential occupancy representations, under time constraints.
Forour simulated environments, we construct three challenging environments, as illustrated in Fig. Divider : consists of a large divider on a cluttered table, planning to reach the other sides of the divider; Cupboard : consists of a cupboard where the arm move in-between different shelves; Labsetup : where the arm pickup an object and place it at the bottom of a cluttered scene.
4.1 Qualitative Evaluation on Informed Distribution
We hypothesise that after morphing our sampling distribution with a cost potential from our continuous occupancy representation, we can signiﬁcantly improve the performance of the sampling-based PDMP produces more feasible samples [Table] [Figure]
[Table]
[Figure]
[Table] [Figure] [Table] [Figure]
e r c en t il e o f s a m p l e s
C u m u l a t
i v e s a m p l e s
[Table]
planning strategies.
In table 1 we evaluate the effect of PDMP on the sampling distribution, bothquantitatively and in terms of feasibility.
The results are broken down into samples that are contributed by the original uninformed prior distribution (top half) and by the informed diffeomorphic distribution (bottom half).
The are no relative differences between the original and PDMP distributionin total samples , this means that PDMP does not slow down the drawing of random samples.
Instead,the morphed samples are more beneﬁcial to the planning problem as they are more likely to be feasible in free space, as shown by the higher total feasible percentage in the PDMP section.
4.2 Higher Success Rates with Informed Sampling Distributions
We examine our hypothesis by testing various sampling-based motion planners (SBPs) within our
PDMP framework.
We investigate three SBPs—RRT* [27], RRT*-connect [28], Lazy-PRM* [29],and a trajectory optimisation-based planner STOMP [14].
For the SBPs, we compare the effect ofmorphing the sampling distribution provided by our approach to standard uninformed sampling.
We provide a time-budget of 20 seconds for each planner, and calculate the percentage of tries,over 30 runs, that result in a successful plan at different times until the budget of 20s was entirelyused.
The results are illustrated in Fig.
We see that for each of the three sampling-based planningmethods, incorporation within the PDMP framework to morph the sampling distribution improvesthe success rate.
This is most evident when using RRTs within PDMP, since it allows us to producemore successful samples which in-turn speed up the tree-building process.
We replicate the dividerand Lab-setup environment (Fig. 6) in the real-world with a 6-DOF Jaco manipulator. The planningis illustrated by videos included in the supplementary materials.
Table 2 illustrates numerical results of two important attributes in motion planning—the time-tosolution and the success percentage .
Overall, PDMP allows each motion planners to utilise sampledconﬁgurations that are more likely to be feasible (see table 1), which in turn allow PDMP plannersto achieve shorter time-to-solution when compared to their original counterpart in table 2.
Therefore,they are also more likely to successfully obtain a solution trajectory within the allocated time budget.
In the divider environment, we see that the success rate of PDMP-RRT* reaches 80% at around7 seconds of planning, and almost has a perfect success rate by the end of the 20s budget.
On theother hand, vanilla RRT* with a uniform sampling distribution has a success rate of under 50%when the time budget is used up.
The same trends are observed with the other variants.
Overall, 1 STOMP RRT*-Connect RRT*-Connect (PDMP)
RRT*
RRT* (PDMP) Lazy-PRM* Lazy-PRM* (PDMP) Time budget (second)
Time budget (second)
Time budget (second) S u cc e ss pe r c en t age [Divider] [Cupboard] [Lab-setup] the RRT*-connect within PDMP and with a uniform sampling distribution outperforms the othervariants. Even still, when using RRT-connect within the PDMP, we observe higher success rates whenthe planning time is low (under 3 seconds), indicating that PDMP signiﬁcantly improves time-tosolution.
The time-to-solution of STOMP tends to spread out among all three environments, which islikely due to its stochastic nature. The performance of STOMP does not seem to be degraded by thecomplexity of the environment, which suggests that the cost information was able to guide STOMPto obtain a solution trajectory.
Our PDMP framework provides clear imporvements to the successrates of both RRT and RRT-connect methods.
Additionally, we observe that at the end of the 20s timebudget, PDMP variants outperform their counterparts which sample from an uninformed samplingdistribution.
Lastly, Lazy-PRM* performs poorly on most environments as it is a multi-query planner,and was not able to obtain any valid solution in Cupboard within the allocated time budget.
4.3 Inﬂuence of CPU-GPU Parallelisation
Our PDMP method parallelises over the CPU and GPU, by allocating the GPU to ﬁlling up a bucketfor which samples are drawn, and dedicating the CPU to the planning process, which typicallyinvolves building a tree.
If the bucket is empty when a sample is needed for the sequential planningprocess on the CPU, a sample is drawn from an uninformed prior distribution.
Therefore, obtaininginformed samples come at almost no additional cost: in the worst-case scenario, if the planningprocess faster than drawing samples from the morphed distribution, PDMP falls back to a vanillasampling based algorithm, drawing samples from a uninformed distribution.
Intuitively, the more samples obtained from the bucket used in the planning process, the more informed our used samples are.
We investigate the number of sample points drawn from the bucket,which are from the “morphed” distribution, and the percentage of samples from the uninformed prioras planning time progresses.
This is shown in Fig.
We observe at the beginning, as the buckethas not yet been ﬁlled with samples from the morphed sampling distribution, samples from the uninformed prior are used.
However, the GPU is able to quickly ﬁll up the bucket with samples from themorphed distribution, and the number of uninformed samples beyond 0.2s is largely negligible.
By 1second of sampling time, the cumulative “morphed” sample points signiﬁcantly exceeds the cumulative uninformed samples.
This indicates that at any reasonable amount of planning time, the processof drawing samples from an informed distribution is much faster than the main planning process.
Conclusions
In this paper a novel method combining cost gradients from optimisation-based motion planningwith probabilistic-complete sampling-base motion planning methods is proposed.
Parallelised Diffeomorphic Sampling-based Motion Planning is a motion-planning framework which utilises diffeomorphisms generated from gradients of deﬁned cost to morph the sampling distribution for samplingbased motion-planning methods.
We demonstrate how such diffeomorphisms can be created fromlearned models of environment occupancy to encode obstacle avoidance behaviour, or user speciﬁedbiases.
Additionally, an implementation which parallelises this process across the GPU and CPU isprovided, showing that sampling from the more informed distribution can be achieved at no additional run-time cost.
We empirically demonstrate that our method is capable of signiﬁcantly improving the success rate of ﬁnding solutions in challenging planning environments.