behavior_path_planner generating invalid path orientation

[beyzanurkaya]

Checklist

• I've read the contribution guidelines.
• I've searched other issues and no duplicate issues were found.
• I've agreed with the maintainers that I can plan this task.

Description

When the vehicle passes into the other lane for a reason such as trying to swerve an obstacle while driving in its own lane, an invalid path occurs and the vehicle stops. In order to avoid such situations, it should be checked whether the path created by behavior_path_planner is valid.

vokoscreen-2022-10-20_12-39-56.mp4

Expected behavior

It is necessary to check that the path occurred by the behavior_path_planner is valid and that the ego can drive. So that invalid routes are prevented from being occurred. The updated path must be generated as a path that the ego can drive.

Actual behavior

The yaw angle between the path and the vehicle's self pose is not controlled. So that invalid paths can be occurred and vehicle stops.

Steps to reproduce

1. Set the rear_drive/front_radius_ratio and rear_drive/rear_radius_ratio values to 2.0 in obstacle_avoidance_planner.param.yaml file.
2. Set threshold_distance_object_is_on_center to 0.001 in avoidance.param.yaml.
3. Set expand_drivable_area to true, left_bound_offset to 1.9 in lane_following.param.yaml
4. Download isuzu_vehicle_launch in here
5. Download test.zip
6. run ros2 launch scenario_test_runner scenario_test_runner.launch.py sensor_model:=sample_sensor_kit vehicle_model:=isuzu_vehicle \ scenario:=/scenario/path/case1.yaml \ architecture_type:=awf/universe launch_rviz:=false launch_autoware:=true

[takayuki5168]

@beyzanurkaya Can I ask more about the situation.
Which kind of function enables driving with a lateral deviation to the path from the behavior path planner.

[beyzanurkaya]

@takayuki5168 In our situation lateral deviation must be less than M_PI / 2.0

[takayuki5168]

@beyzanurkaya Maybe I got it.

Set the rear_drive/front_radius_ratio and rear_drive/rear_radius_ratio values to 2.0 in
obstacle_avoidance_planner.param.yaml file.

This 2.0 makes the vehicle moves laterally compared to path from behavior.
I think this value is too large.

Is there any reason for this tuning?
We, TIER IV, are integrating Autoware to the bus, and its parameter is like this.

[beyzanurkaya]

I used these values to replicate this bug in planning.simulator

[mehmetdogru]

@takayuki5168

Hi, I asked Beyza to create a PR about a problem we encountered during tests. To make it easier to reproduce she increased the mpt optimization circle ratio however we don't use this params. The params we use for mpt is as follows:

      mpt:
        bounds_search_widths: [0.45, 0.15, 0.05, 0.01]

        clearance:  # clearance(distance) between vehicle and roads/objects when generating trajectory
          hard_clearance_from_road: 0.01 # clearance from road boundary[m]
          soft_clearance_from_road: 0.15 # clearance from road boundary[m]
          soft_second_clearance_from_road: 0.15 # clearance from road boundary[m]
          clearance_from_object: 0.5 # clearance from object[m]
          extra_desired_clearance_from_road: 0.0 # extra desired clearance from road

          vehicle_circles:
            method: "uniform_circle"

            uniform_circle:
              num: 3
              radius_ratio: 1.13

The reason why we are using this kind of tuning is that the campus has some 90 deg turns and mpt is not able to optimize most of the time inside the drivable area if you dont increase the clearances from road and if you dont make the circles bigger. That is the reason why the bus deviates from path that much so it would be partially on the other lane. And I have some solutions in my mind about this issue to propose.

However regardless of this issue I mention above, path planner should not be able to plan a path where there is nearly 180 degrees deviation from the path. So this issue aims to fix that problem actually :)

[takayuki5168]

@mehmetdogru I understand. Thank you for your explanation.

FYI: This PR enables drivable area expansion in behavior path planner. After this PR is merged, maybe better to use this instead of clearance in mpt.
#1973

path planner should not be able to plan a path where there is nearly 180 degrees deviation from the path.

Avoidance module in behavior path planner has such a kind of function. This parameter should be added to drivable area expansion.

autoware.universe/launch/tier4_planning_launch/config/scenario_planning/lane_driving/behavior_planning/behavior_path_planner/avoidance/avoidance.param.yaml

Line 11 in c1e3126

enable_avoidance_over_opposite_direction: true

[xmfcx]

Currently @mehmetdogru and @beyzanurkaya are looking for alternative solutions for this issue.

[mitsudome-r]

@mehmetdogru and @beyzanurkaya Any updates on this?

[mehmetdogru]

@mitsudome-r

We don't have any updates on this one for now unfortunately.

[mehmetdogru]

Working on an approach, I am running some tests on it, I will create a PR.

[beyzanurkaya]

@takayuki5168 I couldn't reproduce this issue. Has any improvement been made about this issue?

[takayuki5168]

@beyzanurkaya As long as I know, there isn't any update on this issue.

[mehmetdogru]

@mitsudome-r since to solve the issue, #2732 should be merged, I will be reopening the issue.