Copyright © IFAC Artificial Intelligence,

Leningrad, USSR 1983

AUTOMATIC ROBOT PROGRAMMING

J. C. Latombe
imag, BP No 68, 38402 Saint-Martin d'Heres Cedex, Fral/ce

Abstract. Industrial roboffirequire more and more advanced programming tools.

After "teaching by showing" techniques, manipulator-level programming lan-
guages for describing tasks by sequences of robot operations have emerged,
and they to-day become widespread in industry. However, writting manipulator-
level programs is not easy. This difficulty arises the need for higher level
languages, called task-level languages, for describing assembly tasks as se-
quences of goal spatial relationships between objects. Translating such a
description into a manipulator-level program requires to solve three main
problems: grasp planning, path planning, and fine notion planning. This pa-
per surveys recent progress toward solving these problems. Task-level lan-
guages may deeply transform the way we will program robots in the future,
and they contribute to better CAD/CAN integration.

Keywords. Robot programming, automatic programming, robot languages, automa-

tic mechanical assembly.

1. INTRODUCTION

The task domain of a robot is implicitly de-
termined by a number of primitive mechanical
and sensory capabilities. During the last ten
years, these capabilities have improved im-
pressively to become applicable to a wide ran-
ge of complex tasks, the most important one
being mechanical assembly. Consequently there
has been an increasing need for appropriate
programming systems for specifying how the
primitive capabilities of a robot are to be
applied to a given task.
The definition of a programming system is al-
ways a difficult problem. On one hand, we would
like it being easy to use so that it can be
accessible by the least sophisticated users.
On the other hand, we would like it being ex-
pressive enough so that the users can describe
the most complex tasks.
The earliest method for programming industrial
robots is the "teaching by showing" method.
Using aninteractive device the programmer te-
leoperates the manipulator for performing a
sample execution of the task. The motions of
the joints are recorded so that they can auto-
matically be played back later. This method,
which is the most widespread to-day, is attrac-
tive because it requires almost no specialized
knowledge from the user. But it presents se-
vere drawbacks that restrict its application
to simple tasks : repetition of the same se-
quence of motions with minor changes at each
iteration (e.g. : palettizing) is fastidious
to "program" recorded "programs" are diffi-
cult to edit ; sensory data cannot be used to
face uncertainties of the environment ; coor-
dinating several robots is impossible.
Thesedrawbacks have led to the development of
symbolic languages for programming robots,
for instance AL [Finkel 74], VAL [Unimation
80], Ul [Latombe 81] and AHL [Taylor 82].
Most of them are extensions of more traditio-
nal languages such as BASIC and PASCAL. They
include both the main facilities of these
languages and new constructs appropriate to
robotics, for instance: world modelling, mo-
tion specification and sensory interaction.
Because they are oriented towards the des-
cription of robot operations, they are called
"manipulator-level" languages. They are more
and more widespread in industry.
However manipulator-level programs are diffi-
cult to write. The user must think in terms
of the three-dimensional world for defining
all the motions to make and for preventing
possible collisions. He also has to face va-
rious sources of uncertainty requiring the
monitoring of sensory conditions. These pro-
blems have resulted into development ,of pro-
gramming environments including interactive
debugging of programs [Finkel 76], combina-
tion of manipulator-level symbolic facilities
with teaching by showing techniques [Gini 78],
extended teaching by showing implemented as
manipulator-level routines [Miribel 82], im-
plementation of special-purpose interface in
the manipulator-level languages themselves
[Taylor'82], connection with CAD data bases
[rlazer 83], and graphic simulation [Soroka 80]

273
274 J.C. Latombe
[Sata 81]. Unfortunately most of these program-
ming aids bring actual impro vement only when
the robot world has been engineered so that it
is known with little uncertainty.
A more genera l approach to solving the diffi-
culties of manipulator-level programming con-
sists of developping "task-level " languages.
The description of a task in such a language
is object- oriented instead of being robot-
oriented ; it consists of both a sequence of
goal spatial relationships between the ob-
jects and geometric models of the objects.
The goal of the interpreter of a task-level
language is to automatically translate this
description into a manipulator-level program.
The motivation is to make use of existing
CAD/CAM data for automating robot programming.
Advantages one may expect from task-level pro-
gramming include better CAD/CAM integration,
more reliable robot programs, and ~ asier ro-
bot programming. Task-level languages provide
high expressiveness without requiring program-
ming expertise.
Some years ago two task-level systems, AUTO-
PASS [Lieberman 77] and LAJ1A [Lozano-Perez
76], were defined, but they hardly were im-
plemented The initial report on the AL lan-
guage [Finkel 74] also included a task-le ve l
subset of instructions which was never imple-
mented. Although they make use of explicit
description of spatial relationships between
objects, languages like RAPT [Popplestone 78]
and LM-GEO [Mazer 83] are basically manipula-
tor-level languages. In fact translating
task-level programs into manipulator-level
ones turns out to be a very difficult problem
involving geometric and strategic ramifica-
tions. During the last few years the trend
has been to solve more delimitated subpro-
b le ms , typically path-finding, grasp ing and
part mating [Latombe 82] [Lozano-Perez 82].
This paper surveys this trend. The new methods
that are emerging from it are likely to deep-
ly transform the way of programming robots
in the near future.
2. PATH FINDING
The find-path problem can be stated as fol-
lows : given an object with an initial posi-
tion, a goal position , and a set of obstac l es
located in space, the problem is to find a
cont.inuous path for the object from the ini-
tial position to the goal position, which
avoids collisions with obstacles.
The find -path problem is a centra l one both
in pick-and-place tasks and in assembly tasks
for plann ing transfer movements of objects
from the feed ers to the assembly station.
It is also a subproblem of grasping and part
mating . However grasping includes the addi-
tional difficulty of choosing the grasp po-
sition of the jaws on the objects (see Sec-
tion 3) ; part mating motions are executed
in highly cluttered environments, and the
issue of dealing with geometric uncertainty
becomes the crucial one (see Section 4).
Until recently most of the works relevant to
the find-path have focused on algor ithms for
computing co llision among solids [Boyse 79]
[Ahuja 80] [Powell 82]. Various techniques
have been devised : 2D projections, decompo-
sition of volumes into cells, parallepipedic
and spherical approximation~ ... However they
do not direct ly solve the problem of finding
a path and they must be embedded into an "hy-
pothesize-and-test" method [Lewis 74]. Such a
method consists of iterating the following
three steps [Lozano -Perez 83a] : first, hypo-
thesize a candidate path ; second check the
path for possible collisions ; third, if a
possible collision is found , modify the path.
This combinat i on of an hypothesize-and-test
method with techniques for computing colli-
sions works fairly well in rather uncluttered
environments where crude heuristics can be
used to generate candidate paths. Neverthe-
less, they lack generality and they may fail
when obstacles are more densely distributed.
A more recent and promising approach for sol-
ving the find-path problem consists of expli-
citly representing the set of those robot
configurations which are collision-free. Fin-
ding a path consists of finding a connected
sequence of robot configurations in this set,
starting from the initial configuration and
terminating at the goa l one.
A relatively common method based on this ap-
proach is called the configuration space me-
thod. It has been first reported in [Udupa 77]
and much developped in [Lozano -Perez 81] and
[Brooks 83a]. Basically it consists of shrin-
king the moving object -let call it A- to a
point while expanding the obstacles -let ~all
them Bi (i=1,2, ... )- inversely to the shape
of A. This principle can easily be explained
in a two-dimensional world with a fixed orien-
tation of A. Then the position of some re-
ference point P (a vector with two components)
of A is sufficient to specify the position
of A. Each obstacle Bi restrains point P to
be outside some region B'i (see Figure 1).
B'i can easily be computed if both A and the
Bis are convexpolygons . Then finding a path
for A is equivalent to finding a path for P
among the B'is. This new problem can be sol-
ved by partitionning the free space (i.e. the
space outside the B 'is ) into convexpo lygons.
A path is defined as a sequence of adjacent
polygons (i.e. polygons with a common edge)
of the free space, the first polygon of the
sequence containing the reference point P
at the initial position of A, and the last po-
l ygon conta ining the reference point at the
goal position afA .Finding such a sequence of
adjacent polygons can be done using tradi-
tional searching methods [Ni:Eson 80].
The configuration space method can easily be
extended to non-convex objects and obstacles.
Then both A and the Bis are approximated by
possibly overlapping convex polygons. When
dealing with lIDcluttered worlds, rough appro-
ximations of both A and the Bis can be used
in order to reduce further computations. The
extension of the method to three-dimensional
 Automatic Robot Programming
object~ and obstacles in also straightforward,
althougn computational complexity increases.
However, extension to rotating objects is mo-
re complicate. Then, in the bidimensional
space the position of the moving object A is
determined by a three-component vector (x,y, 8 ).
A technique for dealing with a rotating object
consists of partitionning the interval of pos-
sible values of 8 into sub-intervals called
slices. For each slice, grown obstacles B'i
are computed using the area swept by A around
the reference point P over the range of 8 va-
lues corresponding to the slice [Lozano-Perez
81]. A search graph of adjacent polygons is
constructed for each slice. The two graphs
corresponding to two successive slices can be
connected by linking nodes corresponding to
overlapping polygons of the two free spaces.
The resulting connected graph is to be sear-
ched for a path. The optimal size of the slices
d~'nds on the distribution of obstacles in
the world. Dense distribution requires small
sl,.,ti:es, ·while, sparse distribution makes lar-
ge slices acceptable.
/ part-mating motions possible.
/ B2
~
B'3
A grasping position on the object in order to
B3
Figure 1 : Expandinq obstacles
Another method based on the same approach has
been proposed in [Brooks 82a]. In the two-
dimensional world, this method makes use of
pairs of edges of the obstacles to compute the
spines of generalized cones, called freeways,
and representing the free space (see Figure
2). The possible motions of the moving object
are along the constructed freeways ; at each
point of the spine of a freeway only a sub-
set of orientations is allowed. Motion seg-
ments consist of translations, with possible
re-orientation, along segments of spines. A
complex path is built by transferring from
one spine to another where they intersect. At
such points the moving object must have an
orientation legal for both freeways. The me-
thod has been extended [Brooks 83] to find
collision-free path for a manipulator with
5 or 6 revolute joints. Free space is re-
presented as freeways for the hand and as
freeways for the upper arm. Such a method
works fast in relatively uncluttered worlds.
275
--
freeway
- -- -
Fiqure 2 : Representing free space
by generalized cones
3. GRASPING
Let now consider the problem of finding out
how to grasp an object with a robot hand. It
includes the find-path problem as a subpro-
blem, but the goal position of the hand on
the object, that is the grasping position, is
now to be determined. This requires conside-
ring reachability constraints applied by both
the object to be grasped and the task envi-
ronment (for instance, a pin to be inserted
into a hole should not be grasped lengthwise).
In addition, the object should be stable in
the hand in order to make both transfer and
Note that the problem we are considering is
somewhat different from bin picking
(Boissonat 81], because we must know the
perform further operations. There are some
tasks where both the problem of picking an
object out of a bin and that of grasping the
object at a known position happen simulta-
neously. Nevertheless we think that a good
approach consists of solving them sequential-
ly.
Several works have tackled the problem of
automatically generating manipulator-level
programs for grasping objects [Lozano-Perez
76] [Wingham 77] [Binford 79] [Lozano-Perez
81] [Laugier 81] [Laugier 83]. Most of them
are based on the same general approach made
of two steps
- First, determine a set of candidate grasp
positions on the object by conSidering lo-
cal morphological properties of the object.
For instance, [Lozano-Perez 76] considers
a small number of grasping position classes
defined on simple volumes like rectangular
parallepipeds and cylinders; [Wingham 77]
searchs for parallel faces on a polyhedron.
- Second, prune the set of candidate grasp
positions by analyzing reachability cons-
traints both at the initial (i.e. before
the motion to be executed next) and the fi-
nal positions of the object.
In most methods, stability of the object in
the gripper is considered through heuristics
- for instance, the center of mass of the
object should be located on the axis
276 J.C. Latombe
between the jaws [Binford 79] -which are used
by the program for ordering the candidate
grasp positions [Laugier 81].
An instance of this approach is the method
presented in [Laugier 81] and completed in
[Laugier 83], which is applicable to grippers
having two parallel jaws. During the first
step, the method regards every pair of fea-
tures (faces, edges, and vertices) of the ob-
ject as a possible class of grasping positions
and computes a collection of simple local pro-
perties for each pair. These properties are
used for constructing a small subset of can-
didate classes of grasping positions ; for
instance, any pair containing a concave edge,
or made of non-parallel planar faces, or made
of faces which are not "in front of" each
other, etc, is rejected. During the second
step, the method orders the candidate classes
dccording to heuristics drawn from the sta-
bility condition; for each one it analyzes
reachability constraints using a variant of
the configuration space method sketched in
Section 2. We describe how this is done below.
A cartesian coordinate frame OXYZ is attached
to the gripper as shown in Figure 3. A class
of grasping positions is represented by a
plane P, called the gripping plane, and by a
region GZo in that plane, called the gripping
zone :
- The gripping plane P, with which OXZ should
coinciqe, constraints the orientation of
the gripper. It is easily computed from the
pair of features defining the class of gras-
ping positions ; for instance, in the typi-
call case where these two features are pa-
rallel planar faces (Figure 3), P is paral-
lel to them and equally distant from each
one. In some particular cases the grisping
plane degenerates into a line or a point.
- The gripping zone GZo constrains the posi-
tion of the gripper. It is the range of
positions of the origin 0 of the frame OXYZ,
which maintain a contact between points J1
and J2 of the jaws and the two features of
the object (see Figure 3). It is computed
from the "mutual visibility" of the fea-
tures ; for instance when the features are
parallel planar faces, GZo is the inter-
section of the projections of both features
on P.
Given these definitions, the algorithm for
analyzing reaehability to a candidate class
of grasping positions is the following :
1. Project obstacles located in the space
that may be swept by the jaws and the
palm of the gripper, at both the initial
and final positions of the object, onto P.
Continuing on the example of Figure 3, Fi-
gure 4 shows GZo and the projected obs-
tacles due to both the object itself and
the table on which the object rests. For
simplification of our presentation, we
will suppose that these are the only ob-
stacles to the gripper.
2. Choose a direction of approach D in the
gripping plane.
The gripper is supposed to move along D be-
fore grasping the object. Heuristics consi-
dering the projected obstacles are used to
select D. In the rest of the algorithm, we
will suppose that D is perpendicular to
the table (Figure 5).
3. Grow the gripping zone GZo inversely to
the shape of the jaws (let call GZ1 the
new gripping zone).
This step is illustrated by Figure 5.a.
The algorithm for growing GZo is simular
to that used in the configuration space
method of Section 2. The reference point
is J1 (or J2).
4. Repeat for the jaws and the palm:
4.1 Grow the projected obstacles to the jaws
(resp. the palm) inversely to their shapes.
This is illustrated by Figure S.b (for the
jaws only).
4.2 Restrict the grown gripping zone GZ1 by
substracting the grown obstacles (let
call GZ2-resp.GZ3- the gripping zone after
substracting the grown obstacles to the
jaws -resp. to the palm).
Figure S.c shows GZ2.
5. If GZ3 is not empty, then return success
otherwise either modify D and return to
step 3, or return failure.
This algorithm has been implemented and expe-
rimented on several objects although steps 2
and 5 rely strongly on heuristics.
4. PART MATING
Several sources of uncertainty prevent tight-
tolerance operations like mating two objects
from being accomplished directly like pick-
and-place operations :
- there are bounds to the accuracy of a ro-
bot manipulator,
- feeders, whether they are machanical or
vision-based, deliver objects with some
position uncertainty,
- copies of the same object are identical
only within specified tolerances.
If there was no uncertainly, a program for
mating two objects would merely consist of
a sequence of goal-oriented motions (possi-
blya single one). Each of them would
achieve a desired geometric relation bet-
ween the objects. However, because of un-
certainty, each motion may not achieve the
motion it was intended for, so that it be-
comes necessary to check sensory data (ty-
pically force and position data) for deter-
mining whether the expected relation has
been attained, or not. Unwanted relations
require corrective motions.
Therefore, a program for mating two objects
may be regarded as the implementation of a
strategy to reduce uncertainty until the
goal relation between the two objects is
achieved. Such a program typically includes
 Automa tic Robot Program ming 277

L w

directi on
of approac h
1 o
z

x
jaw

__~~_(~~~}!ce
point

- a -

grippin g zone

grippin g
plane

Figure 3 A class of graspin g positio ns

transfo rmed obstac les
obstac le
OBSTl
- b -
GZO

resulti ng
___ ~GZl
grippin g
GZ2
L __ ,
I
I
I
I
I
____ __ J

obstac le
- c -

Figure 5 Analys ing reacha bility to a class

Figure 4 Obstac les projec ted on the
of graspin g positio ns
grippin g plane
278 J.C. Latombe
- goal-oriented motions to achieve wanted re-
lations,
- corrective motions to improve position accu-
racy from unwanted relations,
- information-gathering motions to reduce posi-
tion uncertainty,
- conditional statements, which implicitly in-
terpret sensory data in terms of spatial re-
lations requiring different courses of ac-
tions,
- loops to repeat goal-oriented motions that
were previously unsuccessful,
- variables representing uncertainty, and as-
signments to update them after both correc-
tive and information-gathering motions.
A first approach to synthesizing part-mating
programs has been presented in both [Taylor
76) and ~ozano-Perez 76). It consists of fil-
ling in given procedure skeletons. A skeleton
contains most of the ingredients for perfor-
ming a task, but many parameters remain to be
defined. [Taylor 76) developped a numerical
method for propagating errors and tolerances
through relations among object features in a
world-model data base. Computed error estima-
tes were used for deciding how to complete
the concerned strategy skeleton; for instance,
in the task of inserting a pin into a chamfred
hole, the error estimate on the distance bet-
ween the pin and the hole axes could be used
for deciding whether to include a piece of
code for searching the hole, or not. Later,
[Brooks 82b) improved the method for propaga-
ting errors by introducing symbolic computation
techniques. The new method can be applied not
only in the forward direction for estimating
errors after a planned operation, but also
in the backward direction for computing the
ranges of initial values of some parameters
which enable a program to succeed [Lozano-
Perez 76) developped methods for computing the
expected length of guarded motions and their
force termination conditions taking uncer-
tainty into account.
This approach suffers from some drawbacks.
First, many errors are difficult to estimate
and error propagation techniques based on the
"worst-case uncertainty" hypothesis may gene-
rate unrealistic over-estimates because error
compensation phenomena are not taken into ac-
count. Second, the techniques developped so
far for propagating errors are only applicable
to linear programs ; their extension to itera-
tive programs would require solving fix point
computation problems.
These drawbacks have motivated investigating
a second approach to synthesizing part-mating
programs based on inductive learning from ex-
periments [Dufay 83b] [Dufay 83c]. The method
consists of assembling input partial local
strategies described as rules into a complete
manipulator-level program by processing the
execution traces of several attempts to car-
ry out the task. The execution traces are
generated during the "training phase". Then
the input rules are used to build plans in
the form of sequences of situations and mo-
tions. Given a task, a first plan, called the
ground plan, is built ; for instance, if the
task is to insert a pin into a hole, the
ground plan may merely contain a single mo-
tion : starting from the situation where the
pin and the hole are aligned (with some un-
certainty) translate the pin along its axis
until its extremity hits the bottom of the
hole. After each motion of the plan is exe-
cuted by the robot, the system checks posi-
tion and force sensory data for determining
whether the planned situation has been achie-
ved. If this is the case, then the next mo-
tion of the plan is executed. Otherwise, ru-
les are invoked for proposing a corrective
plan starting from the current situation and
having the expected (but not achieved) si-
tuation as its goal situation ; for instance,
if the pin hi~the chamfer instead of hitting
the bottom of the hole, then the corrective
plan may consist of first moving the pin
along the force vector perpendicular to the
pin's axis, and then moving the pin along
its axis. The corrective plan is inserted
into the ground plan, and execution is resu-
med by the robot. Due to geometric uncertain-
ty, several executions of the same task usu-
ally produce different execution traces.
Traces are represented by linear graphs ;
the nodes are the executed motions and the
arcs are the encountered situations.
The assembly of the part-mating program
happens during the second phase of the me-
thod, called the "induction phase" ; it pro-
ceeds through iterative transformations of
execution traces by merging nodes and arcs
labelled by "equivalent" motions and situa-
tions. The result is a graph including bran-
ching points and cycles, which represent the
flowchart of the part-mating program. Basi-
cally the two following transformation rules
are applied
- Rule 1 :
~
rn'
s s
rn'
s
. . ·ID
- RULE 2 :
m'~'
---m'
s s
s
m
Figures 6 through 10 illustrate the process
og generating the flowchard of a part-mating
program from execution traces. The task is
that of inserting a pin into a chamfered
hole. Both the nodes and the arcs are la-
belled by suggestive names for simplifica-
tion ; identical names denote "equivalent"
motions and situations. Figure 6 contains
two execution traces. The graph of Figure 7
is derived from that of Figure 6 by applying
rule 1 twice. Figure 8 shows the graph after
applying rule 2 twice. Note that a loop has
 Automatic Robot Programming 279

been inducrd. Figure 9 shows the previous

graph co~ined with a third execution trace.
Figure 10 deriv2s from Figure 9 by appling
both rule 1 and rule 2 once. A second loop ove along axis
has been induced. The process of transforming contact 1
a flowchart such as the graph of Figure 10
into a program is straightforward [Dufay 83c]. ove along force
contact 2
An implementation of the above method has been
used for synthesizing various part-mating pro- ove along force
grams, including packing a block into a cor-
ner, inserting a part with two pins into a
part with a hole and a groove, and inserting against ove alona axis
a card into a slot. However, a drawback of the
method is that the rules are specific to tasks
and must be provided by the user in addition
to the description of the task. Iloreover, the
processing of ambiguous sensory data [Dufay FIGURE 6 (see text)
83a] is still to be improved .
.,.
A t~d approach derived from the configuration
axis
space/method (see Section 2) has been proposed
receot1y [Lozano-Perez 83b]. Using this ap-
proach, the pin-into-hole task is first trans-
force
formed from the original formulation shown by
Figure 11.a into the problem of moving point ontacl: 2
p to the goal surface G shown by Figure 11.b
ove along force
(the pin has been shrinked to point p and the along axis
hole has been expanded accordingly). Then the aligned
"pre-image" of G for a direction Ni is com-
move along axis
puted ; i t is the range of all those positions
of p such that a single motion along vi would
make preach G (see Figure 12). If no pre-
image of G contains the current position p,
then the same pre-image computation is recur- FIGU~ 7 (see text)
sively applied using each of the existing
pre-images as a possible goal. Therefore, the
basic idea is to chain backward from the goal
towards the current position of p, characteri-
zing at each step the pre-image of the current axis
goal. This idea has been extended for taking
into account the effects of both uncertainty
-by introducing the notion of "strong" pre- move along force contact 2
image (range of positions for which all no-
tions within the range of velocity direction axis
uncertainty will reach the goal)- and fric-
tion. The notion of strong pre-image permits
the method to generate sequences of motions
resulting into unambiguous situations between
the objects. However, this approach to part-
mating program synthesis remains a theoretical
one yet to be implemented (the computation of FIGURE C (see text)
the pre-image of a goal is still a problem).
It suffers of some of the drawbacks of the
first approach introduced above ; but we
believe that it could fruitfully be combined
with the second one in order to produce the axis
plans needed by the training phase automa-
tically.
ontact 2

axis

FIGURE 9 (see text)

AI-J*
280 J.C. Latombe

languages considerably extend the range of

9 functions primitives which are accessible
from the programming system. But coding a
move along manipulator-level program may not be easy
it is time-consuming and requires relatively
sophisticated users.
move
along Since the mid seventies and mostly during
force the last five years, several resea~ch works
have focused on developping task-level pro-
FIGURE 10 (see text)
gramming systems, which provide high expres-

u • p
siveness without requiring programming exper-
tise. After the early ambitious attempts il-
lustrated by AUTOPASS and LA;~, the trend
has been to solve more delimited subproblems

uw
path finding, grasping and part mating. This
paper has surveyed this trend. Important pro-
gress has been made since today there exist
methods for solving the three subproblems.
Therefore it is likely that complete task-
level prototype programming systems will
a b exist soon in some laboratories.

FIGURE 11 transforming the pin-into-hole However we do not think that such systems
task will enter industry in the short term. In-
deed, most of the existing methods still
L2 have too many limitations for being reliably
applicable to large range of industrial tasks.
An efficient algorithm for computing colli-
1\' N sion-free path for general robots remains
to be developped. All the methods for com-

ttT
FIGURE 12 preimage of G for different vi
puting grasping positions of an object are
limited to parallel-jaws gripper ; in addi-
tion, none of them adequately handles ob-
ject stability. Finally a complete method
for part-mating program synthesis is still
to be defined and implemented, although im-
portant ingredients already exist.

Nevertheless, we believe that progress about

5. CONCLUSION
task-level systems will more rapidly enter
industry in the form of aids to programming.
During the last ten years, robots have consi-
For instance, one may envision an interactive
derably evolved under both socio-economic
programming system including separate modu-
pressure and rapid progress of basic techno-
les for proposing robot paths, grasping po-
logy. They have become truly programmable ma-
sitions, and part-mating strategies to the
chines which are applicable to a large va-
user. Partial automatic robot programming
riety of tasks without major change. However
should also be possible soon in some limited
programming a computer-controlled sensor-
well-defined task domains. In addition, works
based robot is some that different from the
on task-level systems should result in a
mere programming of a computer. Indeed, robot
better and structured methodology for pro-
programs run in a world which is incompletely
ducing manipulator-level programs.
known and imperfectly modelled. In computer
programming we know the input, and we are in-
Because of its importance for both integra-
terested by the output ; in contrast, in ro-
bot programming, we know the output we would ting CAD/CAll and augmenting robot program-
ming productivity, the amount of research
like to'get (the assembly), but we only have
about automatic robot programming is very
a partial knowledge of the input.
likely to augment considerably in the near
future, both in university and industrial
It is more and more obvious that the cost of
laboratories.
programming robots becomes an important eco-
nomic issue in robot-based manufacturing.
REFERENCES
This issue has motivated the development of
programming tools, such as the general-pur-
[Ahuja 80 1
pose manipulator-level robot programming
N. AHUJA, R.T. CHIEN, N. B~ID\'lELL : "Inter-
languages. The availability of such languages
ference detection and collision avoidance
at a commercial level is one of the most si-
among three dimensional objects", _1st Ameri-
gnificant aspects of the current evolution
can Association for Artificial Intelligence
of industrial robots towards more sophisti-
Conference, Stanford, August 1980.
cated computerization. Compared to the tra-
ditional "teaching by showing" method, these [Binford 79 1
T.O. BIllFORD : "Computer Integrated assembly
 Automatic Robot Programming 281

J
systems", Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Industrial Robots, October 1981.
Stanford, 1979.
[Latombe 82a]
[Boissonnat 8 1] J.C. LATOMBE : "Equipe Intelligence Artifi-
J .D. BOISSONN!'.T, F. GERMAn, : "A new approach cielle et Robotique : etat d 'a vancement des
to the problem of acquiring randomly oriented recherches au 1er Octobre 1981" (in French) ,
workpieces out of a bin", International Joint !>.P. N° 291, IMG, Grenoble, February 1982.
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancou-
[Latombe 82b]
ver, August 1981.
J.C. LAT01lBE : "Survey of advanced general -
[Brooks 82a] purpose software for r obot manipulators",
R.A. BROOKS : "Solving the find-path problem p.". N° 330 , HlAG, Grenoble, November 1982 .
by good representation of free space", l!:!£..
[Laugier 81]
American Association for Artificial Intelli-
C. LAUGIER : "A program for automatic gras -
gence Conference, Carnegie-Mellon, August 1982.
ping of objects with a robot arm", illh.
[Brooks 82b] International SympoSium on Industrial Robots,
R.A. BROOKS : "Symbolic error analysis and October 1931.
robot planning", International Journal of Ro-
[Laugier 83]
bot~cs Research.L 4, December 1982.
C. LAUGIER, J. PERTIN : "Automatic grasping
~OOkS 83a] a case study in accessibility analysis ", 1..!1;
R.~ BROOKS, J. LOZANO-PEREZ : "A subdivision ternational f1eeting on Advanced Software in
algorithm in Configuration Space for findpath ~obotics, Liege, Ilay 1983.
with r otation", International Joint Conference
[Lewis 74]
on Artificial Intelligence, Karlsruhe, August
R.A. LEWIS : "Autonomous manipulation on a
1983.
robot : summary of manipulator software func-
[Brooks 83b] tions", Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
R.A. BROOKS : "Planning co llision-free mo- Institute of. Technology, -:;'fl 33-679, f~arch 1974.
tions for pick and place operations", 1st
[Lieberman 77]
International Symposium on Robotics Research,
L.1. LIEBEJU-IA..'l, M.A. WESLEY : "AUTOPASS : an
Bretton Woods, August 1983.
automatic programming system for computer
[Boyse 79] controlled mechanical assembly", IEtl Journal
J .H. BOYSE : "Interference detection among so- of Research and Development, July 1977.
lids and surfaces", Communications of ACM,
[Lozano-Perez 76]
January 1979.
T. LOZANO-PEREZ : "The design of a mechanical
[Dufay 83a] assembly system", Art ificia l Intelli0ence
B. DUFAY, C. LAUGIER : "Geometrical reasoning Laboratory, AI Tt:( 397 , f11-:;', 1976.
in automatic grasping and contact analysis",
[Lozano-Perez 81]
in T. M. ELLIS and O. 1. SE~1ENKOV (Eds) , ,~.
T. LOZAlfO-PEREZ : "Automatic planning of ma -
ces in CAD/CAtl", North-Holland, 1983.
nipulator transfer movements ", IEEE Trans.
[Dufay 83b] Systems, flan, Cybernatics SMC-1 1, 10, 1981.
B. DUFAY : "Apprentissage par induction en
[Lozano_perez 82]
robotique. Applications a la synthese de pro-
T. LOZANO-PEREZ : "Robot programming ", A.I.
grammes de montage" (in French), these de 3e
f1emo N° 698, Artificial Intelligence L~ ­
cycle, ~, Grenoble, June 1983 .
tory, f1IT, Decenber 1982.
[Dufay 83c]
[Lozano-Perez 83a]
B. DUFAY, J.C. LATOf1BE : "An approach to auto-
T. LOZANO-P EREZ : "Task-planning" , in M.
matic robot programming based on inductive
BRADY et al. (Eds) , "Robot f~otion", fUT
learning", 1st International Symposium on Ro-
Press, 1983.
botics Res ea rch, Bretton Woods, August 1983.
[Lozano-Perez 83b]
[Finkel 74]
T. LOZANO-PE~Z, f1.T. MASON, R.H. TAYLOR :
R.A. FINKEL et al. : "AL, a programming sys-
"Automatic synthesis of fine-motion strategies
tem for automation", Memo AIM 243, Artificial
for robots", 1st International Symposium on
Intelligence Laboratory, Stanford, November
Robotics Research, Bretton Woods, August 1983.
1974.
[Finkel 76] [flazer 83 ]
E. MAZER : "Geometric programming of assembly
R.A. FINKEL : "Constructing and debugging mani-
robots (LM-GEO)", International .t'eeting on
pulator programs", Memo Anl 243, Artificial
Advanced Software in Robotics, Liege, May
Intelligence Laboratory, Stanford, ilovember
1983.
1974.
[Miribel 82]
[Gini 78]
J.F. flI!UB EL , L. MAZER : "The LM Reference
G. GriH, M. GINI : "Obj ect description wi th
f1anual" , U1AG Report, Grenoble, !lovember
a manipulator", the Industrial Robot, f·larch
1982.
1978.
[Popplestone 78 ]
[Latombe 81]
R.J. POPPLESTONE, A.P. AMBLER, I . BELLOS :
J .C. LATOMBE, E. f1AZER : "LH : a high-level
"RAPT: a language for describing assemblies",
programming language for controlling assembly
the Industrial Robot, September 1973.
robots", 11th Internationa l SYr:1posium on
282 J.C. Latombe

[Powell 82]
E.G. POWELL : "An efficient collision warning
algorithm for robot arms", 2nd American Asso-
ciation for Artificial Intelligence Conferen-
~, Carnegie-Mellon, August 1982.

[Sata 81]
T. SATA, F. KIMURA, A. AMANO : "Robot simula-
tion system as a task prograrruning tool", .!l!lJ
International Symposium on Industrial Robots,
Tokyo, October 1981.
[Soroka 80]
B.J. SOROKA : "Debugging robot programs with
a simulator ", CAD CAM - 8 Conference, Ana-
heim, California, November 1980.
[Taylor 76]
R.H. TAYLOR : "Synthesis of manipulator control
programs from task-level specifications", ~
AIM 228, Artificial Intelligence Laboratory,
Stanford, July 1976.
[Taylor 82]
R.H. TAYLOR, P.D. SUMMERS, J.M. MEYER : "AML
a manufacturing language", The International
Journal of Robotics Research, Vol . .1., N° 3,
1982.
[Unimation 80]
Unimation Inc. : "User's guide to VAL : a
robot prograrruning and control system", Uni-
mation Inc. Danbury, Connecticut, Version 12,
June 1980.
[Udupa 77]
S.M. UDUPA : "Collision detection and avoidan-
ce in computer controlled manipulators", .l!:!=.
ternational Joint Conference on Artificial
Intelligence, Cambridge, August 1977.
[Wingham 77]
M. WINGHAH : "Planning how to grasp objects
in a cluttered environment", M.Phil. Thesis,
University of Edinburgh, 1977.