This is a very difficult problem about how to maneuver a spaceship that can both translate and rotate in 3D, for a space game.
The spaceship has n jets placing in various positions and directions.
Transformation of i-th jet relative to the CM of spaceship is constant = Ti.
Transformation is a tuple of position and orientation (quaternion or matrix 3x3 or, less preferable, Euler angles).
A transformation can also be denoted by a single matrix 4x4.
In other words, all jet are glued to the ship and cannot rotate.
A jet can exert force to the spaceship only in direction of its axis (green).
As a result of glue, the axis rotated along with the spaceship.
All jets can exert force (vector,Fi) at a certain magnitude (scalar,fi) :
i-th jet can exert force (Fi= axis x fi) only within range min_i<= fi <=max_i.
Both min_i and max_i are constant with known value.
To be clear, unit of min_i,fi,max_i is Newton.
Ex. If the range doesn't cover 0, it means that the jet can't be turned off.
The spaceship's mass = m and inertia tensor = I.
The spaceship's current transformation = Tran0, velocity = V0, angularVelocity = W0.
The spaceship physic body follows well-known physic rules :-
Torque=r x F
F=ma
angularAcceleration = I^-1 x Torque
linearAcceleration = m^-1 x F
I is different for each direction, but for the sake of simplicity, it has the same value for every direction (sphere-like). Thus, I can be thought as a scalar instead of matrix 3x3.
Question
How to control all jets (all fi) to land the ship with position=0 and angle=0?
Math-like specification: Find function of fi(time) that take minimum time to reach position=(0,0,0), orient=identity with final angularVelocity and velocity = zero.
More specifically, what are names of technique or related algorithms to solve this problem?
My research (1 dimension)
If the universe is 1D (thus, no rotation), the problem will be easy to solve.
( Thank Gavin Lock, https://stackoverflow.com/a/40359322/3577745 )
First, find the value MIN_BURN=sum{min_i}/m and MAX_BURN=sum{max_i}/m.
Second, think in opposite way, assume that x=0 (position) and v=0 at t=0,
then create two parabolas with x''=MIN_BURN and x''=MAX_BURN.
(The 2nd derivative is assumed to be constant for a period of time, so it is parabola.)
The only remaining work is to join two parabolas together.
The red dash line is where them join.
In the period of time that x''=MAX_BURN, all fi=max_i.
In the period of time that x''=MIN_BURN, all fi=min_i.
It works really well for 1D, but in 3D, the problem is far more harder.
Note:
Just a rough guide pointing me to a correct direction is really appreciated.
I don't need a perfect AI, e.g. it can take a little more time than optimum.
I think about it for more than 1 week, still find no clue.
Other attempts / opinions
I don't think machine learning like neural network is appropriate for this case.
Boundary-constrained-least-square-optimisation may be useful but I don't know how to fit my two hyper-parabola to that form of problem.
This may be solved by using many iterations, but how?
I have searched NASA's website, but not find anything useful.
The feature may exist in "Space Engineer" game.
Commented by Logman: Knowledge in mechanical engineering may help.
Commented by AndyG: It is a motion planning problem with nonholonomic constraints. It could be solved by Rapidly exploring random tree (RRTs), theory around Lyapunov equation, and Linear quadratic regulator.
Commented by John Coleman: This seems more like optimal control than AI.
Edit: "Near-0 assumption" (optional)
In most case, AI (to be designed) run continuously (i.e. called every time-step).
Thus, with the AI's tuning, Tran0 is usually near-identity, V0 and W0 are usually not so different from 0, e.g. |Seta0|<30 degree,|W0|<5 degree per time-step .
I think that AI based on this assumption would work OK in most case. Although not perfect, it can be considered as a correct solution (I started to think that without this assumption, this question might be too hard).
I faintly feel that this assumption may enable some tricks that use some "linear"-approximation.
The 2nd Alternative Question - "Tune 12 Variables" (easier)
The above question might also be viewed as followed :-
I want to tune all six values and six values' (1st-derivative) to be 0, using lowest amount of time-steps.
Here is a table show a possible situation that AI can face:-
The Multiplier table stores inertia^-1 * r and mass^-1 from the original question.
The Multiplier and Range are constant.
Each timestep, the AI will be asked to pick a tuple of values fi that must be in the range [min_i,max_i] for every i+1-th jet.
Ex. From the table, AI can pick (f0=1,f1=0.1,f2=-1).
Then, the caller will use fi to multiply with the Multiplier table to get values''.
Px'' = f0*0.2+f1*0.0+f2*0.7
Py'' = f0*0.3-f1*0.9-f2*0.6
Pz'' = ....................
SetaX''= ....................
SetaY''= ....................
SetaZ''= f0*0.0+f1*0.0+f2*5.0
After that, the caller will update all values' with formula values' += values''.
Px' += Px''
.................
SetaZ' += SetaZ''
Finally, the caller will update all values with formula values += values'.
Px += Px'
.................
SetaZ += SetaZ'
AI will be asked only once for each time-step.
The objective of AI is to return tuples of fi (can be different for different time-step), to make Px,Py,Pz,SetaX,SetaY,SetaZ,Px',Py',Pz',SetaX',SetaY',SetaZ' = 0 (or very near),
by using least amount of time-steps as possible.
I hope providing another view of the problem will make it easier.
It is not the exact same problem, but I feel that a solution that can solve this version can bring me very close to the answer of the original question.
An answer for this alternate question can be very useful.
The 3rd Alternative Question - "Tune 6 Variables" (easiest)
This is a lossy simplified version of the previous alternative.
The only difference is that the world is now 2D, Fi is also 2D (x,y).
Thus I have to tune only Px,Py,SetaZ,Px',Py',SetaZ'=0, by using least amount of time-steps as possible.
An answer to this easiest alternative question can be considered useful.
I'll try to keep this short and sweet.
One approach that is often used to solve these problems in simulation is a Rapidly-Exploring Random Tree. To give at least a little credibility to my post, I'll admit I studied these, and motion planning was my research lab's area of expertise (probabilistic motion planning).
The canonical paper to read on these is Steven LaValle's Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning, and there have been a million papers published since that all improve on it in some way.
First I'll cover the most basic description of an RRT, and then I'll describe how it changes when you have dynamical constraints. I'll leave fiddling with it afterwards up to you:
Terminology
"Spaces"
The state of your spaceship can be described by its 3-dimension position (x, y, z) and its 3-dimensional rotation (alpha, beta, gamma) (I use those greek names because those are the Euler angles).
state space is all possible positions and rotations your spaceship can inhabit. Of course this is infinite.
collision space are all of the "invalid" states. i.e. realistically impossible positions. These are states where your spaceship is in collision with some obstacle (With other bodies this would also include collision with itself, for example planning for a length of chain). Abbreviated as C-Space.
free space is anything that is not collision space.
General Approach (no dynamics constraints)
For a body without dynamical constraints the approach is fairly straightforward:
Sample a state
Find nearest neighbors to that state
Attempt to plan a route between the neighbors and the state
I'll briefly discuss each step
Sampling a state
Sampling a state in the most basic case means choosing at random values for each entry in your state space. If we did this with your space ship, we'd randomly sample for x, y, z, alpha, beta, gamma across all of their possible values (uniform random sampling).
Of course way more of your space is obstacle space than free space typically (because you usually confine your object in question to some "environment" you want to move about inside of). So what is very common to do is to take the bounding cube of your environment and sample positions within it (x, y, z), and now we have a lot higher chance to sample in the free space.
In an RRT, you'll sample randomly most of the time. But with some probability you will actually choose your next sample to be your goal state (play with it, start with 0.05). This is because you need to periodically test to see if a path from start to goal is available.
Finding nearest neighbors to a sampled state
You chose some fixed integer > 0. Let's call that integer k. Your k nearest neighbors are nearby in state space. That means you have some distance metric that can tell you how far away states are from each other. The most basic distance metric is Euclidean distance, which only accounts for physical distance and doesn't care about rotational angles (because in the simplest case you can rotate 360 degrees in a single timestep).
Initially you'll only have your starting position, so it will be the only candidate in the nearest neighbor list.
Planning a route between states
This is called local planning. In a real-world scenario you know where you're going, and along the way you need to dodge other people and moving objects. We won't worry about those things here. In our planning world we assume the universe is static but for us.
What's most common is to assume some linear interpolation between the sampled state and its nearest neighbor. The neighbor (i.e. a node already in the tree) is moved along this linear interpolation bit by bit until it either reaches the sampled configuration, or it travels some maximum distance (recall your distance metric).
What's going on here is that your tree is growing towards the sample. When I say that you step "bit by bit" I mean you define some "delta" (a really small value) and move along the linear interpolation that much each timestep. At each point you check to see if you the new state is in collision with some obstacle. If you hit an obstacle, you keep the last valid configuration as part of the tree (don't forget to store the edge somehow!) So what you'll need for a local planner is:
Collision checking
how to "interpolate" between two states (for your problem you don't need to worry about this because we'll do something different).
A physics simulation for timestepping (Euler integration is quite common, but less stable than something like Runge-Kutta. Fortunately you already have a physics model!
Modification for dynamical constraints
Of course if we assume you can linearly interpolate between states, we'll violate the physics you've defined for your spaceship. So we modify the RRT as follows:
Instead of sampling random states, we sample random controls and apply said controls for a fixed time period (or until collision).
Before, when we sampled random states, what we were really doing was choosing a direction (in state space) to move. Now that we have constraints, we randomly sample our controls, which is effectively the same thing, except we're guaranteed not to violate our constraints.
After you apply your control for a fixed time interval (or until collision), you add a node to the tree, with the control stored on the edge. Your tree will grow very fast to explore the space. This control application replaces linear interpolation between tree states and sampled states.
Sampling the controls
You have n jets that individually have some min and max force they can apply. Sample within that min and max force for each jet.
Which node(s) do I apply my controls to?
Well you can choose at random, or your can bias the selection to choose nodes that are nearest to your goal state (need the distance metric). This biasing will try to grow nodes closer to the goal over time.
Now, with this approach, you're unlikely to exactly reach your goal, so you need to define some definition of "close enough". That is, you will use your distance metric to find nearest neighbors to your goal state, and then test them for "close enough". This "close enough" metric can be different than your distance metric, or not. If you're using Euclidean distance, but it's very important that you goal configuration is also rotated properly, then you may want to modify the "close enough" metric to look at angle differences.
What is "close enough" is entirely up to you. Also something for you to tune, and there are a million papers that try to get you a lot closer in the first place.
Conclusion
This random sampling may sound ridiculous, but your tree will grow to explore your free space very quickly. See some youtube videos on RRT for path planning. We can't guarantee something called "probabilistic completeness" with dynamical constraints, but it's usually "good enough". Sometimes it'll be possible that a solution does not exist, so you'll need to put some logic in there to stop growing the tree after a while (20,000 samples for example)
More Resources:
Start with these, and then start looking into their citations, and then start looking into who is citing them.
Kinodynamic RRT*
RRT-Connect
This is not an answer, but it's too long to place as a comment.
First of all, a real solution will involve both linear programming (for multivariate optimization with constraints that will be used in many of the substeps) as well as techniques used in trajectory optimization and/or control theory. This is a very complex problem and if you can solve it, you could have a job at any company of your choosing. The only thing that could make this problem worse would be friction (drag) effects or external body gravitation effects. A real solution would also ideally use Verlet integration or 4th order Runge Kutta, which offer improvements over the Euler integration you've implemented here.
Secondly, I believe your "2nd Alternative Version" of your question above has omitted the rotational influence on the positional displacement vector you add into the position at each timestep. While the jet axes all remain fixed relative to the frame of reference of the ship, they do not remain fixed relative to the global coordinate system you are using to land the ship (at global coordinate [0, 0, 0]). Therefore the [Px', Py', Pz'] vector (calculated from the ship's frame of reference) must undergo appropriate rotation in all 3 dimensions prior to being applied to the global position coordinates.
Thirdly, there are some implicit assumptions you failed to specify. For example, one dimension should be defined as the "landing depth" dimension and negative coordinate values should be prohibited (unless you accept a fiery crash). I developed a mockup model for this in which I assumed z dimension to be the landing dimension. This problem is very sensitive to initial state and the constraints placed on the jets. All of my attempts using your example initial conditions above failed to land. For example, in my mockup (without the 3d displacement vector rotation noted above), the jet constraints only allow for rotation in one direction on the z-axis. So if aZ becomes negative at any time (which is often the case) the ship is actually forced to complete another full rotation on that axis before it can even try to approach zero degrees again. Also, without the 3d displacement vector rotation, you will find that Px will only go negative using your example initial conditions and constraints, and the ship is forced to either crash or diverge farther and farther onto the negative x-axis as it attempts to maneuver. The only way to solve this is to truly incorporate rotation or allow for sufficient positive and negative jet forces.
However, even when I relaxed your min/max force constraints, I was unable to get my mockup to land successfully, demonstrating how complex planning will probably be required here. Unless it is possible to completely formulate this problem in linear programming space, I believe you will need to incorporate advanced planning or stochastic decision trees that are "smart" enough to continually use rotational methods to reorient the most flexible jets onto the currently most necessary axes.
Lastly, as I noted in the comments section, "On May 14, 2015, the source code for Space Engineers was made freely available on GitHub to the public." If you believe that game already contains this logic, that should be your starting place. However, I suspect you are bound to be disappointed. Most space game landing sequences simply take control of the ship and do not simulate "real" force vectors. Once you take control of a 3-d model, it is very easy to predetermine a 3d spline with rotation that will allow the ship to land softly and with perfect bearing at the predetermined time. Why would any game programmer go through this level of work for a landing sequence? This sort of logic could control ICBM missiles or planetary rover re-entry vehicles and it is simply overkill IMHO for a game (unless the very purpose of the game is to see if you can land a damaged spaceship with arbitrary jets and constraints without crashing).
I can introduce another technique into the mix of (awesome) answers proposed.
It lies more in AI, and provides close-to-optimal solutions. It's called Machine Learning, more specifically Q-Learning. It's surprisingly easy to implement but hard to get right.
The advantage is that the learning can be done offline, so the algorithm can then be super fast when used.
You could do the learning when the ship is built or when something happens to it (thruster destruction, large chunks torn away...).
Optimality
I observed you're looking for near-optimal solutions. Your method with parabolas is good for optimal control. What you did is this:
Observe the state of the system.
For every state (coming in too fast, too slow, heading away, closing in etc.) you devised an action (apply a strategy) that will bring the system into a state closer to the goal.
Repeat
This is pretty much intractable for a human in 3D (too many cases, will drive you nuts) however a machine may learn where to split the parabolas in every dimensions, and devise an optimal strategy by itself.
THe Q-learning works very similarly to us:
Observe the (secretized) state of the system
Select an action based on a strategy
If this action brought the system into a desirable state (closer to the goal), mark the action/initial state as more desirable
Repeat
Discretize your system's state.
For each state, have a map intialized quasi-randomly, which maps every state to an Action (this is the strategy). Also assign a desirability to each state (initially, zero everywhere and 1000000 to the target state (X=0, V=0).
Your state would be your 3 positions, 3 angles, 3translation speed, and three rotation speed.
Your actions can be any combination of thrusters
Training
Train the AI (offline phase):
Generate many diverse situations
Apply the strategy
Evaluate the new state
Let the algo (see links above) reinforce the selected strategies' desirability value.
Live usage in the game
After some time, a global strategy for navigation emerges. You then store it, and during your game loop you simply sample your strategy and apply it to each situation as they come up.
The strategy may still learn during this phase, but probably more slowly (because it happens real-time). (Btw, I dream of a game where the AI would learn from every user's feedback so we could collectively train it ^^)
Try this in a simple 1D problem, it devises a strategy remarkably quickly (a few seconds).
In 2D I believe excellent results could be obtained in an hour.
For 3D... You're looking at overnight computations. There's a few thing to try and accelerate the process:
Try to never 'forget' previous computations, and feed them as an initial 'best guess' strategy. Save it to a file!
You might drop some states (like ship roll maybe?) without losing much navigation optimality but increasing computation speed greatly. Maybe change referentials so the ship is always on the X-axis, this way you'll drop x&y dimensions!
States more frequently encountered will have a reliable and very optimal strategy. Maybe normalize the state to make your ship state always close to a 'standard' state?
Typically rotation speeds intervals may be bounded safely (you don't want a ship tumbling wildely, so the strategy will always be to "un-wind" that speed). Of course rotation angles are additionally bounded.
You can also probably discretize non-linearly the positions because farther away from the objective, precision won't affect the strategy much.
For these kind of problems there are two techniques available: bruteforce search and heuristics. Bruteforce means to recognize the problem as a blackbox with input and output parameters and the aim is to get the right input parameters for winning the game. To program such a bruteforce search, the gamephysics runs in a simulation loop (physics simulation) and via stochastic search (minimax, alpha-beta-prunning) every possibility is tried out. The disadvantage of bruteforce search is the high cpu consumption.
The other techniques utilizes knowledge about the game. Knowledge about motion primitives and about evaluation. This knowledge is programmed with normal computerlanguages like C++ or Java. The disadvantage of this idea is, that it is often difficult to grasp the knowledge.
The best practice for solving spaceship navigation is to combine both ideas into a hybrid system. For programming sourcecode for this concrete problem I estimate that nearly 2000 lines of code are necessary. These kind of problems are normaly done within huge projects with many programmers and takes about 6 months.
'Proximity' is a strategy game of territorial domination similar to Othello, Go and Risk.
Two players, uses a 10x12 hex grid. Game invented by Brian Cable in 2007.
Seems to be a worthy game for discussing a) optimal algorithm then b) how to build an AI.
Strategies are going to be probabilistic or heuristic-based, due to the randomness factor, and the insane branching factor (20^120).
So it will be kind of hard to compare objectively.
A compute time limit of 5 seconds max per turn seems reasonable => this rules out all brute-force attempts. (Play the game's AI on Expert level to get a feel - it does a very good job based on some simple heuristic)
Game: Flash version here, iPhone version iProximity here and many copies elsewhere on the web
Rules: here
Object: to have control of the most armies after all tiles have been placed. You start with an empty hexboard. Each turn you receive a randomly numbered tile (value between 1 and 20 armies) to place on any vacant board space. If this tile is adjacent to any ALLY tiles, it will strengthen each of those tile's defenses +1 (up to a max value of 20). If it is adjacent to any ENEMY tiles, it will take control over them IF its number is higher than the number on the enemy tile.
Thoughts on strategy: Here are some initial thoughts; setting the computer AI to Expert will probably teach a lot:
minimizing your perimeter seems to be a good strategy, to prevent flips and minimize worst-case damage
like in Go, leaving holes inside your formation is lethal, only more so with the hex grid because you can lose armies on up to 6 squares in one move
low-numbered tiles are a liability, so place them away from your main territory, near the board edges and scattered. You can also use low-numbered tiles to plug holes in your formation, or make small gains along the perimeter which the opponent will not tend to bother attacking.
a triangle formation of three pieces is strong since they mutually reinforce, and also reduce the perimeter
Each tile can be flipped at most 6 times, i.e. when its neighbor tiles are occupied. Control of a formation can flow back and forth. Sometimes you lose part of a formation and plug any holes to render that part of the board 'dead' and lock in your territory/ prevent further losses.
Low-numbered tiles are obvious-but-low-valued liabilities, but high-numbered tiles can be bigger liabilities if they get flipped (which is harder). One lucky play with a 20-army tile can cause a swing of 200 (from +100 to -100 armies). So tile placement will have both offensive and defensive considerations.
Comment 1,2,4 seem to resemble a minimax strategy where we minimize the maximum expected possible loss (modified by some probabilistic consideration of the value ß the opponent can get from 1..20 i.e. a structure which can only be flipped by a ß=20 tile is 'nearly impregnable'.)
I'm not clear what the implications of comments 3,5,6 are for optimal strategy.
Interested in comments from Go, Chess or Othello players.
(The sequel ProximityHD for XBox Live, allows 4-player -cooperative or -competitive local multiplayer increases the branching factor since you now have 5 tiles in your hand at any given time, of which you can only play one. Reinforcement of ally tiles is increased to +2 per ally.)
A former member of the U of A GAMES group here.
That branching factor is insane. Far worse than Go.
Basically, you're hooped.
The problem with this game is that it is not deterministic due to the selection of a random tile. This actually adds another layer of nodes between each existing layer of nodes in the tree. You'll be interested in my publications on *-Minimax to learn about techniques for searching in stochastic domains.
In order to complete one-ply searches before the end of this century, you're going to need some very aggressive forward pruning techniques. Throw provably best move out the window early and concentrate on building good move ordering.
For general algorithms, I would suggest you to check the research done by the Alberta University AI Games group: http://games.cs.ualberta.ca Many of the algorithms there guarantee to find optimal policies. However, I doubt you're really interested in finding the optimal, aim for the "good enough" unless you want to sell that game in Korea :D
From your description, I have understood the game to be a two-player with full-observability i.e. no hidden units and such and fully deterministic i.e. player's actions outcomes do not require rolling, then you should take a look at the real-time bounded-search minimax derivatives proposed by the U Alberta guys. However, being able to do bound as well the depth of the backups of the value function would perhaps be a nice way to add a "difficulty level" to your game. They have been doing some work - a bit fishy imo - on sampling the search space for improving value function estimates.
About the "strategy" section you describe: in the framework I am mentioning, you will have to encode that knowledge as an evaluation function. Look at the work of Michael Büro and others - also in the U Alberta group - for examples of such knowledge engineering.
Another possibility would be to pose the problem as a Reinforcement Learning problem, where adversary moves are compiled as "afterstates". Look that up on the Barto & Sutton book: http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~sutton/book/the-book.html However the value function for a RL problem resulting from such a compilation might prove a bit difficult to solve optimally - the number of states will blow up like an H-Bomb. However, if you see how to use a factored representation, things can be much easier. And your "strategy" could perhaps be encoded as some shaping function, which would be speeding up the learning process considerably.
EDIT: Damn English prepositions
I love to work on AI optimization software (Genetic Algorithms, Particle Swarm, Ant Colony, ...). Unfortunately I have run out of interesting problems to solve. What problem would you like to have solved?
This list of NP complete problems should keep you busy for a while...
How about the Hutter Prize?
From the entry on Wikipedia:
The Hutter Prize is a cash prize
funded by Marcus Hutter which rewards
data compression improvements on a
specific 100 MB English text file.
[...]
The goal of the Hutter Prize is to
encourage research in artificial
intelligence (AI). The organizers
believe that text compression and AI
are equivalent problems.
Basically the idea is that in order to make a compressor which is able to compress data most efficiently, the compressor must be, in Marcus Hutter's words, "smarter". For more information on the relation between artificial intelligence and compression, see the Motivation and FAQ sections of the Hutter Prize website.
Does the Netflix Prize count?
I would like my bank balance optimised so that there is as much money as possible left at the end of the month, instead of the other way round.
What about the Go Game ?
Here's an interesting practical problem I came up while tinkering with color quantization and image compression.
The basic idea is that I would like a program to which I give a picture and it reduces the amount of colors is it as much as possible without me noticing it. Since every person has a different sensitivity of the eye (and eyes have different sensitivity of red/green/blue intensities), it should be possible to specify this sensitivity threshold in some way.
In other words, in a truecolor picture, replace every pixel's color with another color so that:
The total count of different colors in a picture would be the smallest possible; and
Every new pixel would have it's color no further from the original color than some user-specified value D.
The D can be defined in different ways, pick your favorite. For example:
Separate red, green and blue components for specifying the maximum possible deviation for each of them (for every pixel you get a rectangular cuboid of valid replacement values);
A real number which would represent the maximum allowable distance in the RGB cube (for every pixel you get a sphere of valid replacement values);
Something inbetween or completely different.
Most efficient solution to a given set of Sudoku puzzles. (excluding brute-force methods)
Question: A PID controller has three parameters Kp, Ki and Kd which could affect the output performance. A differential driving robot is controlled by a PID controller. The heading information is sensed by a compass sensor. The moving forward speed is kept constant. The PID controller is able to control the heading information to follow a given direction. Explain the outcome on the differential driving robot performance when the three parameters are increased individually.
This is a question that has come up in a past paper but most likely won't show up this year but it still worries me. It's the only question that has me thinking for quite some time. I'd love an answer in simple terms. Most stuff i've read on the internet don't make much sense to me as it goes heavy into the detail and off topic for my case.
My take on this:
I know that the proportional term, Kp, is entirely based on the error and that, let's say, double the error would mean doubling Kp (applying proportional force). This therefore implies that increasing Kp is a result of the robot heading in the wrong direction so Kp is increased to ensure the robot goes on the right direction or at least tries to reduce the error as time passes so an increase in Kp would affect the robot in such a way to adjust the heading of the robot so it stays on the right path.
The derivative term, Kd, is based on the rate of change of the error so an increase in Kd implies that the rate of change of error has increased over time so double the error would result in double the force. An increase by double the change in the robot's heading would take place if the robot's heading is doubled in error from the previous feedback result. Kd causes the robot to react faster as the error increases.
An increase in the integral term, Ki, means that the error is increased over time. The integral accounts for the sum of error over time. Even a small increase in the error would increase the integral so the robot would have to head in the right direction for an equal amount of time for the integral to balance to zero.
I would appreciate a much better answer and it would be great to be confident for a similar upcoming question in the finals.
Side note: i've posted this question on the Robotics part earlier but seeing that the questions there are hardly ever noticed, i've also posted it here.
I would highly recommend reading this article PID Without a PhD it gives a great explanation along with some implementation details. The best part is the numerous graphs. They show you what changing the P, I, or D term does while holding the others constant.
And if you want real world Application Atmel provides example code on their site (for 8 bit MCU) that perfectly mirrors the PID without a PhD article. It follows this code from AVR's website exactly (they make the ATMega32p microcontroller chip on the Arduino UNO boards) PDF explanation and Atmel Code in C
But here is a general explanation the way I understand it.
Proportional: This is a proportional relationship between the error and the target. Something like Pk(target - actual) Its simply a scaling factor on the error. It decides how quickly the system should react to an error (if it is of any help, you can think of it like amplifier slew rate). A large value will quickly try to fix errors, and a slow value will take longer. With Higher values though, we get into an overshoot condition and that's where the next terms come into play
Integral: This is meant to account for errors in the past. In fact it is the sum of all past errors. This is often useful for things like a small dc/constant offset that a Proportional controller can't fix on its own. Imagine, you give a step input of 1, and after a while the output settles at .9 and its clear its not going anywhere. The integral portion will see this error is always ~.1 too small so it will add it back in, to hopefully bring control closer to 1. THis term usually helps to stabilize the response curve. Since it is taken over a long period of time, it should reduce noise and any fast changes (like those found in overshoot/ringing conditions). Because it's aggregate, it is a very sensitive measurement and is usually very small when compared to other terms. A lower value will make changes happen very slowly, and create a very smooth response(this can also cause "wind-up" see the article)
Derivative: This is supposed to account for the "future". It uses the slope of the most recent samples. Remember this is the slope, it has nothing to do with the position error(current-goal), it is previous measured position - current measured position. This is most sensitive to noise and when it is too high often causes ringing. A higher value encourages change since we are "amplifying" the slope.
I hope that helps. Maybe someone else can offer another viewpoint, but that's typically how I think about it.