1 / 47

Probabilistic Robotics

Probabilistic Robotics. SLAM and FastSLAM. The SLAM Problem. SLAM stands for simultaneous localization and mapping originally developed by Hugh Durrant -Whyte and John J. Leonard “Mobile robot localization by tracking geometric beacons” - 1991

faunus
Download Presentation

Probabilistic Robotics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Probabilistic Robotics SLAM and FastSLAM

  2. The SLAM Problem • SLAM stands for simultaneous localization and mapping • originally developed by Hugh Durrant-Whyte and John J. Leonard • “Mobile robot localization by tracking geometric beacons” - 1991 • The task of building a map while estimating the pose of the robot relative to this map • Why is SLAM hard? Chicken and egg problem: • A map is needed to localize the robot and a pose estimate is needed to build a map • Errors correlate!

  3. Indoors Undersea Underground Space SLAM Applications

  4. Typical Robot Equipment • Mobile robot • Typically want error under • 2 cm per meter moved • 2° per 45° degrees turned

  5. Typical Robot Equipment • Range finding sensors • Sonar • 10 mm accuracy • 4 m range • SICK laser • 10 mm accuracy • 80 m range • IR range finder • 1.5 m range • Vision • Increasingly viable

  6. Outline of typical SLAM Process

  7. Representations • Grid maps or scans [Lu & Milios, 97; Gutmann, 98: Thrun 98; Burgard, 99; Konolige & Gutmann, 00; Thrun, 00; Arras, 99; Haehnel, 01;…] • Landmark-based [Leonard et al., 98; Castelanos et al., 99: Dissanayake et al., 2001; Montemerlo et al., 2002;…

  8. The SLAM Problem Given: • The robot’s controls • Observations of nearby features Estimate: • Map of features • Path of the robot A robot moving though an unknown, static environment

  9. Why is SLAM a hard problem? SLAM: robot path and map are both unknown! Robot path error increases errors in the map

  10. Structure of the Landmark-based SLAM-Problem

  11. Why is SLAM a hard problem? • In the real world, the mapping between observations and landmarks is unknown • Picking wrong data associations can have catastrophic consequences Robot pose uncertainty

  12. Detecting Landmarks • Look for spikes in range data • Red dots show table legs • Fit geometric primitives • RANSAC line fitting algorithm • Don’t want to fit to all data • Pick a random subset • Fit a primitive • Classify remaining points as outlier or not • Keep if enough points classify well • Keep a full occupancy map • Each cell is a landmark

  13. (E)KF SLAM • Represent robot state and landmark position all in one big state • ( rx, ry, l1x, l1y, l2x, l2y,…) • Apply Kalman filter to state update and observations • Uncertainty represented in large covariance matrix

  14. Kalman Filter and Linearity • For many applications, the time update and measurement equations are NOT linear • The KF is not directly applicable • Linearize around the non-linearities • Use of the KF is extended to more realistic situations

  15. Kalman Filter Extended Kalman Filter The Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) • The Extended Kalman (EKF) is a sub-optimal extension of the original KF algorithm • The EKF allows for estimation of non-linear processes or measurement relationships

  16. Linearity Assumption Revisited

  17. Non-linear Function

  18. EKF Linearization (1)

  19. EKF Linearization (2)

  20. EKF Linearization (3)

  21. (E)KF-SLAM • Map with N landmarks:(3+2N)-dimensional Gaussian • Can handle hundreds of dimensions

  22. EKF-SLAM Map Correlation matrix

  23. EKF-SLAM Map Correlation matrix

  24. EKF-SLAM Map Correlation matrix

  25. EKF-SLAM • Can be quadratic in number of landmarks • Non-linearities a problem • Has led to other approaches

  26. Dependencies • Is there a dependency between the dimensions of the state space? • If so, can we use the dependency to solve the problem more efficiently? • In the SLAM context • The map depends on the poses of the robot. • We know how to build a map if the position of the sensor is known.

  27. x, y,  Landmark 1 Landmark 2 Landmark M … FastSLAM • Rao-Blackwellized particle filtering based on landmarks [Montemerlo et al., 2002] • Each landmark is represented by a 2x2 Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) • Each particle therefore has to maintain M EKFs Particle #1 x, y,  Landmark 1 Landmark 2 Landmark M … Particle #2 x, y,  Landmark 1 Landmark 2 Landmark M … … Particle N

  28. FastSLAM – Action Update Landmark #1 Filter Particle #1 Landmark #2 Filter Particle #2 Particle #3

  29. FastSLAM – Sensor Update Landmark #1 Filter Particle #1 Landmark #2 Filter Particle #2 Particle #3

  30. Weight = 0.8 Weight = 0.4 Weight = 0.1 FastSLAM – Sensor Update Particle #1 Particle #2 Particle #3

  31. Multi-Hypothesis Data Association • Data association is done on a per-particle basis • Robot pose error is factored out of data association decisions

  32. Improved Proposal • The proposal adapts to the structure of the environment

  33. Per-Particle Data Association Was the observation generated by the red or the blue landmark? P(observation|red) = 0.3 P(observation|blue) = 0.7 • Two options for per-particle data association • Pick the most probable match • Pick an random association weighted by the observation likelihoods • If the probability is too low, generate a new landmark

  34. Results – Victoria Park • 4 km traverse • < 5 m RMS position error • 100 particles Blue = GPS Yellow = FastSLAM Dataset courtesy of University of Sydney

  35. Selective Re-sampling • Re-sampling is dangerous, since important samples might get lost(particle depletion problem) • Key question: When should we re-sample?

  36. visiting new areas closing the first loop visiting known areas second loop closure Typical Evolution of particle number

  37. Intel Lab • 15 particles • four times faster than real-timeP4, 2.8GHz • 5cm resolution during scan matching • 1cm resolution in final map

  38. More Details on FastSLAM • M. Montemerlo, S. Thrun, D. Koller, and B. Wegbreit. FastSLAM: A factored solution to simultaneous localization and mapping, AAAI02 • D. Haehnel, W. Burgard, D. Fox, and S. Thrun. An efficient FastSLAM algorithm for generating maps of large-scale cyclic environments from raw laser range measurements, IROS03 • M. Montemerlo, S. Thrun, D. Koller, B. Wegbreit. FastSLAM 2.0: An Improved particle filtering algorithm for simultaneous localization and mapping that provably converges. IJCAI-2003 • G. Grisetti, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard. Improving grid-based slam with rao-blackwellized particle filters by adaptive proposals and selective resampling, ICRA05 • A. Eliazar and R. Parr. DP-SLAM: Fast, robust simultanous localization and mapping without predetermined landmarks, IJCAI03

More Related