1 / 77

Probabilistic Algorithms for Mobile Robot Mapping

Probabilistic Algorithms for Mobile Robot Mapping. Sebastian Thrun Carnegie Mellon & Stanford Wolfram Burgard University of Freiburg and Dieter Fox University of Washington. LEP: Adapted, combining partially with Thrun’s Tutorial. Based on the paper

toviel
Download Presentation

Probabilistic Algorithms for Mobile Robot Mapping

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 Algorithms forMobile Robot Mapping Sebastian Thrun Carnegie Mellon & Stanford Wolfram Burgard University of Freiburg and Dieter Fox University of Washington LEP: Adapted, combining partially with Thrun’s Tutorial

  2. Based on the paper A Real-Time Algorithm for Mobile Robot Mapping With Applications to Multi-Robot and 3D Mapping Best paper award at 2000 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (~1,100 submissions) Sponsored by DARPA (TMR-J.Blitch, MARS-D.Gage, MICA-S.Heise) and NSF (ITR(2), CAREER-E.Glinert, IIS-V.Lumelsky) Other contributors: Yufeng Liu, Rosemary Emery, Deepayan Charkrabarti, Frank Dellaert, Michael Montemerlo, Reid Simmons, Hugh Durrant-Whyte, Somajyoti Majnuder, Nick Roy, Joelle Pineau, …

  3. This Talk Motivation SLAM (Kalman filters) Expectation Maximization Real Time Hybrid 3D Mapping with EM Open Problems

  4. Museum Tour-Guide Robots With: Greg Armstrong, Michael Beetz, Maren Benewitz, Wolfram Burgard, Armin Cremers, Frank Dellaert, Dieter Fox, Dirk Haenel, Chuck Rosenberg, Nicholas Roy, Jamie Schulte, Dirk Schulz

  5. The Nursebot Initiative With: Greg Armstrong, Greg Baltus, Jacqueline Dunbar-Jacob, Jennifer Goetz, Sara Kiesler, Judith Matthews, Colleen McCarthy, Michael Montemerlo, Joelle Pineau, Martha Pollack, Nicholas Roy, Jamie Schulte

  6. The Localization Problem • Estimate robot’s coordinates s=(x,y,q) from sensor data • Position tracking (error bounded) • Global localization (unbounded error) • Kidnapping (recovery from failure) Ingemar Cox (1991): “Using sensory information to locate the robot in its environment is the most fundamental problem to provide a mobile robot with autonomous capabilities.” see also [Borenstein et al, 96]

  7. Mapping: The Problem • Concurrent Mapping and Localization (CML) • Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM)

  8. Mapping: The Problem • Continuous variables • High-dimensional (eg, 1,000,000+ dimensions) • Multiple sources of noise • Simulation not acceptable

  9. Milestone Approaches Mataric 1990 Elfes/Moravec 1986 Kuipers et al 1991 Lu/Milios/Gutmann 1997

  10. 3D Mapping Moravec et al, 2000 Konolige et al, 2001 Teller et al, 2000

  11. Every state-of-the-art mapping algorithm is probabilistic. Take-Home Message Mapping is the holy grail in mobile robotics.

  12. Robots are Inherently Uncertain • Uncertainty arises from four major factors: • Environment stochastic, unpredictable • Robot stochastic • Sensor limited, noisy • Models inaccurate

  13. Probabilistic Robotics

  14. Probabilistic Robotics Key idea: Explicit representation of uncertainty (using the calculus of probability theory) • Perception = state estimation • Action = utility optimization

  15. Advantages of Probabilistic Paradigm • Can accommodate inaccurate models • Can accommodate imperfect sensors • Robust in real-world applications • Best known approach to many hard robotics problems

  16. Pitfalls • Computationally demanding • False assumptions • Approximate

  17. This Talk Motivation SLAM (Kalman filters) Expectation Maximization Real Time Hybrid 3D Mapping with EM Open Problems

  18. The Localization Problem • Estimate robot’s coordinates s=(x,y,q) from sensor data • Position tracking (error bounded) • Global localization (unbounded error) • Kidnapping (recovery from failure) Ingemar Cox (1991): “Using sensory information to locate the robot in its environment is the most fundamental problem to provide a mobile robot with autonomous capabilities.” see also [Borenstein et al, 96]

  19. p(s) s Probabilistic Localization [Simmons/Koenig 95] [Kaelbling et al 96] [Burgard et al 96]

  20. d = data o = observation a = action t = time s = state Bayes Markov Markov Bayes Filters [Kalman 60, Rabiner 85]

  21. Markov Assumption used above Knowledge of current state renders past, future independent: • “Static World Assumption” • “Independent Noise Assumption”

  22. Bayes Filters are Familiar to AI! • Kalman filters • Hidden Markov Models • Dynamic Bayes networks • Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs)

  23. p(s|a,s’,m) s’ s’ a a map m laser data p(o|s,m) observation o p(o|s,m) Localization With Bayes Filters

  24. [Weckesser et al. 98], [Jensfelt et al. 99] Kalman filter Multi-hypothesis [Schiele et al. 94], [Weiß et al. 94], [Borenstein 96], [Gutmann et al. 96, 98], [Arras 98] Piecewise constant (metric, topological) Variable resolution (eg, trees) [Nourbakhsh et al. 95], [Simmons et al. 95], [Kaelbling et al. 96], [Burgard et al. 96], [Konolige et al. 99] [Burgard et al. 98] What is the Right Representation?

  25. Idea: Represent Belief Through Samples • Particle filters • [Doucet 98, deFreitas 98] • Condensation algorithm • [Isard/Blake 98] • Monte Carlo localization • [Fox/Dellaert/Burgard/Thrun 99]

  26. Monte Carlo Localization (MCL)

  27. MCL: Importance Sampling

  28. MCL: Robot Motion motion

  29. MCL: Importance Sampling

  30. draw s(i)t-1from b(st-1) draw s(i)tfrom p(st | s(i)t-1,at-1,m) Importance factor for s(i)t: Particle Filters Represents b(st) by set of weighted particles {s(i)t,w(i)t}

  31. Monte Carlo Localization

  32. Performance Comparison Markov localization (grids) Monte Carlo localization

  33. Monte Carlo Localization • Approximate Bayes Estimation/Filtering • Full posterior estimation • Converges in O(1/#samples) [Tanner’93] • Robust: multiple hypothesis with degree of belief • Efficient: focuses computation where needed • Any-time: by varying number of samples • Easy to implement 

  34. Distance filters: [Fox et al 1998] Pitfall: The World is not Markov!

  35. Probabilistic Localization: Lessons Learned • Probabilistic Localization = Bayes filters • Particle filters: Approximate posterior by random samples

  36. 70 m The Problem: Concurrent Mapping and Localization

  37. Concurrent Mapping and Localization • Is a chicken-and-egg problem • Mapping with known poses is “simple” • Localization with known map is “simple” • But in combination, the problem is hard! • Today’s best solutions are all probabilistic!

  38. Mapping: Outline Maximum likelihood: EM Posterior estimation: EKF (SLAM) Maximum likelihood: ML* Posterior estimation with known poses: Occupancy grids

  39. Assume static map [Smith, Self, Cheeseman 90, Chatila et al 91, Durrant-Whyte et al 92-00, Leonard et al. 92-00] Mapping as Posterior Estimation

  40. Kalman Filters • N-dimensional Gaussian • Can handle hundreds of dimensions

  41. Underwater Mapping By: Louis L. Whitcomb, Johns Hopkins University

  42. Underwater Mapping - Example “Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Navigation,” John Leonard et al, 1998

  43. Underwater Mapping with SLAMCourtesy of Hugh Durrant-Whyte, Univ of Sydney

  44. Mapping with Extended Kalman Filters Courtesy of [Leonard et al 1998]

  45. Undistinguishable features Distinguishable features Posterior multi-modal  Posterior uni-modal  The Key Assumption • Inverse sensor model p(st|ot,m) must be Gaussian. • Main problem: Data association • In practice: • Extract small set of highly distinguishable features from sensor data • Discard all other data • If ambiguous, take best guess for landmark identity

  46. Mapping Algorithms - Comparison

  47. Mapping: Outline Maximum likelihood: EM Posterior estimation: EKF (SLAM) Maximum likelihood: ML* Posterior estimation with known poses: Occupancy grids

  48. E-Step: Localization M-Step: Mapping with known poses Mapping with Expectation Maximization [Dempster et al, 77] [Thrun et al, 1998] [Shatkay/Kaelbling 1997]

  49. map(1) Uncertainty Models for Motion

  50. 16 landmarks 15 landmarks 27 landmarks 17 landmarks CMU’s Wean Hall (80 x 25 meters)

More Related