Where s the Boss? : Monte Carlo Localization for an Autonomous Ground Vehicle using an Aerial Lidar Map

Transcription

1 Where s the Boss? : Monte Carlo Localization for an Autonomous Ground Vehicle using an Aerial Lidar Map Sebastian Scherer, Young-Woo Seo, and Prasanna Velagapudi October 16, 2007 Robotics Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania c Carnegie Mellon University

2 1 Introduction Current outdoor localization methods are heavily dependent on accurate pose estimation in the form of GPS and inertial measurement. However, GPS technology is limited in accuracy and depends on unobstructed views of the sky, and inertial measurement systems tolerant of outdoor driving conditions are very expensive. We attempt to localize the pose of a robotic ground vehicle using only unreliable vehicle speed estimates and a high-speed 3D laser scanner. Furthermore, while most localization systems use a-priori maps generated by other ground sensors, we use a map generated from aerial lidar. 1.1 Dataset The primary vehicle data set consists of the sensor measurements collected from a Velodyne lidar. This lidar unit generates 2.5 million range measurements per second, sampling a full 360 degrees around the system. This information is provided as a sequence of log files containing timestamped point sets in 3D Cartesian coordinates referenced from an origin at the Velodyne sensor. We collected this data using the autonomous ground vehicle Boss, which sports a single, roof-mounted Velodyne lidar as part of a wide array of navigational sensors, as seen in Figure 1. Most importantly, its sensor suite includes differential GPS and inertial measurement, providing us with accurate ground truth data. Figure 1: Boss, the autonomous ground vehicle Figure 2 shows a part of the Robot City road network. We drove Boss around the edge of this network, using the trail depicted by the thick white arrows in the figure. Our data set consists of seconds of Velodyne measurements and ground truth vehicle state logged during this run. We also obtained a map of Robot City in the form of a registered point set taken from aerial lidar, using the aerial platform in Figure 3(b). The map, as seen in Figure 4, consists of over 11 million 3D Cartesian points scattered across the site. The points cover the site with a density approximating 10cm spatial resolution. 2 Monte Carlo Localization 2.1 Monte Carlo Localization Monte Carlo Localization (MCL) is a sampling-based localization method for approximating probability density distributions [1, 2]. In this method, the variable of interest, x t, is represented by a probability density. In localization problems, the variable of interest is often referred to as the state. In our case, the state is the expected pose of the robotic vehicle, x t =< x t, y t, θ t > T. In an MCL, an individual state is considered to be complete because the Markov assumption asserts that all previous experience (e.g., past sensor measurements) is independent of future experience given the current experience [2]. Since we assume that the pose information is not measurable directly and accurately, a localization process must involve some form of inference. We need to represent our belief over possible poses as conditional probability distri- I

3 Figure 2: Road network at Robot City (a) Scanning equipment (b) Equipment on helicopter Figure 3: Scanning platform used to generate aerial lidar map butions. MCL represents this belief distribution as a population of particles that are propagated each timestep. The density of the particles approximates the belief distribution over the state space. Given a motion model u t, a belief on the previous state belief(x t 1 ) can be used to predict a possible new state, belief(x t ). belief(x t ) = p(x t u t, x t 1 )belief(x t 1 )dx t 1 These predicted states, belief(x t ), are evaluated by a sensor measurement model z t, II

4 Figure 4: Lidar point set of Robot City belief(x t ) = ηp(z t x t )belief(x t ) This is simply a Bayes filter. The MCL integrates this Bayes filter with a particle filter to form a localization process. Algorithm 1 provides the details of the basic MCL process in pseudocode [1]. Algorithm 1 MCL(X t 1, u t, z t, m) X t = X t = 0 for m = 1 to M do x m t = MOTIONMODEL(u t, x m t 1) wt m = MEASUREMENTMODEL(z t, x m t, m) X t = X t + < x m t, wt m > end for for m = 1 to M do draw i with probability w i t add x i t to X t end for return X t 2.2 Implementation and Results Our implementation of MCL follows fairly closely to the basic pseudocode outline. For the motion model, we used our knowledge of the vehicle to create a reasonable planar unicycle approximation. The vehicle speed estimate from our ground truth data with an added Gaussian noise term was our control input. The steering curvature was sampled uniformly between the vehicle steering limits. This seemed to adequately represent the vehicle s movement in our dataset. However, there were significant design decisions to be made in the implementation of the measurement model. The first issue we faced in implementing MCL in this system was in the dimensionality of the data. Both the velodyne data and the map are 3D point sets, meaning that a 6DOF transform is necessary to convert from the velodyne reference frame to the world frame. However, we examined the vehicle state log files and determined that the vast majority of the time, the vehicle was close to vertical. Thus, we could simplify the state to the vector < x t, y t, θ t > T, and use constant offsets based on the vehicle configuration to create an appropriate tranformation matrix. The primary issue, however, turned out to be the computational complexity of the scan matching problem. The Velodyne log files for our dataset alone consume 2.5Gb of disk space. The map consumes 173Mb in its compressed form. In addition, because our state space would be tested by matching points in higher-dimensional world space, we hypothesized that a large number of particles would be necessary to achieve sufficient sampling density. This limited the approaches we could take to functions that could be executed very quickly on very large point sets. We settled upon two approaches, a nearest-neighbor based distance metric, and a height-based distance metric. III

5 Min Max Mean σ Table 1: Error metrics for sample run KD-Tree Our first measurement model transformed the velodyne data to world coordinates, then searched for the nearest neighbor to that point using a free Matlab kd-tree package. 1 The error for each point was the L2-norm distance from the point to its nearest neighbor. The error for each particle was simply the sum of these point errors Height Map Our second measurement model similarly transformed the velodyne data, but then matched the points against the height at their < x t, y t > T location. The error for each point was then the squared difference in height between the point and the height map. The error for each particle was once again the sum of these point errors. For both methods, the reciprocal of the error was used as the particle weight. As specified in the MCL algorithm, it was used as an unnormalized mass function to sample the next generation of particles. A sample of this matching can be seen in Figure 5. Figure 5: Matching Velodyne scans to the map Much of our original dataset was not usable due to a lack of visible obstacles in the velodyne data. We selected a subset of the data, and conducted sample runs along it using both distance estimation methods. The results can be seen in Figure 6, and the error information is shown in Figure 7 and Table 1. 3 Discussion Initially, we had hoped to do global localization by initializing the particle filter with particles sampled from locations along the road network. We were able to implement this using rejection sampling over a set of polygons encompassing the road network. However, when we began testing, it became clear that the point density required to find and track the vehicle would require us to initialize the particle filter with an exorbitant particle count, almost certainly in the several thousands. This would have been far too expensive to compute, so we ended up seeding the filter with the initial state recorded by the ground truth sensors. We also found one unexpected effect that hindered the performance of our MCL implementation. The Velodyne data was sampled uniformly in angular units, but the wide elevation range of the scan translated to very uneven 1 Michael, Steven; MIT Lincoln Labs; KD Tree Nearest Neighbor and Range Search IV

6 (a) Kd-tree MCL - best particles (red points) and ground truth (blue line) (b) Kd-tree MCL - all particles (points) and ground truth (blue line) (c) Height map MCL - all particles (points) and ground truth (blue line) Figure 6: Results of sample run using kd-tree and height map MCL sampling in Cartesian units. Points were heavily concentrated near and under the vehicle, biasing the error function toward favoring particles that placed the vehicle on flat ground rather than particles that matched more distant features. We tried uniformly resampling the points using interpolation and masking out nearby points from being evaluated by the error function, but neither were ideal, and neither completely resolved the issue. In comparing the performance of the two distance-finding strategies, kd-tree and height maps, we also found that while the height maps performed much faster and could handle 20 times more particles than the kd-tree search, the kd-tree performed significantly more accurately than the height map in both locating and tracking the vehicle pose. This is evident in Figure 6(a). It is likely that the 2 1 2D volumetric representation that the height map used did not match well against individual points, but would still perform well if used in conjunction with true ray-casting, which we did not attempt here. Also, the height map was significantly lower resolution than the original map, so it is possible that details represented in the Velodyne point sets were not represented properly in the height map distance. If you wish to see more, full size images and videos of our MCL in action are available at: pkv/movies. V

7 7 6 5 Error(m) Step Figure 7: MCL error during sample run VI

8 References [1] D. Fox, W. Burgard, F. Dellaert, and S. Thrun. Monte carlo localization: Efficient position estimation for mobile robots. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages , [2] S. Thrun, W. Burgard, and D. Fox. Probabilistic Robotics. MIT Press, VII