Map-Matching Algorithms for Robot Self-Localization: A Comparison Between Perfect Match, Iterative Closest Point and Normal Distributions Transform

The self-localization of mobile robots in the environment is one of the most fundamental problems in the robotics navigation field. It is a complex and challenging problem due to the high requirements of autonomous mobile vehicles, particularly with regard to the algorithms accuracy, robustness and computational efficiency. In this paper, we present a comparison of three of the most used map-matching algorithms applied in localization based on natural landmarks: our implementation of the Perfect Match (PM) and the Point Cloud Library (PCL) implementation of the Iterative Closest Point (ICP) and the Normal Distribution Transform (NDT). For the purpose of this comparison we have considered a set of representative metrics, such as pose estimation accuracy, computational efficiency, convergence speed, maximum admissible initialization error and robustness to the presence of outliers in the robots sensors data. The test results were retrieved using our ROS natural landmark public dataset, containing several tests with simulated and real sensor data. The performance and robustness of the Perfect Match is highlighted throughout this article and is of paramount importance for real-time embedded systems with limited computing power that require accurate pose estimation and fast reaction times for high speed navigation. Moreover, we added to PCL a new algorithm for performing correspondence estimation using lookup tables that was inspired by the PM approach to solve this problem. This new method for computing the closest map point to a given sensor reading proved to be 40 to 60 times faster than the existing k-d tree approach in PCL and allowed the Iterative Closest Point algorithm to perform point cloud registration 5 to 9 times faster.

[1]  L. Schulze,et al.  The Approach of Automated Guided Vehicle Systems , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics.

[2]  Lothar Schulze,et al.  Automated Guided Vehicle Systems: a Driver for Increased Business Performance , 2008 .

[3]  Paul J. Besl,et al.  A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes , 1992, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[4]  Wim H. Hesselink,et al.  A General Algorithm for Computing Distance Transforms in Linear Time , 2000, ISMM.

[5]  David J. Thuente,et al.  Line search algorithms with guaranteed sufficient decrease , 1994, TOMS.

[6]  Miguel Pinto,et al.  Self-localisation of indoor mobile robots using multi-hypotheses and a matching algorithm , 2013 .

[7]  Paulo G. Costa,et al.  2D Cloud Template Matching - A Comparison between Iterative Closest Point and Perfect Match , 2016, 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC).

[8]  Tom Duckett,et al.  Scan registration for autonomous mining vehicles using 3D‐NDT , 2007, J. Field Robotics.

[9]  Nicola Tomatis BlueBotics: Navigation for the Clever Robot [Entrepreneur] , 2011 .

[10]  Peter Biber,et al.  The normal distributions transform: a new approach to laser scan matching , 2003, Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003) (Cat. No.03CH37453).

[11]  Joachim Hertzberg,et al.  Evaluation of 3D registration reliability and speed - A comparison of ICP and NDT , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[12]  Martin Magnusson,et al.  The three-dimensional normal-distributions transform : an efficient representation for registration, surface analysis, and loop detection , 2009 .

[13]  Armando Sousa,et al.  Robust 3/6 DoF self-localization system with selective map update for mobile robot platforms , 2016, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[14]  Martin Lauer,et al.  Calculating the Perfect Match: An Efficient and Accurate Approach for Robot Self-localization , 2005, RoboCup.