Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T00:36:58.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Data Association Algorithm for SLAM Based on Central Difference Joint Compatibility Criterion and Clustering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2021

Dan Liu Open the ORCID record for Dan Liu [Opens in a new window]
Dan Liu*
Affiliation:
College of Transportation, Shandong University of Science and Technology, No. 579, Qianwan gang Road, Huangdao Zone, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, 266590, China
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: danaliu@yeah.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A data association algorithm for simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) based on central difference joint compatibility (CDJC) criterion and clustering is proposed to obtain the data association results. Firstly, CDJC criterion is designed to calculate joint Mahalanobis distance. Secondly, ordering points to identify the clustering structure is used to divide all observed features into several groups. Thirdly, CDJC branch and bound method is designed to be performed in each group. The results based on simulation data and benchmark dataset show that the proposed algorithm has low computational complexity and provide accurate association results for SLAM of mobile robot.

Keywords

Mobile robotSimultaneous localization and mappingData associationCentral difference joint compatibility criterionOPTICS
Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 39 , Issue 9 , September 2021 , pp. 1674 - 1691
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dissanayake, M. W. M. G., Newman, P., Clark, S., Durrant-Whyte, H. F. and Csorba, M.. “A solution to the simultaneous localization and map building (SLAM) problem,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 17(3), 229–241 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieto, J., Guivant, J., Nebot, E. and Thrun, S., “Real Time Data Association for FastSLAM,” Proceedings of ICRA’03 (2003) pp. 412–418.Google Scholar
Smith, R., Self, M. and Cheeseman, P., “A Stochastic Map for Uncertain Spatial Relationships,” Proceedings of Robotics Research (1987) pp. 467–474.Google Scholar
Durrant-Whyte, H. and Bailey, T., “Simultaneous localization and mapping: Part I,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. Mag. 13(2), 99–110 (2006).Google Scholar
Bailey, T. and Durrant-Whyte, H., “Simultaneous localization and mapping: Part II,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 13(3), 108–117 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hähnel, D., Thrun, S., Wegbreit, B. and Burgard, W., “Towards Lazy Data Association in SLAM,” Proceedings of ISRR (2005) pp. 421–431.Google Scholar
Ji, X. C., Zhang, H., Hai, D. and Zheng, Z. Q., “An Incremental SLAM Algorithm with Backtracking Revisable Data Association for Mobile Robots,” Proceedings of ICMA (2008) pp. 831–838.Google Scholar
Chen, B. F., Cai, Z. X. and Zou, Z. R., “A Hybrid Data Association Approach for Mobile Robot SLAM,” Proceedings of Control Automation and Systems (2010) pp. 1900–1903.Google Scholar
Bar-Shalom, Y., Fortmann, T. E. and Cable, P. G., “Tracking and data association,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87(2), 918–919 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arulampalam, M. S., Maskell, S. and Gordon, N., “A tutorial on particle filters for online nonlinear/non-Gaussian Bayesian tracking,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 50(2), 174–188 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeng, W. J., Zhang, T. D. and Jing, D. P., “Analysis of data association methods of SLAM,” Syst. Eng. Electron. 32(4), 860–864 (2010).Google Scholar
Singer, R. A. and Stein, J. J., “An Optimal Tracking Filter for Processing Sensor Data of Imprecisely Determined Origin in Surveillance Systems,” Proceedings of Decision & Control (1971) pp. 171–175.Google Scholar
Neira, J. and Tardos, J., “Data association in stochastic mapping using the joint compatibility test,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 17(6), 890–897 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, A. J., A Comparison of Data Association Techniques for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping Ph.D. Dissertation (Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota, 2005).Google Scholar
Leonard, J. and Durrant-Whyte, H., “Dynamic map building for an autonomous mobile robot,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 11(4), 286–298 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montemerlo, M. and Thrun, S., “Simultaneous Localization and Mapping with Unknown Data Association Using FastSLAM,” Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics And Automation (2003) pp. 1985–1991.Google Scholar
Li, Y., Li, S., Song, Q., Liu, H. and Meng, Q. H., “Fast and robust data association using posterior based approximate joint compatibility test,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 10(1), 331–339 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, X., Frazzoli, E., Rus, D. and Ang, M. H., “Fast Joint Compatibility Branch and Bound for Feature Cloud Matching,” Proceedings of Intelligent Robots and Systems (2016) pp. 1757–1764.Google Scholar
Guo, J. H., Zhao, C. X. and Shi, X. X., “Improved joint compatibility data association approach for simultaneous localization and map building (SLAM),” Chin. J. Sci. Inst. 29(11), 2260–2265 (2008).Google Scholar
Zhou, W. and Zhao, C. X., “An optimized data association solution for SLAM,” Robot 31(3), 217–223 (2009).Google Scholar
Yao, C., The Research of Mobile Robot Localization Method Based on Bayesian Theory Ph.D. Dissertation (College of Automation of Chongqing University, Chongqing, 2015).Google Scholar
Poulsen, N. K. and Ravn, O., “New developments in state estimation for nonlinear systems,” Pergamon Press 36(11), 1627–1638 (2000).Google Scholar
Jain, A. K. and Dubes, R. C., “Algorithms for clustering data,” Technometrics 32(2), 227–229 (1988).Google Scholar
Ester, M., Kriegel, H. P. and Xu, X., “A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters a Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise,” Proceedings of KDD (1996) pp. 226–231.Google Scholar
Alzaalan, M. E., Aldahdooh, R. T. and Ashour, W., “EOPTICS enhancement ordering points to identify the clustering structure,” Int. J. Comput. Appl. 40(17), 975–8887 (2012).Google Scholar
Available: http://www-personal.acfr.usyd.edu.au/tbailey.Google Scholar
Chen, B., Liu, L., Zou, Z. and Xu, X., “A hybrid data association approach for SLAM in dynamic environments,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 10(118), 1–7 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X., Pei, F. and Liu, H., “Novel nearest neighbor data association algorithm based on improved Mahalanobis distance,” J. Navig. Positioning 3(4), 50–56, 73 (2015).Google Scholar
Nebot, E., Victoria, Park Data Set. Available: http://www-personal.acfr.usyd.edu.au/nebot/dataset.htmGoogle Scholar