CHOSET AND NAGATANI: TOPOLOGICAL SLAM: TOWARDS EXACT LOCALIZATION WITHOUT EXPLICIT LOCALIZATION 127
visibility graphs [15], etc. (see [15] for a survey of roadmaps).
The roadmap used in this work is the GVG [7], which is the
one-dimensional set of points equidistant to
obstacles in
dimensions. In the plane, the GVG is simply the generalized
Voronoi diagram, which is the set of points equidistant to two
obstacles [21]. In a three-dimensional Euclidean space
, the
GVG is the one-dimensional set of points equidistant to three
obstacles.
Rao [22] achieves exploration by incrementally constructing
the planar GVG in a two-dimensional static polygonal envi-
ronment. Choset and Burdick [6] also describe a method to
construct the GVG in a static
-dimensional environment, but
their approach does not require obstacles to be polygonal, poly-
hedral, nor convex, which are assumptions most motion plan-
ners require. Both methods assume that the robot only uses
line-of-sight information.
Both Rao’s and Choset and Burdick’s methods also assume
that the robot is equipped with a 360
field-of-view high az-
imuth infinite range sensor that detects nearby obstacles. They
do not consider how real range readings can be integrated into
a control law to direct a mobile robot. In this paper, we present
control laws that take low level sensor information and then di-
rects the robot to follow the GVG edges without knowing the
GVG ahead of time. This has the affect of incrementally con-
structing the GVG. Here, low level reactive-style control has a
direct affect on high level behavior of the robot which guaran-
tees that the robot explores an unknown space. This control law
works well in small environments with a mobile robot equipped
with a ring of sonar sensors [9]. Unfortunately the control laws,
by themselves, are not enough for deploying a robot in large
environments because of errors in encoder readings. The main
contribution of this paper is to use the topology encoded in the
GVG to overcome these errors and to localize the robot.
B. Localization
Localization is a major area of mobile robotics that has
received increased attention over the past decade. Again, the
literature in this field is vast, so only work which has influenced
this paper’s results are mentioned. See [3] for a complete
overview of current localization techniques. Lu et al. [17], [18],
[13] use gradient ascent to update various location estimates
forward and backward in time. As a result, this approach has
led to significantly larger maps that are more accurate than
previous approaches, but is still limited to situations with
bounded odometric error. Shatkay and Kaelbling [24] proposed
an approach that uses probabilistic representations, along
with the well-known Baum–Welch algorithm for efficient
estimation. Their approach is similar in nature to the one
described by Thrun [27], in that they both employ probabilistic
representations and both use the Baum–Welch algorithm.
However, the method in [24] does not consider orientation
dead-reckoning error.
Thrun has recently completed a localization approach that
has been successfully verified in very large environments on
a mobile robot where a map is known a priori or the robot
is driven (currently by an external agent) to acquire environ-
mental information [27]. This approach poses a maximum-like-
lihood estimation problem, where both the location of land-
marks and the robot’s position have to be estimated. Likelihood
is maximized under probabilistic constraints that arise from the
physics of robot motion and perception. Just like [27], they use
a Baum–Welch (or alpha–beta) algorithm. Unfortunately, this
approach requires a user to specify the landmarks, as opposed
to the robot self-selecting them. Also, their approach does not
include an exploration strategy. In other words, there is nothing
in their approach that directs the robot to explore new areas, or
that guides the robot to specific locations to reduce dead-reck-
oning error.
C. Localization with Topological Maps
The above localization techniques took the approach of con-
stantly trying to update the robot’s
coordinates relative
to a global frame. In this paper, we localize the robot on a topo-
logical map without ever having to do so explicitly. Others such
as Dudek [11] and Kuipers [14] have reported localization re-
sults with the same philosophy. In [11], an agent locates itself
on a graph by matching nodes and the adjacency relationships
between them. This approach assumes that the agent can label
each node by depositing a marker at the nodes. The approach in
this paper and in [14] has the robot automatically identify nodes
in the topological graph from geometric environmental infor-
mation.
The basic thrust of this paper’s work is quite similar to
Kuiper’s. In [14], the robot essentially traces points that are
equidistant from two portions of the environment until it
reaches a point that is three-way equidistant or until it reaches a
point where a distance threshold is met, at which point the robot
follows the obstacle boundaries. The nodes in this graph are
termed distinct places, which are local maxima of the distance
to nearby obstacles. The robot can easily self-determine distinct
places from sensor data. Distinct places are a subset of the
nodes of the GVG, which are the set of points equidistant
to three obstacles (in other words, there exist examples of
triple equidistance that are not local maxima). Localization is
achieved again by matching distinct places of the graph.
D. Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM)
Leonard and Durrant-Whyte coined the term SLAM, which
as its name suggests, enables a robot to construct a map of an
unknown environment while using the same map to bound or
nullify positioning errors [16]. With SLAM, the robot must au-
tomatically determine landmarks while constructing the map.
Smith and Leonard [25] developed a feature-based approach to
address SLAM by generating multiple hypothesis and selecting
among them while mapping an unknown region. The work pre-
sented here builds upon Leonard and Durrant-Whyte’s work by
determining a rigorously well-posed method for identifying fea-
tures and the topological relations among them.
Schultz et al. [23] present a more conventional approach to
SLAM that uses certainty grids. This approach is more of an
outgrowthof the algorithms presented in Section II-B. Although
this work does not directly impact the SLAM algorithm pre-
sented in this paper, Schultz and our approaches share some
common ideas and problems.