Robot localization in a mapped environment using Adaptive Monte Carlo algorithm

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2501.01153
• Title: Robot localization in a mapped environment using Adaptive Monte Carlo algorithm
• Author: Sagarnil Das
• Classification: cs.RO (Robotics)
• Publication Date: January 2, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01153

Abstract

This paper investigates the challenges of robot localization in known map environments by implementing probabilistic algorithms to filter noisy sensor measurements and track the robot's position and orientation. The paper focuses on using Adaptive Monte Carlo Localization (AMCL) or particle filtering methods to localize robots in mapped environments and navigate them to target states. ROS, Gazebo, and RViz are employed as primary tools to simulate the environment and program two robots to perform localization tasks.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

Robot localization is a fundamental problem in mobile robotics, aiming to determine the robot's pose (position and orientation) in a known environment. Without accurate localization information, robots cannot make effective decisions or take appropriate actions.

Classification of Localization Problems

The paper categorizes localization problems into three types:

1. Local Localization: The robot knows its initial pose and needs to estimate its current pose during motion
2. Global Localization: The robot's initial pose is unknown and must be determined relative to the true map
3. Kidnapped Robot Problem: The most challenging scenario where the robot may be moved to a new location on the map at any time

Research Motivation

Existing localization algorithms have their limitations:

• Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) assumes linear Gaussian distributions, limiting its application in nonlinear real-world environments
• Traditional Monte Carlo Localization can handle non-Gaussian distributions but has fixed computational overhead
• There is a need for a localization method that can dynamically adjust computational complexity

Core Contributions

1. Implementation of AMCL-based robot localization system: Constructed a complete robot localization and navigation system in the ROS environment
2. Design and comparison of two robot models: UdacityBot (baseline model) and SagarBot (custom model)
3. Detailed parameter tuning analysis: Systematically analyzed the impact of AMCL and move_base parameters on localization performance
4. Performance evaluation and analysis: Verified the effects of different robot configurations on localization through simulation experiments

Methodology Details

Task Definition

In a known map environment, the robot must:

• Input: Sensor measurement data (LiDAR, odometry), map information
• Output: Accurate pose estimation of the robot in the map
• Constraints: Real-time requirements, computational resource limitations

Adaptive Monte Carlo Localization (AMCL) Algorithm

Core Concept

AMCL uses particles to represent possible location hypotheses for the robot. Each particle contains:

• x-y coordinate position
• Direction vector
• Weight value (representing the credibility of the hypothesis)

Algorithm Flow

Algorithm 1 MCL algorithm
1: procedure MCL(xt−1, ut, zt)
2: Xt ← ϕ
3: for m=1 to M loop:
4:   x[m]t ← MotionUpdate(ut, x[m]t-1)
5:   w[m]t ← SensorUpdate(zt, x[m]t)
6:   Xt ← Xt + <x[m]t + w[m]t>
7: end for
8: for m=1 to M loop:
9:   draw x[m]t with probability ∝ w[m]t
10:  Xt ← Xt + x[m]t
11: end for
12: return Xt

Technical Innovations

1. Dynamic particle number adjustment: Dynamically adjusts particle count (25-200) based on localization uncertainty
2. Bayesian filtering framework: Combines motion model and sensor model for probabilistic estimation
3. Resampling mechanism: Retains high-weight particles and eliminates low-weight particles

System Architecture

Navigation Stack

The system employs a standard ROS navigation stack, including:

• Map Server: Provides static map
• AMCL Node: Executes localization algorithm
• move_base Node: Path planning and execution
• Costmap: Local and global path planning

Robot Model Design

UdacityBot Specifications:

• Chassis: 0.4×0.2×0.1m cubic
• Wheels: 0.1m radius, 0.05m length cylinders
• Sensors: Hokuyo LiDAR, RGB camera

SagarBot Specifications:

• Chassis: 0.4×0.4×0.1m cubic (larger and heavier)
• LiDAR position: Moved to the front of the robot
• Other configurations similar to UdacityBot

Experimental Setup

Simulation Environment

• Platform: ROS Kinetic + Gazebo + RViz
• Map: Clearpath Robotics Jackal-Race maze
• Hardware: Ubuntu 16.04, Intel i7 + NVIDIA GTX 1080Ti

Evaluation Metrics

1. Localization convergence time: Time required for particle filter convergence
2. Navigation completion time: Total time from start to goal point
3. Path quality: Whether optimal path is selected
4. Parameter sensitivity: Impact of different parameter settings

Parameter Configuration

AMCL Key Parameters

• Particle count: min_particles=25, max_particles=200
• Transform tolerance: transform_tolerance=0.2
• Laser model: likelihood_field model
• Odometry model: diff-corrected differential correction model
• Noise parameters: odom_alpha1-4 = 0.005, 0.005, 0.010, 0.005

move_base Parameters

• Obstacle detection range: UdacityBot=1.5m, SagarBot=5.0m
• Ray tracing range: UdacityBot=4.0m, SagarBot=8.0m
• Goal tolerance: xy_goal_tolerance=0.2m, yaw_goal_tolerance=0.1rad
• Update frequency: 10Hz

Experimental Results

Main Results

UdacityBot Performance

• Particle convergence time: 5-6 seconds
• Navigation completion time: Approximately 2 minutes
• Path characteristics: Initial northward exploration, redirects to southeast path after obstacle discovery

SagarBot Performance

• Particle convergence time: 30-40 seconds
• Navigation completion time: 15-20 minutes
• Performance degradation cause: Slower motion due to larger mass

Parameter Impact Analysis

Obstacle Detection Range Impact

• UdacityBot: 1.5m range sufficient for efficient navigation
• SagarBot: Increase to 5.0m significantly improves performance, avoiding dead ends

Inflation Radius Tuning

• UdacityBot: 0.65m inflation radius
• SagarBot: Reduced to 0.55m to avoid misjudging corridor width

Experimental Findings

1. Robot size and performance relationship: Larger robots require greater sensor range and more relaxed inflation parameters
2. Parameter coupling effects: obstacle_range and raytrace_range require coordinated adjustment
3. Local costmap importance: Real-time obstacle detection is critical for path planning

Related Work

Localization Algorithm Comparison

Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) vs Monte Carlo Localization (MCL)

Particle Filter Development

• Standard MCL: Fixed particle count
• Adaptive MCL: Dynamic particle count adjustment
• KLD Sampling: Statistical test-based particle count control

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. AMCL effectiveness verification: Both robots successfully achieved localization and navigation
2. Robot design impact: UdacityBot outperforms SagarBot
3. Parameter tuning importance: Appropriate parameter configuration is critical for performance
4. Path planning limitations: Both robots failed to select optimal paths

Limitations

1. Suboptimal path planning: Robots failed to anticipate northern obstacles, selecting suboptimal paths
2. Simulation limitations: Testing only in simulation environment, lacking real-world validation
3. Single robot constraint: Does not consider multi-robot cooperative localization scenarios
4. Flat ground assumption: Assumes flat terrain; LiDAR may miss ground-level obstacles

Future Directions

1. Improved path planner: Integrate more intelligent global path planning algorithms
2. Multi-robot extension: Support simultaneous localization and coordination of multiple robots
3. Hardware deployment: Deploy on real hardware such as NVIDIA Jetson TX2
4. Sensor fusion: Incorporate additional sensor types to improve robustness

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Systematic research: Complete research process from theory to implementation
2. Detailed parameter analysis: Provides practical parameter tuning guidance
3. Comparative experimental design: Validates method generalizability through two different robot models
4. Open-source code: Provides GitHub repository for reproducibility

Weaknesses

1. Limited novelty: Primarily application of AMCL algorithm rather than algorithmic innovation
2. Single experimental environment: Testing only in one simulation environment
3. Insufficient performance evaluation: Lacks quantitative comparison with other localization methods
4. Missing theoretical analysis: Lacks convergence and accuracy theoretical analysis

Impact

• Educational value: Provides excellent practical case study for robot localization learning
• Engineering reference: Parameter tuning experience has reference value for practical applications
• Good reproducibility: Detailed implementation descriptions facilitate reproduction by other researchers

Applicable Scenarios

1. Indoor navigation: Suitable for navigation in known indoor environments
2. Warehouse robots: Cargo handling and inventory management robots
3. Service robots: Service robots in structured environments such as hotels and hospitals
4. Educational research: Practical teaching projects for robotics courses

References

The paper cites the following key references:

1. Clearpath Robotics - Jackal Navigation System
2. S. Thrun - Particle Filters in Robotics
3. Q. Li et al - Kalman Filters and Applications
4. M. Quigley et al - ROS: An Open-Source Robot Operating System
5. ROS Navigation Tuning Guide

Overall Assessment: This is a practically-oriented application paper that, while limited in algorithmic innovation, provides valuable experience in engineering implementation and parameter tuning. It has good reference value for researchers and engineers learning robot localization technology.