Lifelong Map Learning for Graph-based SLAM inStaticEnvironments

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download


  • Knstl Intell (2010) 24: 199206DOI 10.1007/s13218-010-0034-2

    FAC H B E I T R AG

    Lifelong Map Learning for Graph-based SLAMin Static Environments

    Henrik Kretzschmar Giorgio Grisetti Cyrill Stachniss

    Received: 1 May 2009 / Accepted: 5 July 2009 / Published online: 21 May 2010 Springer-Verlag 2010

    Abstract In this paper, we address the problem of lifelongmap learning in static environments with mobile robots us-ing the graph-based formulation of the simultaneous local-ization and mapping problem. The pose graph, which storesthe poses of the robot and spatial constraints between them,is the central data structure in graph-based SLAM. The sizeof the pose graph has a direct influence on the runtime andthe memory complexity of the SLAM system and typicallygrows over time. A robot that performs lifelong mapping ina bounded environment has to limit the memory and com-putational complexity of its mapping system. We present anovel approach to prune the pose graph so that it only growswhen the robot acquires relevant new information about theenvironment in terms of expected information gain. As a re-sult, our approach scales with the size of the environmentand not with the length of the trajectory, which is an impor-tant prerequisite for lifelong map learning. The experimentspresented in this paper illustrate the properties of our methodusing real robots.

    Keywords SLAM Mapping Expected information gain

    1 Introduction

    Maps of the environment are needed for a wide rangeof robotic applications, including transportation tasks and

    H. Kretzschmar () G. Grisetti C. StachnissDepartment of Computer Science, University of Freiburg,Georges-Koehler-Allee 79, 79110 Freiburg, Germanye-mail:

    G. Grisettie-mail:

    C. Stachnisse-mail:

    many service robotic applications. Therefore, learning mapsis regarded as one of the fundamental problems in mo-bile robotics. In the last two decades, several effective ap-proaches for learning maps have been developed. The graph-based formulation of the simultaneous localization and map-ping (SLAM) problem models the poses of the robot asnodes in a graph. Spatial constraints between poses result-ing from observations or from odometry are encoded inthe edges between the nodes. Graph-based approaches suchas [6, 9, 19], which are probably the most efficient tech-niques at the moment, typically marginalize out the features(or local grid maps) and reduce the mapping problem to tra-jectory estimation without prior map knowledge. Therefore,the underlying graph structure is often called the pose graph.

    The majority of the approaches, however, assumes thatmap learning is carried out as a preprocessing step and thatthe robot later on uses the model for tasks such as local-ization and path planning. A robot that is constantly updat-ing the map of its environment has to address the so-calledlifelong SLAM problem. This problem cannot be handledwell by most graph-based techniques since the complexityof these approaches grows with the length of the trajectory.As a result, the memory as well as the computational re-quirements grow over time and therefore these methods can-not be applied to lifelong SLAM.

    The contribution of this paper is a novel approach thatenables graph-based SLAM approaches to operate in thecontext of lifelong map learning in static scenes. Our ap-proach is orthogonal to the underlying graph-based mappingtechnique and applies an entropy-driven strategy to prunethe pose graph while minimizing the loss of information.This becomes especially important when re-traversing al-ready mapped areas. As a result, our approach scales withthe size of the environment and not with the length of the tra-jectory. It should be noted that not only long-term mapping

  • 200 Knstl Intell (2010) 24: 199206

    systems benefit from our method. Even traditional mappingsystems are able to compute a map faster since less resourcesare claimed and less comparisons between observations areneeded to solve the data association problem. We further-more illustrate that the resulting grid maps are less blurredcompared to the maps built without our approach.

    2 Related Work

    There is a large variety of SLAM approaches available in therobotics community. Common techniques apply extendedand unscented Kalman filters [11, 13], sparse extended in-formation filters [3, 23], particle filters [8, 15], and graph-based, least squares error minimization approaches [6, 9,14, 19].

    Graph-based SLAM approaches to estimate maximum-likelihood maps are often regarded as the most effectivemeans to reduce the error in the pose graph. Lu and Mil-ios [14] were the first to refine a map by globally optimiz-ing the system of equations to reduce the error introducedby constraints. Since then, a large variety of approaches forminimizing the error in the constraint network have beenproposed. Duckett et al. [2] use Gauss-Seidel relaxation. Themulti-level relaxation (MLR) approach by Frese et al. [6] ap-plies relaxation at different spatial resolutions. Given a goodinitial guess, it yields very accurate maps particularly in flatenvironments. Folkesson and Christensen [5] define an en-ergy function for each node and try to minimize it. Thrunand Montemerlo [22] apply variable elimination techniquesto reduce the dimensionality of the optimization problem.Olson et al. [19] presented a fast and accurate optimizationapproach which is based on the stochastic gradient descent(SGD). Compared to approaches such as MLR, it still con-verges from a worse initial guess. Based on Olsons opti-mization algorithm, Grisetti et al. [9] proposed a differentparameterization of the nodes in the graph. The tree-basedparameterization yields a significant boost in performance.In addition to that, the approach can deal with arbitrarygraph topologies. The approach presented in this paper isbuilt upon the work by Grisetti et al. [9].

    Most graph-based approaches available today do not pro-vide means to efficiently prune the pose graph, that has to becorrected by the underlying optimization framework. Mostapproaches can only add new nodes or apply a rather sim-ple decision whether to add a new node to the pose graphor not (such as the question of how spatially close a nodeis to an existing one). However, there are some notable ex-ceptions: Folkesson and Christensen [5] combine nodes intoso-called star nodes which then define rigid local submaps.The method applies delayed linearization of local subsets ofthe graph, permanently combining a set of nodes in a relative

    frame. Related to that, Konolige and Agrawal [12] subsam-ple nodes for the global optimization and correct the othernodes locally after global optimization.

    Other authors considered the problem of updating a mapupon changes in the environment. For example, Biber andDuckett [1] propose an approach to update an existing modelof the environment. They use five maps on different timescales and incorporate new information by forgetting old in-formation. Related to that, Stachniss and Burgard [20] learnclusters of local map models to identify typical states of theenvironment. Both approaches focus on modeling changesin the environment but do not address the full SLAM prob-lem since they require an initial map to operate. The ap-proach presented in this paper further improves the nodereduction techniques for graph-based SLAM by estimatinghow much the new observation will change the map. It ex-plicitly considers the expected information gain of observa-tions to decide whether the corresponding nodes should beremoved from the graph or not.

    In the remainder of this paper, we will first introducethe basic concept of pose graph optimization originally pre-sented in [9]. In Sect. 4, we describe our contribution toinformation-driven node reduction. In Sect. 5, we finallypresent our experimental evaluation.

    3 Map Learning Using Pose Graphs

    The graph-based formulation of the SLAM problem modelsthe poses of the robot as nodes in a graph (a so-called posegraph). Spatial constraints between poses resulting from ob-servations or from odometry are encoded in the edges be-tween the nodes. Most approaches to graph-based SLAM fo-cus on estimating the most-likely configuration of the nodesand are therefore referred to as maximum-likelihood (ML)techniques. The approach presented in this paper also ap-plies an optimization framework that belongs to this class ofmethods.

    3.1 Problem Formulation

    The goal of graph-based ML mapping algorithms is to findthe configuration of the nodes that maximizes the likeli-hood of the observations. Let x = (x1 . . . xn)T be a vectorof parameters which describes a configuration of the nodes.Let ji and ji be respectively the mean and the informa-tion matrix of an observation of node j seen from node i.Let fji(x) be a function that computes a zero noise obser-vation according to the current configuration of the nodes jand i.

    Given a constraint between node j and node i, we candefine the error eji introduced by the constraint as

    eji(x) = fji(x) ji (1)

  • Knstl Intell (2010) 24: 199206 201

    as well as the residual rji = eji(x). Let C be the set ofpairs of indices for which a constraint exists. The goalof a ML approach is to find the configuration of the nodesthat minimizes the negative log likelihood of the observa-tions. Assuming the constraints to be independent, this canbe written as

    x = argminx


    T jirji(x). (2)

    3.2 Map Optimization

    To solve (2), different techniques can be applied. Our workapplies the approach by Grisetti et al. [9], which is an exten-sion of the work by Olson et al. [19]. Olson et al. [19] pro-pose to use a variant of the preconditioned stochastic gradi-ent descent (SGD) to compute the most likely configurationof the nodes in the network. The approach minimizes (2) byiteratively selecting a constraint and by moving the nodes ofthe pose graph in order to decrease the error introduced bythe selected constraint. Compared to the standard formula-tion of gradient descent, the constraints are not optimized asa whole but individually. The nodes are updated accordingto the following equation:

    xt+1 = xt + H1J Tjijirji . (3)Here, x is the set of variables describing the locations of theposes in the network and H1 is a preconditioning matrix.Jji is the Jacobian of fji , ji is the information matrix cap-turing the uncertainty of the observation, rji is the residual,and is the learning rate, which decreases with the iteration.For a detailed explanation of (3), we refer the reader to [9]or [19].

    In practice, the algorithm decomposes the overall prob-lem into many smaller problems by optimizing subsets ofnodes, one subset for each constraint. Whenever a solutionfor one of these subproblems is found, the network is up-dated accordingly. Obviously, updating the constraints oneafter each other can have antagonistic effects on the corre-sponding subsets of variables. To avoid infinite oscillations,one uses the learning rate to reduce the fraction of theresidual which is used for updating the variables. This makesthe solutions of the different sub-problems converge asymp-totically to an equilibrium point, which is the solution re-ported by the algorithm.

    3.3 Tree Parameterization for Efficient Map Optimization

    The poses p = {p1, . . . , pn} of the nodes define the configu-ration of the graph. The poses can be described by a vectorof parameters x such that a bidirectional mapping between pand x exists. The parameterization defines the subset of vari-ables that are modified when updating a constraint in SGD.An efficient way of parameterizing the nodes is to use a tree.

    To obtain that tree, we compute a spanning tree from thepose graph. Given such a tree, one can define the parameter-ization for a node as

    xi = pi pparent(i), (4)where pparent(i) refers to the parent of node i in the spanningtree. As shown in [9] this approach can dramatically speedup the convergence rate compared to the method by Olsonet al. [19].

    The technique described so far is typically executed asa batch process, but there exists also an incremental vari-ant [10] which performs the optimization only on the por-tions of the graph which are affected by the introduction ofnew constraints. It is thus able to re-use the previously gen-erated solutions to compute the new one.

    3.4 The SLAM Front-end

    The approach briefly described above only focuses on cor-recting a pose graph given all constraints and is often re-ferred to as the SLAM back-end. In contrast to that, theSLAM front-end aims at extracting the constraints from sen-sor data. In this paper, we build our work upon the SLAMfront-end described in the Ph.D. thesis by Olson [17]. Werefer to this technique as without graph reduction. Thefront-end generates a new node every time the robot travels aminimum distance. Every node is labeled with the laser-scanacquired at that position. Constraints between subsequentnodes are generated by pairwise scan-matching. Every timea new node is added, the front-end seeks for loop closureswith other nodes. It therefore approximates the conditionalcovariances of all nodes with respect to the newly addednode using the technique described in [25]. Once these co-variances are computed, the approach selects a set of can-didate loop closures using the 2 test. The correspondingedges are then created by aligning the current observationswith the ones stored in each candidate loop closing node de-termined by the previous step. In addition to that, the front-end applies an outlier rejection technique based on spectralclustering [18] to reduce the risk of wrong matches.

    The contribution of this paper is a technique that sitsbetween the SLAM front-end and the optimizer, the SLAMback-end, in order to enable a robot to perform lifelong maplearning in static worlds. It allows for removing redundantnodes by considering the expected information gain of theobservations. As we will show in the remainder of this pa-per, our method allows for efficient map learning especiallyin the context of frequent re-traversals of previously mappedareas. In addition to that, we illustrate that this technique im-proves the map quality when learning grid maps and thatit generates sharp boundaries between free and occupiedspaces.

  • 202 Knstl Intell (2010) 24: 199206

    4 Our Approach to Lifelong Map Learning

    In the context of lifelong map learning, a robot cannot addmore and more nodes to the graph while it is re-traversingalready visited terrain. The key idea of our approach is toprune the graph structure to limit the number of nodes. Mostof the existing approaches to graph reduction simply con-sider the position of a potential new node and do not in-tegrate it into the graph if it is spatially close to an ex-isting node [4, 12]. In this paper, we propose a different,information-driven approach to node reduction. In contrastto considering poses only, we estimate the expected amountof information which an observation contributes to the beliefof the robot.

    Most robotics systems that apply graph-based mappingapproaches eventually convert the pose graph into anotherdata structure to represent the environment for tasks such aspath planning. In this context, popular models are occupancygrid maps [16, 24] and feature maps. Therefore, we considerthe effects of the node reduction technique on the resultingoccupancy grid maps.

    4.1 Information-theoretic Node Reduction

    Our approach uses the expected information gain, which isdefined as the expected reduction of uncertainty in the be-lief of the robot caused by an observation. Entropy H is ageneral measure for uncertainty in the belief over a randomvariable x. For a discrete probability distribution, entropy isgiven by

    H(p(x)) =


    p(x) log2 p(x). (5)

    In theory, the entropy has to be computed over the fullSLAM posterior, thus taking into account the pose and themap uncertainty. In our case, however, we aim at discardingobservations when re-traversing known areas. If the robotperforms a re-traversal, it has already identified loop-closingconstraints that caused a pose correction carried out by theoptimization framework. Therefore, the nodes which are dis-carded typically have a minor effect on the pose uncertaintyitself which is why the relevant part of the uncertainty isgiven by the map uncertainty. To put this in other words,the optimization framework is a maximum likelihood esti-mator and its estimate is the node arrangement. Given thisarrangement, the map can be computed directly and thusthe entropy as well. For a grid map, the entropy is givenby

    H(p(m)) =



    cm(p(c) log2 p(c) + p(c) log2 p(c)),


    where c refers to the individual cells of the grid map m,and p(c) refers to the estimated probability that the cell cis occupied [21]. Based on the entropy, we can define theinformation gain of an observation zi with respect to a gridcell c as

    Ic(zi) = H(p(c | z1:t \ {zi})) H(p(c | z1:t )), (7)where z1:t refers to the set of all laser measurements in thegraph which have not yet been removed. Consequently, fora grid cell c, the expected information gain of an observa-tion zi is given by

    E[Ic(zi)] = Ic(zi = occupied)p(c | z1:t \ {zi})+ Ic(zi = free)p(c | z1:t \ {zi}). (8)

    Finally, summing over all grid cells yields the expected in-formation gain of an observation zi with respect to the entiregrid map:

    E[I (zi)] =

    cmE[Ic(zi)]. (9)

    A key idea of our approach is to discard all observationsand the corresponding nodes in the graph whose expectedinformation gain is smaller than a threshold. Note that ourapproach does not make its decision for the most recentobservation only. In contrast, it also considers old observa-tions for removal, i.e., in each step, our algorithm considersthe expected information gain of all measurements z1:t . Inpractice, however, the sensor of the robot only has a limitedrange. We therefore compute the expected information gainonly for those nodes which were recorded in the vicinity ofthe current robot position. We remove observations until theone with the lowest expected information gain has a valuegreater than the threshold.

    In this section, we described how to identify nodes in thegraph corresponding to measurements that can be discardedminimizing the loss of relevant information. In the next sec-tion, we describe how to prune the graph while preservingmost of the information encoded in the edges.

    4.2 Updating the Graph

    To remove a node i from the graph structure while preserv-ing the global behavior of the error function, we need to aug-ment the graph with edges between each pair of neighbors ofthe node i. This is a well known effect of the marginalizationof Gaussian distributions.

    When removing a node which has k neighbors, the totalnumber of edges can grow by up to 12k(k 1) k. Thisintroduces a complexity which is not suited for lifelong maplearning. An illustration of the graph update is depicted inthe left and middle illustration of Fig. 1.

    Therefore, we propose an alternative way of removing anode which is an approximate solution but which does not

  • Knstl Intell (2010) 24: 199206 203

    Fig. 1 Left: Graph built according to the observations. Middle: Exactly marginalized but densely connected graph after removing node i. Right:Approximate solution obtained by collapsing the edges at i into node j

    increase the size of the graph. Let i be the node to be re-moved and N be the set of neighbors of i. The key idea ofour method is to select one node j N and merge the infor-mation of all edges connecting i into existing as well as newedges connecting j . This results in removing all k edges at iand in adding (k 1) edges between j and N\{j}. If this re-sults in two edges connecting the same two nodes j and oneof its neighbors, these edges can directly be merged (see alsoFig. 1, right). Consequently, the overall number of edges al-ways decreases at least by 1.

    Merging the information encoded in the edges can bedone in a straight forward manner since the edges encodeGaussian constraints. Thus, concatenating two constraintswith means ji and kj and information matrices ji andkj is done by

    ki = ji kj , (10)ki =

    (1ji + 1kj

    )1, (11)

    where 1kj is the covariance matrix obtained by applyingthe transformation ji to 1kj .

    Similar to that, merging two constraints 1ij and 2ij be-

    tween nodes j and i is done by

    ji = 1ji(

    (1)j i

    (1)j i + (2)j i (2)j i

    ), (12)

    ji = (1)j i + (2)j i . (13)To collapse a node i into one of its neighbors, one couldselect, in theory, an arbitrary node j N . However, the se-lection of the node j can have a significant influence on theresulting map that will be obtained. The reason for that isthe underlying optimization framework. Most existing ap-proaches assume Gaussian observations (the edges representGaussians) although this assumption may not hold in prac-tice. In addition to that, some optimization systems assumeroughly spherical covariances to exhibit maximum perfor-mance. Thus, it is desirable to avoid long edges to limit theeffect of linearization errors. Our approach therefore consid-ers all neighbors j N and selects one such that the sum ofthe lengths of all edges in the resulting graph is minimized:

    j = argminjN

    eG(ij)length(e), (14)

    In (14), G(i j) refers to the graph that results when col-lapsing node i into node j . Furthermore, length(e) refers to

    the norm of the translational part of e. Note that in practice,only the edges at i and those at j need to be involved in thecomputation and not the entire graph.

    4.3 Gamma Index

    To evaluate how densely connected a pruned pose graph is inpractice, we will evaluate real world data sets using the so-called gamma index [7]. The gamma index ( ) is a measureof connectivity of a graph. It is defined as the ratio betweenthe number of existing edges and the maximum number ofpossible edges. It is given by

    = e12v(v 1)

    , (15)

    where e is the number of edges and v is the number of nodesin the graph. The gamma index varies from 0 to 1, where 0means that the nodes are not connected at all and 1 meansthat the graph is complete.

    As we will show in the experiments, our approach leadsto a small and more or less constant gamma index, below0.01 (in all our datasets). In contrast to that, the sound prun-ing strategy tends towards much higher gamma values.

    5 Experimental Evaluation

    We carried out the experimental evaluation of this work atthe University of Freiburg using a real ActivMedia Pioneer-2robot equipped with a SICK laser range finder and runningCARMEN. In addition to that, we considered a dataset thatis frequently used in the robotics community to evaluateSLAM algorithms, namely the Intel Research dataset pro-vided by Dirk Hhnel.

    5.1 Runtime

    The experiments in this section are designed to show that ourapproach to informed graph pruning is well suited for robotmappingfor lifelong map learning as well as for standardSLAM. In the first set of experiments, we present an analy-sis of how the graph structure and thus the runtime increaseswhen a robot constantly re-traverses already mapped areas.We compare the results of a graph-based optimization ap-proach [9] in combination with a re-implementation of Ol-sons SLAM front-end [17] to our novel method (using thesame front-end and back-end).

  • 204 Knstl Intell (2010) 24: 199206

    Fig. 2 Typical results of an experiment in which the robot moves inalready visited areas. Left: Runtime per observation for the standardapproach (blue) and for our method (red). Middle and right: Num-

    ber of nodes and edges in the graph for both methods. Due to timereasons, the experiment for the standard approach was aborted afteraround 3500 observations

    Fig. 3 Results obtained by a robot moving at Freiburg University,building 079, repeatedly visiting the individual rooms and the corri-dor. Top map image: standard approach without graph pruning. Bottommap image: our approach

    In the experiment presented in Fig. 2, the robot was con-stantly re-visiting already known areas. It traveled forth andback 100 times in an approximately 20 m long corridor inour lab environment. This behavior leads to a runtime ex-plosion for the standard approach. Please note that this is notcaused by the underlying optimization framework (which isexecuted in a few milliseconds) but by the SLAM front-endthat looks for constraints between the nodes in the graphconsidering all previously recorded scans. In contrast to that,our approach keeps the number of nodes in the graph moreor less constant and thus avoids the runtime explosion.

    In an additional experiment, the robot repeatedly visiteddifferent rooms and the corridor in our lab. Figure 3 showsthe resulting maps as well as the effect of the graph sparsifi-

    Fig. 4 Robot moving 100 times forth and back in the corridor. Stan-dard grid-based mapping approaches (top) tend to generate thick andblurred walls whereas our graph sparsification (bottom) does not sufferfrom this issue

    cation. In sum, this experiment yields similar results than inthe previous experiment.

    5.2 Improved Grid Map Quality by Information-drivenGraph Sparsification

    The second experiment is designed to illustrate that our ap-proach has a positive influence on the quality of the resultinggrid map. In contrast to feature-based approaches, grid mapshave one significant disadvantage when it comes to lifelongmap learning. Whenever a robot re-enters a known regionand uses scan-matching, the chance of making a small align-ment error is nonzero. After the first error, the probabilityof making further errors increases since the map the robotaligns its observation with already has a (small) error. In thelong run, this is likely to lead to divergence or at least toartificially thick walls and obstacles.

    This effect, however, is significantly reduced when ap-plying our graph sparsification technique since scans areonly maintained as long as they provide relevant informa-tion, otherwise, they are discarded. To illustrate this effect,consider Fig. 4. The top image shows the result of 100 cor-ridor traversals without graph sparsification. The thick andblurred walls as a result of the misaligned poses are clearlyvisible. In contrast to that, the result obtained by our ap-proach does not suffer from this problem (bottom image).

  • Knstl Intell (2010) 24: 199206 205

    The same effect can also be observed in the magnified areasin Fig. 3.

    5.3 Approximate Graph Update

    We furthermore compared the effects of our approximategraph update routine versus full marginalization of the nodes(see Fig. 1 for an illustration). As discussed in Sect. 4.2,our node removal technique is guaranteed to also decreasethe number of edges in the graph. In contrast to this, fullmarginalization typically leads to densely connected graphs.

    This effect can be observed in real world data such as theIntel Research Lab, see Fig. 5. This figure shows the gammaindices of both graphs. As can be seen, the graph structureobtained with our approach is and stays comparably sparse.The corresponding graphs as well as the graph obtained bythe standard approach are depicted in Fig. 6.

    This sparsity achieved by our approach has two advan-tages: First, the underlying optimization method dependslinearly on the number of edges in the graph. Thus, havingless edges results in a faster optimization. Second, after mul-tiple node removals using full marginalization, it is likelythat also spatially distant nodes are connected via an edge.

    Fig. 5 Evolution of the gamma index (Intel Research Lab)

    As mentioned in Sect. 5.2, these long distant edges can besuboptimal for the underlying optimization engine (as this isthe case for [9]).

    6 Conclusion

    In this paper, we presented a novel approach that allows forlifelong map learning in static scenes. It is designed for mo-bile robots that use a graph-based framework to solve thesimultaneous localization and mapping problem. By con-sidering the expected information gain of observations, ourmethod removes redundant information from the graph andin this way keeps the size of the pose-constraint networkconstant as long as the robot traverses already mapped areas.We introduce an approximate way to prune the graph struc-ture that enables us to limit the complexity and allows forhighly efficient robotic map learning. The approach has beenimplemented and thoroughly tested with real robot data. Weprovided real world experiments and considered standardbenchmark datasets used in the SLAM community to illus-trate the advantages of our methods.

    Note that even though this paper describes only 2D ex-periments generated based on a 2D implementation of thework, the extension to 3D should be straightforward. Givena local 3D grid (or a more efficient representation such as anoctree), the entropy and thus the expected information gaincan be computed in the same way. Furthermore, the approx-imate marginalization is directly applicable to any kind ofconstraint network. Therefore, we believe that the approachcan be directly applied to 3D data even though we have notdone this so far.

    Acknowledgements We would like to thank Dirk Hhnel for provid-ing the Intel Research Lab dataset. This work has partly been supported

    Fig. 6 Map and graph obtained from the Intel Research Lab dataset byusing the standard (left) as well as by full marginalization (middle) andby using our approach (right). Standard approach: 1802 nodes, 3916

    edges, full marginalization: 349 nodes, 13052 edges, our approach withapproximate marginalization: 354 nodes, 559 edges

  • 206 Knstl Intell (2010) 24: 199206

    by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under contract numberSFB/TR-8 and by the European Commission under contract numberFP7-ICT-231888-EUROPA.


    1. Biber P, Duckett T (2005) Dynamic maps for long-term operationof mobile service robots. In: Proc of robotics: science and systems(RSS), pp 1724

    2. Duckett T, Marsland S, Shapiro J (2002) Fast, on-line learning ofglobally consistent maps. Auton Robots 12(3):287300

    3. Eustice R, Singh H, Leonard J (2005) Exactly sparse delayed-statefilters. In: Proc of the IEEE int conf on robotics & automation(ICRA), pp 24282435

    4. Eustice R, Singh H, Leonard J (2006) Exactly sparse delayed-state filters for view-based SLAM. IEEE Trans Robot 22(6):11001114

    5. Folkesson J, Christensen H (2004) Graphical slama self-correcting map. In: Proc of the IEEE int conf on robotics & au-tomation (ICRA)

    6. Frese U, Larsson P, Duckett T (2005) A multilevel relaxation al-gorithm for simultaneous localisation and mapping. IEEE TransRobot 21(2):112

    7. Garrison WL, Marble DF (1965) A prolegomenon to the fore-casting of transportation development. United States Army Avia-tion Material Labs Technical Report, Office of Technical Services,United States Department of Commerce

    8. Grisetti G, Stachniss C, Burgard W (2007a) Improved techniquesfor grid mapping with Rao-blackwellized particle filters. IEEETrans Robot 23(1):3446

    9. Grisetti G, Stachniss C, Grzonka S, Burgard W (2007b) A treeparameterization for efficiently computing maximum likelihoodmaps using gradient descent. In: Proc of robotics: science and sys-tems (RSS)

    10. Grisetti G, Rizzini DL, Stachniss C, Olson E, Burgard W (2008)Online constraint network optimization for efficient maximumlikelihood map learning. In: Proc of the IEEE int conf on robotics& automation (ICRA)

    11. Julier S, Uhlmann J, Durrant-Whyte H (1995) A new approachfor filtering nonlinear systems. In: Proc of the American controlconference, pp 16281632

    12. Konolige K, Agrawal M (2008) Frameslam: from bundle adjust-ment to real-time visual mapping. IEEE Trans Robot 24(5):10661077

    13. Leonard J, Durrant-Whyte H (1991) Mobile robot localizationby tracking geometric beacons. IEEE Trans Robot Automat7(4):376382

    14. Lu F, Milios E (1997) Globally consistent range scan alignmentfor environment mapping. Auton Robots 4:333349

    15. Montemerlo M, Thrun S (2003) Simultaneous localization andmapping with unknown data association using FastSLAM. In:Proc of the IEEE int conf on robotics & automation (ICRA),pp 19851991

    16. Moravec H, Elfes A (1985) High resolution maps from wide an-gle sonar. In: Proc of the IEEE int conf on robotics & automation(ICRA), St Louis, MO, USA, pp 116121

    17. Olson E (2008) Robust and efficient robotic mapping. PhD thesis,MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA

    18. Olson E, Walter M, Leonard J, Teller S (2005) Single cluster graphpartitioning for robotics applications. In: Proceedings of roboticsscience and systems, pp 265272

    19. Olson E, Leonard J, Teller S (2006) Fast iterative optimization ofpose graphs with poor initial estimates. In: Proc of the IEEE intconf on robotics & automation (ICRA), pp 22622269

    20. Stachniss C, Burgard W (2005) Mobile robot mapping and local-ization in non-static environments. In: Proc of the national confer-ence on artificial intelligence (AAAI), pp 13241329

    21. Stachniss C, Grisetti G, Burgard W (2005) Information gain-basedexploration using Rao-blackwellized particle filters. In: Proc ofrobotics: science and systems (RSS), Cambridge, MA, USA,pp 6572

    22. Thrun S, Montemerlo M (2006) The graph SLAM algorithmwith applications to large-scale mapping of urban structures. IntJ Robot Res 25(56):403

    23. Thrun S, Liu Y, Koller D, Ng A, Ghahramani Z, Durrant-WhyteH (2004) Simultaneous localization and mapping with sparse ex-tended information filters. Int J Robot Res 23(78):693716

    24. Thrun S, Burgard W, Fox D (2005) Probabilistic robotics. MITPress, Cambridge

    25. Tipaldi GD, Grisetti G, Burgard W (2007) Approximated covari-ance estimation in graphical approaches to slam. In: Proc of theIEEE/RSJ int conf on intelligent robots and systems (IROS)

    Lifelong Map Learning for Graph-based SLAM in Static EnvironmentsAbstractIntroductionRelated WorkMap Learning Using Pose GraphsProblem FormulationMap OptimizationTree Parameterization for Efficient Map OptimizationThe SLAM Front-end

    Our Approach to Lifelong Map LearningInformation-theoretic Node ReductionUpdating the GraphGamma Index

    Experimental EvaluationRuntimeImproved Grid Map Quality by Information-driven Graph SparsificationApproximate Graph Update


    /ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 150 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 600 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

    /Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /NA /PreserveEditing false /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice


View more >