Stanford University, NASA Ames, MBARI Range Data ... · Stephen Rock at rock@stanford.edu, or visit...

[1] Hammond, M., Clark, A., et. al., “Automated Point Cloud Correspondence Detection for Underwater

Mapping Using AUVs,” OCEANS, Washington DC, Oct. 19-22, 2015.

[2] Images taken from: http://stocktouch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/iceberg-poster.jpg (Iceberg),

www.esa.int (Comet), and www.CartoonStock.com, ID tbrn213 (Cartoon Canyon Wall)

This work was funded under NASA ASTEP Grant NNX11AR62G. The authors would

also like to thank the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute for the data, ship

time, and technical support. Particular thanks go to Brett Hobson, Hans Thomas,

Rob McEwen, and Rich Henthorn.

Create accurate 3D reconstructions of natural terrain, subject to

unknown terrain motion and/or substantial vehicle inertial

estimation errors.

Mapping Asteroids and Icebergs:

Range Data Correspondence Detection for Natural Terrain

Objective

Matches were determined by the quantity of RANSAC inliers. Varying

the inlier threshold trades match quantity versus match accuracy. A

Hough transform successfully identifies false matches.

Results

For decades, spacecraft have been utilizing star trackers for attitude

determination. Their constellation matching algorithms have been

designed for low computation and low memory requirements.

How Star Trackers Work (& How it Applies to Range Data):

1. Take an image of stars (collect range data)

2. Locate stars within the image (locate point cloud features)

3. Search for a matching constellation in a starfield database (identify

matching constellations of features in the “database” dataset)

Constellation Matching

BibliographyAcknowledgments

For further information, contact Ashley Clark at aaclark@stanford.edu,

Stephen Rock at rock@stanford.edu, or visit arl.stanford.edu

Further Information

Initial Experiments Ongoing Improvements

Ashley Clark and Stephen RockStanford University, NASA Ames, MBARI

Sonar data was collected by an

autonomous underwater vehicle, along

two passes around Soquel Canyon in

Monterey Bay, CA.

Feature Detector: SIFT

Feature Descriptor: SIFT

Feature Match Algorithm: RANSAC

Outlier Rejection: Hough Transform

Problem Setup

Ground truth is shown in a green band. Accepted matches

are shown in blue. Rejected matches are shown in red.

Problem Description

Motivation: Asteroid exploration can provide clues about the origin of our

solar system, but the uncertainty of asteroid spin rates and spin axes makes

3D reconstruction and subsequent terrain-relative navigation challenging. This

research develops algorithms for asteroid missions and tests them on

comparable Earth-based scenarios, such as drifting iceberg exploration and

underwater vehicles with poor dead reckoning.

Issues:

• Poor Terrain-Relative Inertials

− No GPS

− Drifting Target

− Poor Sensors

• Lack of Distinctive Features

− Natural Terrain

− No Man-Made

Navigation Aids

Where does the problem come from?

ICP is commonly used to align point clouds, but

substantial inertial errors can cause ICP to

converge to local minima.

People have initialized ICP before. Why not

use their methods? Most ICP initialization

routines rely on easily identifiable and well

localized features, i.e. from manmade objects

with sharp corners or pre-placed fiducial markers.

Will the algorithm work on noisy

range data from a real system?

Success!

Method Overview

High Level Algorithm:

Use GraphSLAM to correct

the warped point cloud.

New Correspondence

Detection Algorithm1:

To detect correspondences between one set of range data and another, use image

processing to find matching subclouds.

Warped

Point Cloud

Detect

Correspondences

Run ICP on Each

Correspondence

GraphSLAM

Using ICP

Offsets

Segment Data

into Subclouds

Detect

Features

Describe

Features

Identify Feature

Matches

Quantify Subcloud

Match Quality

14

Outlier

Rejection

For Each Subcloud For Each Pair of Subclouds

Initial experiments demonstrate the success of the algorithm in real

terrain, but the reliance on RANSAC for matching presents three issues:

• Natural terrain can have relatively few distinctive features; RANSAC

depends on a large quantity for successful matching

• A small number of closely-matched features can indicate

correspondence; quantity of matched features is not a sufficient metric

• Computer memory is limited on spacecraft; reducing the minimum

necessary quantity of features is preferred

Challenges

Using constellation matching algorithms in lieu of RANSAC can reduce the

number of features needed per image by an order of magnitude

Benefits:

• Fast database lookup

• Order of magnitude

reduction of features

• Probabilistic model of

match quality