You are on page 1of 39

Cooperative distributed localization and environmental sampling by AUV teams

Andrea Caiti (1,2), Pino Casalino (1,3), Andrea Munafò (1,2), Enrico Simetti (1,3), Alessio Turetta (1,3) (1) ISME – Interuniv. Res. Ctr. Integrated Sys. Marine Env. (2) DSEA & Centro Piaggio - University of Pisa, Italy (3) DIST – University of Genova Italy Genova,

• AUVs for environmental sampling
─ gliders ─ propelled ─ hybrid

• Adaptive sampling and autonomy d i li d
─ data-driven vs. model-driven

• Networking and cooperation • Limitations to uw robot team cooperation
─ communication ─ localization

• Adaptive sampling in a communication constrained environment

AUVs for environmental sampling
• Traditional measurements in a cost effective way: cost-effective ─ replace ship and/or buoys with autonomous vehicles
─ pre-program the mission, receive data at a remote station ─ CTDs, water quality, bathymetry, seabed morphology ─ data quality enhanced by the use of an underwater platform

• New measurements possibilities ─ gradient-following, feature mapping, synoptic measurements
─ exploit the on-board intelligence as data are gathered: adaptivity ─ exploit the availability of multiple vehicles: p y p team cooperation

) ”Hybrid” vehicles some endurance inexpensive oceanographic sampling pre programmed pre-programmed mission cooperation Propelled AUVs P ll d AUV deep water long endurance g very expensive seabed mapping pre-programmed mission shallow water some endurance moderately expensive oceanography. seabed mapping pre-programmed. cooperation .Some AUVs … Oceanographic gliders O hi lid very long endurance inexpensive oceanographic sampling hi li pre-programmed mission cooperation (Leonard et al.

… and some ASV Autonomous Surface Vehicles OASIS (NOAA) .Delfim (IST) Scout (MIT) .Charlie (CNRISSIA) .

Adaptation and autonomy p y • Sample at p p points/ p paths that maximize some figure of g merit related to our knowledge of the sampled field • In the oceanographic context adaptation can be: Model driven: use model prediction to determine next mission no autonomous planning needed (but autonomous navigation required) open loop .feedback Data driven: use data to determine next way-point autonomous p u o o ous planning as we as autonomous navigation g s well s u o o ous v g o feedback only .

t h t b it d d t t d classified • E g : gas&oil fields E.g.: − Fixed sensors in key positions − Periodic sampling around the field • Other instances: − water quality in touristic coastal areas − industry discharge − security: intrusion detection.Where/when is data driven adaptation needed? • Whenever occurrence of anomalous events has to be monitored. mine/ordeal search . detected.

Some formal frameworks for data-driven adaptive sampling • A clear qualitative concept − increase sample density when the measured quantity is rapidly varying (either in time and/or in space) − estimate variation rate from past or neighborhood data • Sampling metric − deterministic setting: smoothness − probabilistic setting: information gain − application-dependent weighing li i d d i hi − use tools from both approaches .

t ) S = ∑ i bi .Deterministic setting: smoothness • A measure of the variability of the field – weighed sum of the time and spatial derivatives F (r.φ f ∑i i i i i ∑ ∞ hi 2 i =n <k • Adapt the sampling step to the local smoothness • Estimate local smoothness from available data .t F n n F (r.r F + ci . t ) S ≤ k n – projection over a space of basis functions.r Di . ordered with increasing variability F (r. t ) h =p F . t ) = ∞ h φ (r.t Di .

F (r. t ') − F (r '. i = 1. t )][ F (r '. t . t )]}drdt (adapted from Leonard et al..Probabilistic setting: information gain • Minimize the expected uncertainty of the field – A priori mean and covariance of the field F (r.ti).ξ )} C (r. 07) . t . t ) − F (r. estimation algorithm ˆ F (r. t ') = E{[ F (r. t ) − F (r. ti ).. t ) ) .. m) – choose the m samples so to minimize the a posteriori uncertainty of the estimated field t i t f th ti t d fi ld ˆ ˆ J = ∫∫ E{[ F (r. t )][ F (r.. t ) = E{F (r. t ) = T ( F (ri . t ')]} – m measurements at points (ri .. r '. t ) − F (r.

Adaptive sampling as a feedback process Sensors deployment ( ) F (ri . ti )(0) Sense Communication C i i & fusion Determine D t i next position centralized each node F (ri . ti )( k ) ) i = 1... k = 0. distributed di ib d collaborative (ri . t ) = T ( F (ri .. ti )( k ) jointly ˆ F (r.... ti )( k +1) (adapted from Huguenin & Rendas.. 06) .

Model-driven predictor/corrector methods Kalman-like estimation Process Model x(k / k − 1) ˆ ˆ C(k / k − 1) ) Se so sa p g Sensor sampling position Process static adaptive sampling prediction Compare & Estimate y (k ) correction x( k / k ) ˆ ˆ C(k / k ) Optimize expected information gain .

.Cooperation and coordination ( adapted from Whitcomb and Yuh. . 09) p . consensus. bil • Drawback: cooperation and coordination require interp q vehicle communications . ) • Team of heterogeneous vehicles • Payoff ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ ─ adaptation p same/better performance no single point weakness optimized coverage sensor networks ubiquitous computing mobile agents..

The acoustic communication channel • Transmission loss ─ affects SNR ─ limitations on channel capacity / requirements on source level • Multi-path structure li h ─ causes symbolic interference ─ limitations on coding/decoding schemes • Acoustic channel predictions used to determine relative depths and maximum range among Tx/Rx to guarantee a given SNR .

w) = SL .TL(x.N(w) ‣ BellHop Numerical Code Simulates complex scenarios ‣ ‣ Equations for channel characterization environmental conditions geometrical spreading intrinsic attenuation wave interference patterns range independent stationary sources Includes ( in TL): ‣ ‣ ‣ [Bandwidth] [Capacity] [TX Power] ‣ Simplifications: ‣ ‣ (Stojanovic.Predicting channel characteristics from a communication stand-point stand point Acoustic Propagation equations: SNR(x.w) .. 09) . 07) (Caiti et al.

Limitations & opportunities for cooperative robots • Network connectivity constraints limit the relative mobility of the agents y g • Mobility of the agents can be exploited to dynamically maximize some figure of merit of the d ll f f f h communication channel .

What happens with COTS acoustic modems • COTS acoustic modems have fixed bit rate and source level. with BER depending on the SNR • Bit rate: from 256 b/s to optimistic 15 kb/s • Underwater cooperation has to rely on the autonomy of the individual agents and on parsimonious comms overhead .

localization DGPS . relative . geo-referenced. g .Team localization • A team of AUVs must be cheap! • Underwater navigation is a major source of vehicle cost − inertial systems • Use the acoustic modems also to localize acoustically the vehicles among the team with range-only measurements • Some vehicles at the surface.

Sukhatme. .. • Alternate between ranging and communication • COTS modems available (WHOI. Leonard.Cooperative uw localization by range-only measurements • A hot research topics − J. Chitre. nonlinear estimate − observability depending on relative vehicle motion − compensate for transmission delays − on-board correction for bended ray-paths − clock synchronization • Our approach: distributed EKF with delay (from team theory work dating back to the ’80s!) .. Evologics... Antonelli .) (WHOI Evologics ) • Use depth sensors to convert from 3D to 2D • Several issues: − linear vs.

. ICRA 10) . Caiti et al.Designing behaviours to improve observability Not observable Observable EKF Error (Antonelli.

depth vs PTT: Partial Travelled Times PTD: Partial Travelled Distances .Real-time Ray-tracing (RT2) • Compensate ray bending through a look-up table • B di ray error: increasing importance with range Bending i i i t ith • In distributed localization range errors will accumulate • Requires measurement of sound-speed vs.

L . Oceans’ 10) . . .. τ ab . . V V . rab ] ab k (Casalino et al. τ 1 . . V ab ( k 2 ). V n1 V n2 V nn V ab = [ V ab ( k1 ).. rab . V ab ( k m ) ] 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Vab (k ) = [T .. τ ab .. ... 1n 21 22 V .. ... . rab . rab . 2n .Look-up table and on-line estimate receiver depth V V emitter depth 11 V 12 .. τ ab | R. .

Cooperative adaptive sampling with communication constraints .while maintaining connectivity ⇒ range constraint among the vehicles.All the vehicles share information (acoustic) plan the next move of the team in order to optimize: . below a given threshold) .Each vehicle performs it own f its vertical sampling .overall area coverage measurements (cover the area by sampling where needed) . varying in space and time .sampling map quality (map res.

Local computations ˆI( k ) (r. t ) GΦ (h) Φ . t ) = ∑ ∞ hiφi (r. t ) ≅ φ: RBF family h: fill distance G: known function FI( k ) (r. t ) F i F (r.Sampling map quality: deterministic data-driven approach Each hi l E h vehicle computes i next admissible range for its next its d i ibl f i measurement (admissible exploring radius) on the basis of the local smoothness of the environmental map . t ) − FI( k ) (r.

rule based: maximize distance from previous .Optimize area coverage Local decision. f p samples and from next location of the other vehicles All vehicles apply the same rule to their available information set Information exchange needed .

Communication/range constraint Next sampling points must preserve connectivity of the communication structure .

p j+1 ) Possible local moves Next graph C ( p j . fixed topology Use of Dynamic y Programming ρj Transition Cost C ( p j . p j+1 ) Sampling circles S li i l (independently locally evaluated) ⎧ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎩ Backward phase Forward phase p Distributed implementation of dynamic programming! .Serial graph structure.

solution .p. adaptive topology Minimum spanning tree algorithm current graph next graph Comms intensive Compare with d.Articulated chain structure.

NURC Reconstructed Via Cooperative Sampling and RBF interpolation d i l i .5 0 0 1 2 x (km) 3 4 5 Test data.1 38 1.5 1 37. Alvarez.8 37.6 38.4 4.Dynamic programming on test data 5 salinity (ppm) 4.9 37.6 0. . courtesy A.5 1 0.5 0 38.2 38.2 38.5 4 salinty (ppm) 38.6 0 1 2 x (km) 3 4 5 2.5 4 5 38.3 38 3 3 y (km) 38.5 38.4 3.7 37.5 3 y (km) 2.5 38.5 38 2 37.6 3.8 37.5 2 1.

some cases analyzed • Small comms load • Not always optimality guaranteed .Graph theory based cooperation • Sound optimality proof • Di t ib t d implementation of centralized algorithms Distributed i l t ti f t li d l ith • Heavy comms overload • Curse of dimensionality as the number of vehicles increase • Possibility of a truly local rule-based algorithm? • Yes – behaviours • Different approaches and implementations – no systematic design rule in general.

An example of cooperative algorithm in security application • Goals ─ Critical asset protection ─ Maintaining acoustic connectivity among the team • Each agent/node ─Builds a local map of channel characteristics and comms performance ─Updates the map when new environmental measurements become available ─Adapts its behaviour to tackle changes in the environment •R l b db h i Rule-based behaviour and potential fields d t ti l fi ld (Caiti et al. 2009/10) ..

∀i.Rules of the game • AUVs equipped with: q pp ─ Acoustic modem– max range: RC ─ Detection sonar – max range: RD ─ Sensor to measure the environment (CTD) ⎧ min x ∑ xa − xi cover with the sonars 2 i i ⎪ the greatest area h ⎪ i j around the asset to xi − x j ≥ RD + RD . ∃j : xi − x j ≤ RC ⎪ ⎩ 2 • Find a solution with distributed decisions using only closest neighborhood information . j ⎨ 2 p protect ⎪ i ∀i.

hA.Rule based Rule-based behaviour • Rule 1: Move toward the asset • Rule 2: Move away from your closest neighbor • Implemented through gradients of artificial potential functions (interest functions . hC) • Vehicle course: vector sum of the two contributions .

Interest functions Ineherently robust to communication loss & equipment f l failure! Can include sonar/modem directionality .

Simulation results: 3 vehicles .

where they are. infinite solution . in practice it can be ruled out (note: the symmetric motion may be a plus. or move keeping the symmetry around the asset (and spanning the whole set of solutions) • We have never seen the symmetric motion in simulations.Some formal properties • With omnidirectional sonar/modems. exists (all symmetric configurations around the asset) • The rule-based algorithm stabilizes around one solution • Analitycally once on a solution the vehicles either stay Analitycally. not a minus!) .

Some more comments • Small comms overhead ─ Each vehicle communicates with its closest neighbor ─ Data to be TX: Agent Position Maximum Detection Sonar Range • Built in Emergency Procedure ─ If an agent loses comms g g goes to the asset • Distributed. independent from AUV # • Comms delay do not alter result. but imply longer vehicle paths and slower convergence . scalable algorithm.

Experimental test 6-30 September 10. Pianosa Island b i l d Networked communication Cooperative localization Security b h i S i behaviour 2 vehicles .

communication intensive less fl ibl i ti i t i ─ behaviour-based ─ robust ─ li ht comms light ─ optimality and convergence not guaranteed but for special cases .Conclusions • A set of tools for autonomous cooperative adaptive sampling with a team of AUV ─ context: data-driven adaptation ─ deterministic and probabilistic metrics ─ acoustic communication prediction ─ cooperative distributed localization • Adaptation with communication constraints ─ graph-theoretic approach ─ guaranteed optimality ─ l flexible.