Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative study: the effect of the perturbation vector type in the differential evolution algorithm on the accuracy of robot pose and heading estimation

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Evolutionary algorithms (EAs) belong to a group of classic optimizers these days, and can be used in many application areas. Autonomous mobile robotics is not an exception. EAs are utilized profusely for the purposes of localization and map building of unknown environment—SLAM. This paper concentrates on one particular class of EA, the so called differential evolution (DE). It addresses the problem of selecting a suitable set of parameter values for the DE algorithm applied to the task of continuous robot localization in a known environment under the presence of additive noise in sensorial data. The primary goal of this study is to find at least one type of perturbation vector from a set of known perturbation vector types, suitable to navigate a robot using 2D laser scanner (2DLS) sensorial system. The basic navigational algorithm used in this study uses a vector representation for both the data and the environment map, which is used as a reference data source for the navigation. Since the algorithm does not use a probability occupancy grid, the precision of the results is not limited by the grid resolution. The comparative study presented in this paper includes a relatively large amount of experiments in various types of environments. The results of the study suggest that the DE algorithm is a suitable tool for continuous robot localization task in an indoor environment, with or without moving objects, and under the presence of various levels of additive noise in sensorial data. Two perturbation vector types were found as the most suitable for this task on average, namely rand/1/exp and randtobest/1/bin.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abbass HA (2002) The self-adaptive pareto differential evolution algorithm. IEEE Congress Evol Comput 1:831–836

    Google Scholar 

  2. Angeline PJ (1995) Adaptive and self-adaptive evolutionary computations. In: Computational intelligence: a dynamic systems perspective, pp 152–163

  3. BarShalom Y, Fortmann TE (1988) Tracking and data association. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Begum M, Mann GKI, Gosine RG (2006) An evolutionary algorithm for simultaneous localization and mapping of mobile robots. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 4066–4071

  5. Besl PJ, McKay HD (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 14(2):239–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beyer HG (1998) Evolutionary algorithms in noisy environments: theoretical issues and guidelines for practice. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 186(2–4):239–267

    Google Scholar 

  7. Boryczka U, Juszczuk P, Klosowicz L (2009) A comparative study of various strategies in differential evolution. In: Arabas J (ed) International conference on evolutionary computation and global optimization

  8. Brest J, Greiner S, Boškovič B, Mernik M, Žumer V (2006) Self-adapting control parameters in differential evolution: a comparative study on numerical benchmark problems. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 10(6):646–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Burgard W, Fox D, Hennig D, Schmidt T (1996) Estimating the absolute position of a mobile robot using position probability grids. In: 13th national conference on artificial intelligence, pp 896–901

  10. Censi A (2008) An ICP variant using a point-to-line metric. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation ICRA, pp 19–25

  11. Cox IJ (1991) Blanche—an experiment in guidance and navigation of an autonomous robot vehicle. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 7(2):193–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Diosi A (2005) Laser range finder and advanced sonar based simultaneous localization and mapping for mobile robots. Dissertation, Monash University

  13. Diosi A, Kleeman L (2007) Fast laser scan matching using polar coordinates. Int J Robot Res 26(10):1125–1153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Eiben AE, Hinterding R, Michalewicz Z (1999) Parameter control in evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(2):124–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fox D, Burgard W, Dellaert F, Thrun S (1999a) Monte Carlo localization: efficient position estimation for mobile robots. In: International Conference on artificial intelligence, pp 343–349

  16. Fox D, Burgard W, Thrun S (1999) Markov localization for mobile robots in dynamic environments. J Artif Intell Res 11:391–427

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Gaemperle R, Mueller SD, Koumoutsakos P (2002) A parameter study for differential evolution. Adv Intell Syst, Fuzzy Syst, Evol Comput 1:293–298

    Google Scholar 

  18. Goldberg DE (1987) Simple genetic algorithms and the minimal deceptive problem. Genetic algorithms and simulated annealing. Pitman, London, pp 74–88

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hampel FR, Ronchetti EM, Rousseeuw PJ, Stahel WA (1986) Robust statistics: the approach based on influence functions. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Holland JH (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. The University of Michigan Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  21. Holland JH (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with application to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  22. Iacca G, Neri F, Mininno E, Ong YS, Lim MH (2011) Ockham’s Razor in memetic computing: three stage optimal memetic exploration. Inform Sci J 188:17–43

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Islam S, Das S, Ghosh S, Roy S, Suganthan P (2012) An adaptive differential evolution algorithm with novel mutation and crossover strategies for global numerical optimization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 42(2):482–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jin Y, Branke J (2005) Evolutionary optimization in uncertain environments—a survey. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9(3):303–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kennedy J, Eberhart RC (1995) Particle swarm optimization. IEEE Int Conf Neural Netw 4:1942–1948

    Google Scholar 

  26. Koza J (1996) Genetic programming: on the programming of the computers by means of natural selection, 5th edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, London

    Google Scholar 

  27. Koza J (1994) Genetic programming, vol 2. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Krink T, Filipič B, Fogel GB (2004) Noisy optimization problems—a particular challenge for differential evolution? In: Proceedings of 2004 congress on evolutionary computation, pp 332–339

  29. Kwok NM, Liu DK, Dissanayake G (2006) Evolutionary computing based mobile robot localization. Eng Appl Artif Intell 19:857–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Latombe JC, Lazanas A (1997) Landmark-based robot navigation. Algoritmica 13(5):472–501

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Lazanas A, Latombe JC (1992) Landmark-based robot navigation. Technical Report STANCS-92-1428, Department of Computer Science, Stanford

  32. Ledraza L, Losada DR, SanSegundo P, Matia F (2008) Building maps of large environments using splines and geometric analysis. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 1600–1605

  33. Liu J, Lampinen J (2002) Adaptive parameter control of differential evolution. In: 8th International conference on soft computing, pp 19–26

  34. Liu M., Huang S, Dissanayake G (2009) A new observation model for B-Spline SLAM. In: Australasian conference on robotics and automation (ACRA). Sydney, Australia

  35. Lu F, Milios E (1997) Robot pose estimation in unknown environments by matching 2D range scans. J Intell Robot Syst 18(3):249–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mallipeddi R, Mallipeddi S, Suganthan PN (2010) Ensemble strategies with adaptive evolutionary programming. Inform Sci 180(9):1571–1581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Martin F, Munoz LM, Garrido S, Blanco D, Moreno L (2009) L1-norm global localization based on a differential evolution filter. In: IEEE international symposium on intelligent signal processing, pp 229–234

  38. Metropolis N, Ulam S (1949) The Monte Carlo method. J Am Stat Assoc 44:335–341

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Michalewicz Z, Fogel DB (2000) How to solve it: modern heuristics. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Mininno E, Neri F (2010) A memetic differential evolution approach in noisy optimization. J Memetic Comput 2(2):111–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mininno E, Neri F, Cupertino F, Naso D (2011) Compact differential evolution. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 15(1):32–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Montes EM, Reyes VJ, Coello CAC (2006) A comparative study of differential evolution variants for global optimization. In: 8th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, pp 485–492

  43. Montesano L, Minguez J, Montano L (2005) Probabilistic scan matching for motion estimation in unstructured environments. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 3499–3504

  44. Moravec J (2012) Cascaded evolutionary estimator for robot localization. Int J Appl Evol Comput (IJAEC) 3(3):33–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Moravec HP, Elfes A (1985) High resolution maps from wide angle sonar. IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom, pp 116–121

  46. Moreno L, Blanco D, Muńoz ML, Garrido S (2011) L1–L2-norm comparison in global localization of mobile robots. Robot Auton Syst 59:597–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Neri F, Iacca G, Mininno E (2011) Disturbed exploitation compact differential evolution for limited memory optimization problems. Inform Sci 181(12):2469–2487

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  48. Neri F, Tirronen V (2010) Recent advances in differential evolution: a survey and experimental analysis. Artif Intell Rev 33(1):61–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Pottmann H, Huang QX, Yang YL, Hu SM (2006) Geometry and convergence analysis of algorithms for registration of 3D shapes. Int J Comput Vis 67(3):277–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Price K, Storn R (1996) Minimizing the real functions of the ICEC’96 contest by differential evolution. In: IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation (ICEC’96), pp 842–844

  51. Qin AK, Suganthan PN (2005) Self-adaptive differential evolution algorithm for numerical optimization. IEEE Congress Evol Comput 2:1785–1791

    Google Scholar 

  52. Reynolds CW (1994) Evolution of corridor following behavior in a noisy world. In: 3rd international conference on simulation of adaptive behavior, vol 1, pp 402–2010

  53. Sasaki Y, Kagami S, Thompson S, Mizoguchi H (2007) Sound localization and separation for mobile robot tele-operation by tri-concentric microphone array. J Robot Mechatron 19(3):281–289

    Google Scholar 

  54. Segal AV, Haehnel D, Thrun S (2009) Generalized-ICP. Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, Seattle, USA

  55. Sick AG (2000) PLS proximity laser scanner, installation and operation manual SICK-PLS-100. Sicks AG, Germany

  56. Smit SK, Eiben AE (2009) Comparing parameter tuning methods for evolutionary algorithms. In: IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (CEC 2009), pp 399–406

  57. Smit SK, Eiben AE (2010) Parameter tuning of evolutionary algorithms: generalist vs. specialist. Appl Evol Comput 6024:542–551

    Google Scholar 

  58. Smit SK, Eiben AE (2010) Parameter tuning for configuring and analyzing evolutionary algorithms. Swarm Evol Comput 1(1):19–31

    Google Scholar 

  59. Song Z (2001) 2D laser ray tracing for the simulation of laser perception. Technical Report No. USU-CSOIS-TR-04-11, Center for self-organizing and intelligent systems. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, Utah State University

  60. Storn R (1996) On the usage of differential evolution for function optimization. NAFIPS’96, pp 519–523

  61. Storn R, Price K (1997) Differential evolution—a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Global Optim 11:341–359

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. Tao H, Shigeo H (2012) A global localization approach based on line-segment relation matching technique. Robot Auton Systems 60(1):95–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Then TW, Chong EPK (1994) Genetic algorithms in noisy environments. In: IEEE international symposium on intelligent control, pp 225–230

  64. Vesterstrom J, Thomson R (2004) A comparative study of differential evolution, particle swarm optimization, and evolutionary algorithms on numerical benchmark problems. IEEE Evol Comput 2:1980–1987

    Google Scholar 

  65. Weber M, Tirronen V, Neri F (2010) Scale factor inheritance mechanism in distributed differential evolution. Soft Comput 14(11):1187–1207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Weiss G, Puttkamer E (1995) A map based on laser-scans without geometric interpretation. Intelligent autonomous systems. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 403–407

    Google Scholar 

  67. Zaharie D (2007) A comparative analysis of crossover variants in differential evolution. In: International multiconference on computer science and information technology, pp 171–181

  68. Zielinski K, Laur R (2007) Differential evolution with adaptive parameter setting for multi-objective optimization. IEEE Congress Evol Comput 1:3585–3592

    Google Scholar 

  69. Zhang J, Sanderson AC (2009) JADE: adaptive differential evolution with optional external archive. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 13(5):945–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was sponsored by ‘Center Space Software’ company and its mathematical library. NET NMath. Petr Pošík was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic with Grant No. MSM6840770012, entitled “Transdisciplinary Research in Biomedical Engineering II”.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic

    J. Moravec & P. Pošík

Authors
  1. J. Moravec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Pošík
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Moravec.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moravec, J., Pošík, P. A comparative study: the effect of the perturbation vector type in the differential evolution algorithm on the accuracy of robot pose and heading estimation. Evol. Intel. 6, 171–191 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-013-0090-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12065-013-0090-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation