1 / 27

Behavior Recognition of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles For CS 7631: Multi Robot Systems

Behavior Recognition of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles For CS 7631: Multi Robot Systems Michael “ Misha ” Novitzky School of Interactive Computing Georgia Tech. Motivation. Yellowfin. Yellowfin Untethered. The Papers.

cai
Télécharger la présentation

Behavior Recognition of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles For CS 7631: Multi Robot Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Behavior Recognition of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles For CS 7631: Multi Robot Systems Michael “Misha” Novitzky School of Interactive Computing Georgia Tech

  2. Motivation

  3. Yellowfin

  4. Yellowfin Untethered

  5. The Papers • Behaviour recognition for spatially unconstrained unmanned vehicles, R. Baxter, D. Lane, and Y. Petillot, IJCAI 2009 • Conditional Random Fields for Behavior Recognition of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles, M. Novitzky, C. Pippin, T. Collins, T. Balch, and E. West, under review at IROS, 2012.

  6. Baxter et al. : Problem Description • How do we determine the behavior of an Unmanned Underwater Vehicle with only GPS coordinates?

  7. Baxter et al.: Insights • Break from location dependent GPS coordinates and use compass heading • Behaviors encoded as: W – W – NW – N – NE -E

  8. Baxter et al.: Approach • Took self-localization data from post UAV missions • Converted GPS coordinates to compass heading

  9. Baxter et al.: Approach Hidden Markov Models (HMMs) Given: Example Sequence Learn: Transition Probabilities Emission Probabilities X1 X2 y1 y3 y2

  10. Baxter et al.: Approach • Run 8 HMMs (one for each behavior) • HMM with highest negative log-likelihood for K consecutive time slices = WINNER!

  11. Baxter et al.: Implementation • All trajectories were created via simulation • Obviously, not using a real robot implies that this may not work in situ

  12. Baxter et al.: Experiments • Simulated UAV trajectories • Added noise on encoding such as: N -> NW

  13. Baxter et al.: Results • Precision

  14. Baxter et al.: Results • Confusion under 70% noise

  15. Baxter et al.: Critique • Authors demonstrated a system for behavior classification • Variable length testing • Implementation – restricted vehicles to compass directions – which is not really location agnostic • Only in simulation – will this work on real UUV?

  16. Novitzky et al.: Problem Description • Can we recognize the behaviors of UUVs using two different approaches? • Which is best? When?

  17. Novitzky et al.: Insights • Using environmentally agnostic encoding method • Use real sonar data • CRFsvsHMMs more accurate?

  18. Novitzky et al.: Approach • Environment agnostic discretization:

  19. Novitzky et al.: Approach • HMMs: one HMM per behavior • The largest negative log-likelihood is the WINNER! X1 X2 y1 y3 y2

  20. Novitzky et al.: Approach Conditional Random Fields (CRFs) Given: Example Sequences Learn: Potential Functions One CRF: Each X is a label Y’s include all instances X1 X2 Y

  21. Novitzky et al.: Implementation • Simulation • Real sonar data • YellowRay ROV • All analyzed using MATLAB

  22. Novitzky et al: Experiments • Stationary Observer: • Simulation 600 Train 400 Test • Real Sonar Data

  23. Novitzky et al: Experiments Simulated: Track & Trail

  24. Novitzky: Results

  25. Novitzky et al.: Critique • Not variable length testing • Not enough real sonar data • Simulated noise accurate? Guassian? • Actually use real vehicles and data!

  26. Comparison of the Two • Encoding methods • Baxter et al. variable length testing • Baxter et al. has more behaviors • Novitzky et al. has real sonar data • if have ample training data use CRFs else use HMMs

  27. Questions? Andrew Melim Paul Robinette

More Related