Advertisement

ALBATROS: adaptive line-based sampling trajectories for sequential measurements

  • Tom Van Steenkiste
  • Joachim van der Herten
  • Dirk Deschrijver
  • Tom Dhaene
Original Article
  • 67 Downloads

Abstract

Measurements in 2D or 3D spaces are ubiquitous among many fields of science and engineering. Often, data samples are gathered via autonomous robots or drones. The path through the measurement space and the location of the samples is traditionally determined upfront using a one-shot design of experiments. However, in certain cases, a sequential approach is preferred. For example, when dealing with a limited sampling budget or when a quick low-resolution overview is desired followed by a steady uniform increase in sampling density, instead of a slow high-resolution one-shot sampling. State-of-the-art sequential design of experiment methods are point-based and are often used to set up experiments both in virtual (simulation) as well as real-world (measurement) environments. In contrast to virtual experimentation, physical measurements require movement of a sensor probe through the measurement space. In these cases, the algorithm not only needs to optimize the sample locations and order but also the path to be traversed by sampling points along measurement lines. In this work, a sequential line-based sampling method is proposed which aims to gradually increase the sampling density across the entire measurement space while minimizing the overall path length. The algorithm is illustrated on a 2D and 3D unit space as well as a complex 3D space and the effectiveness is validated on an engineering measurement use-case. A computer code implementation of the algorithm is provided as an open-source toolbox.

Keywords

Line-based sampling Sequential design Design of experiments Area coverage Automated measurements Surrogate modeling 

References

  1. 1.
    Aurenhammer F (1991) Voronoi diagrams—a survey of a fundamental geometric data structure. ACM Comput. Surv. CSUR 23(3):345–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bader M (2012) Space-filling curves: an introduction with applications in scientific computing, vol 9. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berni JA, Zarco-Tejada PJ, Suárez L, Fereres E (2009) Thermal and narrowband multispectral remote sensing for vegetation monitoring from an unmanned aerial vehicle. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 47(3):722–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhattacharya P, Gavrilova ML (2007) Voronoi diagram in optimal path planning. In: Voronoi diagrams in science and engineering, 2007. ISVD’07. 4th international symposium, IEEE, pp 38–47Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broderick JA, Tilbury DM, Atkins EM (2014) Optimal coverage trajectories for a ugv with tradeoffs for energy and time. Auton Robots 36(3):257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlson J, Murphy RR (2005) How UGVs physically fail in the field. IEEE Trans Rob 21(3):423–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castro RM (2008) Active learning and adaptive sampling for non-parametric inference. Ph.D. thesis, Rice UniversityGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choset H (2000) Coverage of known spaces: the boustrophedon cellular decomposition. Auton Robots 9(3):247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choset H (2001) Coverage for robotics—a survey of recent results. Ann Math Artif Intell 31(1):113–126CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crombecq K, Laermans E, Dhaene T (2011) Efficient space-filling and non-collapsing sequential design strategies for simulation-based modeling. Eur J Oper Res 214(3):683–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deschrijver D, Crombecq K, Nguyen HM, Dhaene T (2011) Adaptive sampling algorithm for macromodeling of parameterized \(s\)-parameter responses. IEEE Trans Microw Theory Tech 59(1):39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deschrijver D, Vanhee F, Pissoort D, Dhaene T (2012) Automated near-field scanning algorithm for the emc analysis of electronic devices. IEEE Trans Electromagn Compat 54(3):502–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math 1(1):269–271MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martínez-de Dios J, Merino L, Caballero F, Ollero A, Viegas D (2006) Experimental results of automatic fire detection and monitoring with UAVs. For Ecol Manag 234(1):S232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gademer A, Mainfroy F, Beaudoin L, Avanthey L, Germain V, Chéron C, Monat S, Rudant JP (2009) Solutions for near real time cartography from a mini-quadrotor UAV. In: SPIE Europe remote sensing, International Society for Optics and Photonics, p 74781GGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galceran E, Carreras M (2013) A survey on coverage path planning for robotics. Robot Auton Syst 61(12):1258–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gorissen D, Couckuyt I, Demeester P, Dhaene T, Crombecq K (2010) A surrogate modeling and adaptive sampling toolbox for computer based design. J Mach Learn Res 11(Jul):2051–2055Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gorissen D, Couckuyt I, Laermans E, Dhaene T (2010) Multiobjective global surrogate modeling, dealing with the 5-percent problem. Eng Comput 26(1):81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Han J, Xu Y, Di L, Chen Y (2013) Low-cost multi-UAV technologies for contour mapping of nuclear radiation field. J Intell Robot Syst 70(1–4):401–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herceg M, Kvasnica M, Jones C, Morari M (2013) Multi-parametric toolbox 3.0. In: Proc. of the European control conference, Zurich, pp 502–510. http://control.ee.ethz.ch/~mpt. Accessed 7 Nov 2017
  21. 21.
    Hilbert D (1891) Ueber die stetige abbildung einer line auf ein flächenstück. Math Ann 38(3):459–460MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang WH (2001) Optimal line-sweep-based decompositions for coverage algorithms. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2001. Proceedings 2001 ICRA, vol 1. IEEE, pp 27–32Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnson ME, Moore LM, Ylvisaker D (1990) Minimax and maximin distance designs. J Stat Plan Infer 26(2):131–148MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Judd K, McLain T (2001) Spline based path planning for unmanned air vehicles. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference and exhibit, Montreal, Canada, p 4238Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kennard RW, Stone LA (1969) Computer aided design of experiments. Technometrics 11(1):137–148CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    King DW, Bertapelle A, Moses C (2005) UAV failure rate criteria for equivalent level of safety. In: International helicopter safety symposium, Montreal, p 9Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kleijnen JP (2008) Design and analysis of simulation experiments, vol 20. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Montgomery DC (2017) Design and analysis of experiments. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nex F, Remondino F (2014) Uav for 3d mapping applications: a review. Appl. Geomat. 6(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Spires S, Goldsmith S (1998) Exhaustive geographic search with mobile robots along space-filling curves. In: Drogoul A, Tambe M, Fukuda T (eds) Collective robotics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spires SV (2003) Exhaustive search system and method using space-filling curves. US Patent 6,636,847Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Valente J, Sanz D, Del Cerro J, Barrientos A, de Frutos MÁ (2013) Near-optimal coverage trajectories for image mosaicing using a mini quad-rotor over irregular-shaped fields. Precis Agric 14(1):115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Viana FA, Venter G, Balabanov V (2010) An algorithm for fast optimal latin hypercube design of experiments. Int J Numer Meth Eng 82(2):135–156MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information TechnologyGhent University-imec, IDLabGentBelgium

Personalised recommendations