4
$\begingroup$

I am implementing the ATLAS SLAM framework for a ground robot, using EKF Slam for local maps and using line segment features. The line segment features can be abstracted to their respective lines [d,α] where d and α represent the distance and angle in the distance-angle representation of lines.

In the given framework, there is a local map matching step where lines of the local maps will be matched, and there is a need for a distance metric between 2 lines. The mahalanobis distance is suggested in the literature, however strictly a mahalanobis distance is between a single measurement and a distribution and not between 2 distributions.

How do I find the mahalanobis distance between line 1 [d1,α1] with covariance matrix S1 and line 2 [d2,α2] with covariance matrix S2?

In the EKF Algorithm from the book Probabilistic Robotics by Sebastian Thrun, there is a computation during the feature update step, where it looks like the covariances (of a new measurement and an existing measurement) are multiplied to give a resultant covariance matrix, and then the inverse is used in the Mahalanobis distance computation.

That would be similar to

Mahalanobis_Distance = [d2-d1,α2-α1] * Inverse(S1*S2) * [d2-d1,α2-α1]'

Is that correct?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

There are many ways to measure the statistical difference between two distributions. For your case, you might consider the Bhattacharyya distance. From that page, the Bhattacharyya distance $D_B$ is

$$ D_B={1\over 8}(\boldsymbol\mu_1-\boldsymbol\mu_2)^T \boldsymbol\Sigma^{-1}(\boldsymbol\mu_1-\boldsymbol\mu_2)+{1\over 2}\ln \,\left({\det \boldsymbol\Sigma \over \sqrt{\det \boldsymbol\Sigma_1 \, \det \boldsymbol\Sigma_2} }\right), $$

where $\boldsymbol\mu_i$ and $\boldsymbol\Sigma_i$ are the means and covariances of the distributions, and

$$ \boldsymbol\Sigma={\boldsymbol\Sigma_1+\boldsymbol\Sigma_2 \over 2}. $$

I would also like to issue a warning. When calculating the difference between angles (e.g., $\alpha_1 - \alpha_2$ in your case), you have to take care of wrapping issues. For example, for $\alpha_1 = -179$ deg and $\alpha_2 = 179$ deg, their different is not $(-179) - (179) = -358$ deg, but rather it is $2$ deg. If you are only concerned about the relative values of statistical differences (e.g., "which is the smallest"), then consider using the circular distance ($c$) between the two angles, which is

$$ c = \frac{1 - \cos(\alpha_1 - \alpha_2)}{2}. $$

This always returns a value $c\in[0,1]$, where $c=1$ is the result when the two angles 180 degrees apart. So if you use the Bhattacharyya distance, the angle part of $\boldsymbol{\mu}$ would be a circular distance. However, if you are looking at lines, rotating a line 180 degrees returns it to its original orientation! That's because the directions of lines are examples of axial data, and are invariant to rotations of +/- 180 degrees. In this case, just double the angle of the above circular distance; i.e.,

$$ c = \frac{1 - \cos[2(\alpha_1 - \alpha_2)]}{2}. $$

Now $c=1$ when the lines are 90 degrees apart!

Good luck!

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The Mahalanobis distance is useful because it is a measure of the "probablistic nearness" of two points.

For example, if I have a gaussian PDF with mean zero and variance 100, it is quite likely to generate a sample around the value 100. ($(100-0)/100 = 1$). However, a gaussian PDF with mean 100 and variance 1 is more likely to be the PDF which generates samples around 100. ($(100-100)/1=0$). So we consider the point "closer to" the second one.

Thus, we need a metric to determine which PDF was a "better" choice when determining who generated the sample 100.

So in your case, it depends on which quantities were being generated by random processes. For example, if you assumed that $d$ and $a$ were being measured, but corrupted by independent random noise, then yes, your definition of the Mahalanobis Distance is correct.

It is very unlikely that the noise on $d$ and $a$ are independent, since they probably aren't being measured independently. However, many algorithms make such an assumption. Make sure yours does.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

This is might not be an answer but check out this book Robotic Navigation and Mapping with Radar page 126. They discuss the Mahalanobis distance better than what stated in Probabilistic Robotics. Also, they mention why this method also known as the Nearest Neighbor (NN) is not a good solution in some situations and they state another solutions.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.