# Improving Multisensor Positioning of Land Vehicles with Integrated Visual Odometry for Next-Generation Self-Driving Cars

Authors: Muhammed Tahsin Rahman; Tashfeen Karamat; Sidney Givigi; Aboelmagd Noureldin
Journal: Journal of Advanced Transportation
 (2018)

---

## Abstract

For their complete realization, autonomous vehicles (AVs) fundamentally rely on the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) to provide positioning and navigation information. However, in area such as urban cores, parking lots, and under dense foliage, which are all commonly frequented by AVs, GNSS signals suffer from blockage, interference, and multipath. These effects cause high levels of errors and long durations of service discontinuity that mar the performance of current systems. The prevalence of vision and low-cost inertial sensors provides an attractive opportunity to further increase the positioning and navigation accuracy in such GNSS-challenged environments. This paper presents enhancements to existing multisensor integration systems utilizing the inertial navigation system (INS) to aid in Visual Odometry (VO) outlier feature rejection. A scheme called Aided Visual Odometry (AVO) is developed and integrated with a high performance mechanization architecture utilizing vehicle motion and orientation sensors. The resulting solution exhibits improved state covariance convergence and navigation accuracy, while reducing computational complexity. Experimental verification of the proposed solution is illustrated through three real road trajectories, over two different land vehicles, and using two low-cost inertial measurement units (IMUs).


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

As part of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS), autonomous vehicles (AVs) are expected to become the norm in the near future; examples include self-driving taxis (implemented by companies such as nuTonomy in Singapore [1] and Uber), autonomous public services, and AV ride sharing. Such AV applications are predicted to reduce traffic congestions, improve passenger safety, and cut down overall operating costs [2]. However, implementing such a technology that would cause major societal changes comes with significant challenges, a major one being accurate vehicle positioning and localization.Current systems rely heavily on the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Russian Globalnaya Navigazionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema (GLONASS). These systems provide adequate accuracies when line of sight to four or more satellites is established. However, in situations where such line of sight is compromised, or when adverse multipath effects contaminate the received signals [3], or when the signals are spoofed or jammed [4], these systems are no longer sufficient as standalone solutions. Examples of such outage situations include urban centers, tunnels, parking lots, and dense foliage.To bridge such outages, vehicular systems integrate GNSS with low-cost MEMS grade inertial measurement units (IMUs). Although being autonomous, a major drawback of systems employing these units is that they are unable to provide a stable navigation estimate during extended and frequent GNSS outages, situations common to AVs. Typically, these integration techniques are only able to tolerate GNSS outages that are less than two minutes in duration [5–7].Vehicles are now coming equipped with cameras that are used in blind spot display, lane departure warning, and collision avoidance. The increasing availability of cameras provides an attractive opportunity to use vision based methods for vehicle localization, known in the literature as Visual Odometry (VO) [8]. However, VO based methods have several challenges. Unlike the inertial navigation system (INS) they are not autonomous, and hence nonstatic scenes in the camera field of view negatively affect the localization accuracy. Furthermore, they have high computational complexity, especially due to the inherent requirement of outlier rejection. The limitations of VO, although complimentary to the INS, cause the standalone solution to drift.The diverse nature of each of these individual systems motivates the integrated INS/VO/GPS navigation solution. Essentially, this work is an extension of [9] and adds an enhanced VO solution into a multisensor framework for when GPS is unusable. This paper aims at the design and realization of an integrated multisensor positioning and navigation system capable of seamless and reliable positioning in all environments for land vehicles. The contributions of this paper are as follows:(1)
Detailing a novel VO outlier rejection scheme, called R-AVO (Reduced-Aided Visual Odometry), to improve VO computational complexity and robustness to nonstatic scenes(2)
Developing the INS/VO/GPS system architecture(3)
Validating the proposed algorithms over several real road trajectories, utilizing different grade IMUs and different land vehicles.In the following, Section2 provides an overview of INS algorithms, VO advances, and recent work on their integration. Section 3 then details the methodology used in this work, including the integration scheme. Section 4 describes the experimental setup and the trajectories analyzed, which is followed by a discussion of using the proposed solution as compared to the traditional INS/GPS solution. This section also evaluates the algorithms’ performances. Finally, the paper concludes with Section 5.


## 2. Related Work

### 2.1. Inertial Navigation System (INS)

In a strap-down INS, 3-axis orthogonal gyroscopes are used to update the transformation between the vehicle body frame and the navigation frame. Then, accelerometer readings pass through this transformation and provide a navigation solution. As shown in [10], exploiting nonholonomic constraints of a land vehicle allows for the use of 3-axis orthogonal gyroscopes with a single forward accelerometer.To further simplify the system, authors in [11] suggest using a single gyroscope, two accelerometers, and a vehicle odometer reading forward speed. The system block diagram is shown in Figure 1. Given that the vehicle plane remains mostly horizontal, this method of mechanization (called 3D Reduced Inertial Sensor System (3D-RISS)) has been shown to outperform the other methods [12].Figure 1
3D-RISS block diagram. One integration is used for position and one for the azimuth angle.This mechanization algorithm achieves improved accuracy for several reasons, which are fully discussed in [12, 13]. Most notably, using a single gyroscope in attitude estimation means that only one integration needs to be performed to determine the INS misalignment. As is well studied [7], gyroscopes exhibit stochastic bias, and integrating the sensor output introduces drift to the overall rotation matrix that maps the body frame to the navigation frame. Over time, three drifts from three gyroscopes very quickly lead to an unusable rotation matrix estimate. A single up-facing gyroscope means that this drift is limited to only the azimuth angle computation. Since pitch and roll are directly calculated using accelerometer and odometer readings they exhibit no drift.


### 2.2. Visual Odometry (VO)

Visual Odometry, a term coined in [8], involves estimating a dead-reckoning navigation solution based on a sequence of images. A block diagram of the VO method is shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
The generic VO system pipeline. Green boxes represent noniterative algorithms while yellow dash-dot boxes represent iterative algorithms.


#### 2.2.1. Feature Detection and Matching

Significant features in the images, also called keypoints, are detected in one frame and then matched in the next frame or frames. Authors in [14] evaluate detector-descriptor combinations that perform best for a moving camera. Most notably, Harris, Shi-Tomasi, and FAST detectors work best for shorter baseline distances without perspective distortion, which is characteristic of AVs, especially when the framerate is greater than about 5 Hz. Although the FAST detector is the most efficient, it suffers from lower repeatability and poorer keypoint registration accuracy, while Harris and Shi-Tomasi detectors have similar reported reprojection errors [14].One of the main limitations of VO is the drop in feature detection and matching performance when operating in degraded visual environments (DVE). Previous work in this area include studies that analyze the system performance in low light conditions [15], algorithms that exploit color information [16], filters that aim to eliminate rain and snow from individual images [17], and localized image sequence matching in SLAM methods [18]. However, within the scope of this study, it is assumed that the effects of DVE are minimal.


#### 2.2.2. Motion Estimation

A relation between matched key points in two frames is established through the epipolar constraint [19]: p^TEpˇ=0, where p^ represents the normalized key points in the second frame, pˇ represents the normalized key points in the first frame, and E represents theEssential Matrix. The two most common algorithms used in solving for E are the 8-point algorithm [20] and the 5-point algorithm [21], so called because of the minimum number of key point matches needed to instantiate a 6-DoF solution.More recently, nonholonomic constraints of planar vehicular motion have been exploited, giving rise to the 2-point algorithm [22] and the 1-point algorithm [23], both of which solve for a 3-DoF solution. Due to the constrained motion and the reduced minimum number of points needed, these algorithms are more robust to outliers and have lower computational complexity. However, the 2-point algorithm was tested only for a slow moving indoor robot and encountered completely erroneous solutions when the first randomly chosen set of points were incorrectly matched. As for the 1-point algorithm, it is based on the Ackermann steering principle and makes the assumption that the camera is placed on top of, or at least close to, the rear wheel axis. This assumption did not hold true for one of the test vehicles used in this project (shown later in Figure 5(a)). As such, and to keep the proposed system generic, this paper uses the 5-point algorithm.


#### 2.2.3. Outlier Rejection

One of the major motivations for reducing the number of points needed to instantiate a solution for theEssential Matrix is the processing time needed for removing outliers. Random sample consensus (RANSAC) [24] is the most common method in this regard.Another widely used method that lends itself to VO is the maximum likelihood estimation sample consensus (MLESAC) [25], which is an extension of m-estimator sample consensus (MSAC) [26], which in turn is a conceptual generalization of RANSAC. MLESAC calculates the likelihood that a given hypothesis is true. It does this by representing the error distribution of the residuals as amixture model, referring to the mixture of inlier and outlier error residual distribution probabilities, and then finds the hypothesis that maximizes this probability. The error distribution depends on themixing parameter, which is the probability that a given point is an inlier. Authors in [27] use a priori information about themixing parameter to improve the overall solution. Other schemes, such as [28, 29], suggest novel methods for building on the MLESAC scheme to improve accuracy and computational efficiency.


### 2.3. Sensor Integration Techniques

Much previous work on integrating VO in robotic and vehicular applications fuses a 6-DoF IMU with the processed information available at the end of the VO pipeline; see, for example, [30–33]. Authors in [34] present temporal aliasing constraints on the implementation of VO, showing how inertial sensors can improve the computational requirements of the overall system. A straightforward implementation of INS/VO/GPS integration is to use a switching architecture, where a sensor health monitoring system classifies available sensor readings and utilizes them appropriately. Such a system is necessarily a modular one, loosely integrating additional information based on the information quality [35, 36]. This is an attractive architecture for current multisensor systems due to the low computational overhead. Given the emerging trend of using LiDAR, radar, multiple IMUs, and multiple cameras in AVs, this paper limits its discussion to loosely coupled integration.


## 2.1. Inertial Navigation System (INS)

In a strap-down INS, 3-axis orthogonal gyroscopes are used to update the transformation between the vehicle body frame and the navigation frame. Then, accelerometer readings pass through this transformation and provide a navigation solution. As shown in [10], exploiting nonholonomic constraints of a land vehicle allows for the use of 3-axis orthogonal gyroscopes with a single forward accelerometer.To further simplify the system, authors in [11] suggest using a single gyroscope, two accelerometers, and a vehicle odometer reading forward speed. The system block diagram is shown in Figure 1. Given that the vehicle plane remains mostly horizontal, this method of mechanization (called 3D Reduced Inertial Sensor System (3D-RISS)) has been shown to outperform the other methods [12].Figure 1
3D-RISS block diagram. One integration is used for position and one for the azimuth angle.This mechanization algorithm achieves improved accuracy for several reasons, which are fully discussed in [12, 13]. Most notably, using a single gyroscope in attitude estimation means that only one integration needs to be performed to determine the INS misalignment. As is well studied [7], gyroscopes exhibit stochastic bias, and integrating the sensor output introduces drift to the overall rotation matrix that maps the body frame to the navigation frame. Over time, three drifts from three gyroscopes very quickly lead to an unusable rotation matrix estimate. A single up-facing gyroscope means that this drift is limited to only the azimuth angle computation. Since pitch and roll are directly calculated using accelerometer and odometer readings they exhibit no drift.


## 2.2. Visual Odometry (VO)

Visual Odometry, a term coined in [8], involves estimating a dead-reckoning navigation solution based on a sequence of images. A block diagram of the VO method is shown in Figure 2.Figure 2
The generic VO system pipeline. Green boxes represent noniterative algorithms while yellow dash-dot boxes represent iterative algorithms.


### 2.2.1. Feature Detection and Matching

Significant features in the images, also called keypoints, are detected in one frame and then matched in the next frame or frames. Authors in [14] evaluate detector-descriptor combinations that perform best for a moving camera. Most notably, Harris, Shi-Tomasi, and FAST detectors work best for shorter baseline distances without perspective distortion, which is characteristic of AVs, especially when the framerate is greater than about 5 Hz. Although the FAST detector is the most efficient, it suffers from lower repeatability and poorer keypoint registration accuracy, while Harris and Shi-Tomasi detectors have similar reported reprojection errors [14].One of the main limitations of VO is the drop in feature detection and matching performance when operating in degraded visual environments (DVE). Previous work in this area include studies that analyze the system performance in low light conditions [15], algorithms that exploit color information [16], filters that aim to eliminate rain and snow from individual images [17], and localized image sequence matching in SLAM methods [18]. However, within the scope of this study, it is assumed that the effects of DVE are minimal.


### 2.2.2. Motion Estimation

A relation between matched key points in two frames is established through the epipolar constraint [19]: p^TEpˇ=0, where p^ represents the normalized key points in the second frame, pˇ represents the normalized key points in the first frame, and E represents theEssential Matrix. The two most common algorithms used in solving for E are the 8-point algorithm [20] and the 5-point algorithm [21], so called because of the minimum number of key point matches needed to instantiate a 6-DoF solution.More recently, nonholonomic constraints of planar vehicular motion have been exploited, giving rise to the 2-point algorithm [22] and the 1-point algorithm [23], both of which solve for a 3-DoF solution. Due to the constrained motion and the reduced minimum number of points needed, these algorithms are more robust to outliers and have lower computational complexity. However, the 2-point algorithm was tested only for a slow moving indoor robot and encountered completely erroneous solutions when the first randomly chosen set of points were incorrectly matched. As for the 1-point algorithm, it is based on the Ackermann steering principle and makes the assumption that the camera is placed on top of, or at least close to, the rear wheel axis. This assumption did not hold true for one of the test vehicles used in this project (shown later in Figure 5(a)). As such, and to keep the proposed system generic, this paper uses the 5-point algorithm.


### 2.2.3. Outlier Rejection

One of the major motivations for reducing the number of points needed to instantiate a solution for theEssential Matrix is the processing time needed for removing outliers. Random sample consensus (RANSAC) [24] is the most common method in this regard.Another widely used method that lends itself to VO is the maximum likelihood estimation sample consensus (MLESAC) [25], which is an extension of m-estimator sample consensus (MSAC) [26], which in turn is a conceptual generalization of RANSAC. MLESAC calculates the likelihood that a given hypothesis is true. It does this by representing the error distribution of the residuals as amixture model, referring to the mixture of inlier and outlier error residual distribution probabilities, and then finds the hypothesis that maximizes this probability. The error distribution depends on themixing parameter, which is the probability that a given point is an inlier. Authors in [27] use a priori information about themixing parameter to improve the overall solution. Other schemes, such as [28, 29], suggest novel methods for building on the MLESAC scheme to improve accuracy and computational efficiency.


## 2.2.1. Feature Detection and Matching

Significant features in the images, also called keypoints, are detected in one frame and then matched in the next frame or frames. Authors in [14] evaluate detector-descriptor combinations that perform best for a moving camera. Most notably, Harris, Shi-Tomasi, and FAST detectors work best for shorter baseline distances without perspective distortion, which is characteristic of AVs, especially when the framerate is greater than about 5 Hz. Although the FAST detector is the most efficient, it suffers from lower repeatability and poorer keypoint registration accuracy, while Harris and Shi-Tomasi detectors have similar reported reprojection errors [14].One of the main limitations of VO is the drop in feature detection and matching performance when operating in degraded visual environments (DVE). Previous work in this area include studies that analyze the system performance in low light conditions [15], algorithms that exploit color information [16], filters that aim to eliminate rain and snow from individual images [17], and localized image sequence matching in SLAM methods [18]. However, within the scope of this study, it is assumed that the effects of DVE are minimal.


## 2.2.2. Motion Estimation

A relation between matched key points in two frames is established through the epipolar constraint [19]: p^TEpˇ=0, where p^ represents the normalized key points in the second frame, pˇ represents the normalized key points in the first frame, and E represents theEssential Matrix. The two most common algorithms used in solving for E are the 8-point algorithm [20] and the 5-point algorithm [21], so called because of the minimum number of key point matches needed to instantiate a 6-DoF solution.More recently, nonholonomic constraints of planar vehicular motion have been exploited, giving rise to the 2-point algorithm [22] and the 1-point algorithm [23], both of which solve for a 3-DoF solution. Due to the constrained motion and the reduced minimum number of points needed, these algorithms are more robust to outliers and have lower computational complexity. However, the 2-point algorithm was tested only for a slow moving indoor robot and encountered completely erroneous solutions when the first randomly chosen set of points were incorrectly matched. As for the 1-point algorithm, it is based on the Ackermann steering principle and makes the assumption that the camera is placed on top of, or at least close to, the rear wheel axis. This assumption did not hold true for one of the test vehicles used in this project (shown later in Figure 5(a)). As such, and to keep the proposed system generic, this paper uses the 5-point algorithm.


## 2.2.3. Outlier Rejection

One of the major motivations for reducing the number of points needed to instantiate a solution for theEssential Matrix is the processing time needed for removing outliers. Random sample consensus (RANSAC) [24] is the most common method in this regard.Another widely used method that lends itself to VO is the maximum likelihood estimation sample consensus (MLESAC) [25], which is an extension of m-estimator sample consensus (MSAC) [26], which in turn is a conceptual generalization of RANSAC. MLESAC calculates the likelihood that a given hypothesis is true. It does this by representing the error distribution of the residuals as amixture model, referring to the mixture of inlier and outlier error residual distribution probabilities, and then finds the hypothesis that maximizes this probability. The error distribution depends on themixing parameter, which is the probability that a given point is an inlier. Authors in [27] use a priori information about themixing parameter to improve the overall solution. Other schemes, such as [28, 29], suggest novel methods for building on the MLESAC scheme to improve accuracy and computational efficiency.


## 2.3. Sensor Integration Techniques

Much previous work on integrating VO in robotic and vehicular applications fuses a 6-DoF IMU with the processed information available at the end of the VO pipeline; see, for example, [30–33]. Authors in [34] present temporal aliasing constraints on the implementation of VO, showing how inertial sensors can improve the computational requirements of the overall system. A straightforward implementation of INS/VO/GPS integration is to use a switching architecture, where a sensor health monitoring system classifies available sensor readings and utilizes them appropriately. Such a system is necessarily a modular one, loosely integrating additional information based on the information quality [35, 36]. This is an attractive architecture for current multisensor systems due to the low computational overhead. Given the emerging trend of using LiDAR, radar, multiple IMUs, and multiple cameras in AVs, this paper limits its discussion to loosely coupled integration.


## 3. Materials and Methods

Several inherent advantages of 3D-RISS mechanization can be used to improve the VO navigation estimate before being fed into the filter. Authors in [37, 38] integrated information from other sensors to improve VO at the feature matching stage. While this would, conceptually, lead to better outlier rejection, and hence improved VO performance, a variant of it is already inherent in the KLT tracker algorithm. Furthermore, classic outlier rejection methods would still need to be applied to account for closely spaced outlier matches. A more natural implementation of multisensor integration before the final VO output stage is to directly aid outlier rejection schemes. Since the main computation bottleneck is outlier rejection, different sensors can be used to alleviate the iterative nature of this stage. Termed R-AVO (3D RISS-Aided Visual Odometry), this aid includes two major parts: improving the outlier rejection step and resolving scale factor ambiguity.


### 3.1. Reduced-Aided Visual Odometry (R-AVO)

In the following notations, the subscript (mech or cam) represents the system that generates the particular solution; the superscript (mech or cam) represents the coordinate frame of the solution. For example, R1,mech2,cam is the rotation matrix from epoch 1 to 2, generated through the mechanization algorithm and expressed in the camera coordinate frame.The R-AVO outlier rejection algorithm works as follows:(1)
Compute the 3D-RISS mechanization solution.(2)
Convert the INS solution to the camera coordinate frame and then to theEssential Matrix form Emechcam=[t]1,mech2,camR1,mech2,cam.(3)
Run VO feature detection and tracking.(4)
Using the detected features andEmechcam calculate the expected position of the matched features.(5)
Find the geometric distance between the expected feature positions and matched feature positions.(6)
Based on a threshold decide which features are inliersUsing 3D-RISS, the changes in the computed Euler angles, pitch, roll, and azimuth, from one epoch to the next are used to generate the rotation matrixR1,mech2,mech. The odometer speed multiplied by the time increment Δt is then projected through this transformation to get the incremental translation in the body frame.(1)t1,mech2,mech=trighttforwardtup=vodΔtsin⁡ΔAcos⁡Δθcos⁡ΔAcos⁡Δθsin⁡Δθ,where t1,mech2,mech is incremental 3D-RISS based mechanization frame translation vector;Δt is incremental time between epochs;ΔA is incremental azimuth angle;Δθ is incremental pitch angle.Then, the incremental rotation and translation of the vehicle in the camera frame are given by(2)R1,mech2,cam=ΩmechcamR1,mech2,mech,t1,mech2,cam=Ωmechcamt1,mech2,mech,where Ωmechcam is coordinate transformation from mechanization frame to camera frame;R1,mech2,cam is incremental 3D-RISS based rotation matrix in camera frame;R1,mech2,mech is incremental 3D-RISS based rotation matrix in mechanization frame;t1,mech2,cam is incremental 3D-RISS based translation vector in camera frame;t1,mech2,mech is incremental 3D-RISS based translation vector in mechanization frame.Sensor misalignment [39], appearing as errors in the coordinate transformation matrix Ωmechcam, could lead to misclassification of inlier and outlier features. Once the above are determined, the translation vector is scaled to unit length, changed to its skew symmetric form, and used to determine the correspondingEssential MatrixEmechcam.


### 3.2. Geometric Distance

Well-established metrics for distance computation can be implemented to find the error between 3D-RISS based expected feature positions and the feature matching algorithm. Features within a threshold will then be taken as inliers and features outside the threshold will be outliers.The Gold Standard algorithm [19] is the yardstick to which other algorithms are compared. In the context of R-AVO, this algorithm first triangulates the matched features from both frames into 3D feature coordinates using Emechcam. The 3D world points are then reprojected back onto the frames using the camera matrices, and the distances between the reprojected points and the original features are computed. Each feature, therefore, has a corresponding distance error associated with it, which is based on the features conformance to the 3D-RISS algorithm.Computationally efficient approximations that do not involve triangulation, such as the Sampson error, could also be considered. The Sampson error is given by(3)ds=p^TFpˇ2Fpˇ12+Fpˇ22+Fp^12+Fp^22,where F is fundamental matrix;p^ is pixel coordinates in second frame;pˇ is pixel coordinates in first frame.Although this method has led to the best approximation in the context of multiple view geometry, its performance significantly worsens when integrated with 3D-RISS. An explanation for this performance degradation is that geometric feature errors are assumed to remain small between different views, typically within 1 pixel, which does not hold when comparing expected and matched features from two completely different systems. A comparison of the inlier feature set for MLESAC, R-AVO-G (using the Gold Standard), and R-AVO-S (using the Sampson error) is shown in Figure3.Figure 3
Comparison of feature inliers using different algorithms for outlier rejection. 2399 points were detected overall. MLESAC in (b) had 1477 inliers and took 0.106 s. R-AVO-G in (c) had 2177 inliers and took 0.044 s. R-AVO-S in (d) had 1268 inliers and took 0.0008 s.
(a)
All detected features (b)
MLESAC outlier rejection (c)
R-AVO-G outlier rejection (d)
R-AVO-S outlier rejectionAn interesting point of note is that using R-AVO provides a certain degree of robustness to nonstatic elements in the scene. Since only the vehicle dynamics are used, features corresponding to scene motion rather than vehicle motion are automatically rejected. This is apparent by the fact that features on the moving ambulance in Figure3, which do not faithfully represent the camera motion, were rejected. The limitation of the Sampson error metric is also evident. Features on the tree in the background were determined as outliers, even though MLESAC and the Gold Standard algorithm considered them inliers.


### 3.3. Scale Factor Ambiguity Resolution

A modest, yet important, addition to the INS/VO solution is using the odometer to compensate for the scale factor ambiguity inherent in VO. Although the scaled translation vectort1,mech2,cam is used to triangulate the 3D world points in R-AVO-G, the scale is lost at the final stage when computing motion from 2D to 2D correspondences. This scale must, therefore, be reintroduced at the end of the VO pipeline. The final translation vector is the unit translation vector from VO multiplied by vodΔt.As will be seen next, the scale factor of the odometer is considered in the integration filter, which directly relates to the scale factor of the VO solution. In effect, estimating errors in the odometer leads to compensating for a significant source of error in monocular VO.


### 3.4. Integration Filter Architecture

This paper integrates the 3D-RISS solution with 5-point VO using an indirect extended Kalman filter (EKF). The nonlinear motion model must be linearized to be used in the EKF, which is done using a Taylor series expansion and ignoring the higher order terms. For brevity, these are not presented here; however, interested readers may refer to [40] for an in-depth derivation. The error state vector δx is given by (4)δx=δφδλδhδveδvnδvuδAδaodδbzT,where δφ is error in latitude;δλ is error in longitude;δh is error in height;δve is error in east velocity;δvn is error in north velocity;δvu is error in up velocity;δA is error in azimuth;δaod is stochastic odometer scale factor error;δbz is stochastic gyroscope drift.Since the pitch and roll angles are computedwithout integration in 3D-RISS using the accelerometers and the up-facing gyroscope measurement, they do not experience drift. Furthermore, the pitch and roll angles from VO are prone to noise [35] and are inherently less accurate than the 3D-RISS solution, especially since the accelerometer data is first denoised. The azimuth angle, however, requires an integration, and since land vehicle navigation is sensitive to azimuth angle errors [41], VO is used to suppress the resulting drift. Therefore, in the error state formulation, only the error in azimuth angle δA and the gyroscope bias δbz are considered.δ a od and δbz are the parameters that model the odometer scale factor errors and the gyroscope drift based on a first-order Gauss-Markov process [7].The system block diagram is shown in Figure4. Different states are observed by the two measurement systems, so the design matrix H will vary based on the active system. During GPS availability, the design matrix is(5)HGPS=100000000010000000001000000000100000000010000000001000.Figure 4
INS/VO/GPS integration using a switching architecture.Figure 5
The vehicles used in the trajectories and the sensor test bed rigidly mounted.
(a)
Van (b)
Hatchback (c)
Van test bed (d)
Hatchback test bedWhen there is a GPS outage, the design matrix is(6)HVO=100000000010000000001000000000000100.Similar to when using GPS as the measurement update, the VO measurement noise matrixRk,VO needs to be determined at each epoch. This parameter was set to a scaled version of the average geometric distance for the inliers; see Section 3.2.


## 3.1. Reduced-Aided Visual Odometry (R-AVO)

In the following notations, the subscript (mech or cam) represents the system that generates the particular solution; the superscript (mech or cam) represents the coordinate frame of the solution. For example, R1,mech2,cam is the rotation matrix from epoch 1 to 2, generated through the mechanization algorithm and expressed in the camera coordinate frame.The R-AVO outlier rejection algorithm works as follows:(1)
Compute the 3D-RISS mechanization solution.(2)
Convert the INS solution to the camera coordinate frame and then to theEssential Matrix form Emechcam=[t]1,mech2,camR1,mech2,cam.(3)
Run VO feature detection and tracking.(4)
Using the detected features andEmechcam calculate the expected position of the matched features.(5)
Find the geometric distance between the expected feature positions and matched feature positions.(6)
Based on a threshold decide which features are inliersUsing 3D-RISS, the changes in the computed Euler angles, pitch, roll, and azimuth, from one epoch to the next are used to generate the rotation matrixR1,mech2,mech. The odometer speed multiplied by the time increment Δt is then projected through this transformation to get the incremental translation in the body frame.(1)t1,mech2,mech=trighttforwardtup=vodΔtsin⁡ΔAcos⁡Δθcos⁡ΔAcos⁡Δθsin⁡Δθ,where t1,mech2,mech is incremental 3D-RISS based mechanization frame translation vector;Δt is incremental time between epochs;ΔA is incremental azimuth angle;Δθ is incremental pitch angle.Then, the incremental rotation and translation of the vehicle in the camera frame are given by(2)R1,mech2,cam=ΩmechcamR1,mech2,mech,t1,mech2,cam=Ωmechcamt1,mech2,mech,where Ωmechcam is coordinate transformation from mechanization frame to camera frame;R1,mech2,cam is incremental 3D-RISS based rotation matrix in camera frame;R1,mech2,mech is incremental 3D-RISS based rotation matrix in mechanization frame;t1,mech2,cam is incremental 3D-RISS based translation vector in camera frame;t1,mech2,mech is incremental 3D-RISS based translation vector in mechanization frame.Sensor misalignment [39], appearing as errors in the coordinate transformation matrix Ωmechcam, could lead to misclassification of inlier and outlier features. Once the above are determined, the translation vector is scaled to unit length, changed to its skew symmetric form, and used to determine the correspondingEssential MatrixEmechcam.


## 3.2. Geometric Distance

Well-established metrics for distance computation can be implemented to find the error between 3D-RISS based expected feature positions and the feature matching algorithm. Features within a threshold will then be taken as inliers and features outside the threshold will be outliers.The Gold Standard algorithm [19] is the yardstick to which other algorithms are compared. In the context of R-AVO, this algorithm first triangulates the matched features from both frames into 3D feature coordinates using Emechcam. The 3D world points are then reprojected back onto the frames using the camera matrices, and the distances between the reprojected points and the original features are computed. Each feature, therefore, has a corresponding distance error associated with it, which is based on the features conformance to the 3D-RISS algorithm.Computationally efficient approximations that do not involve triangulation, such as the Sampson error, could also be considered. The Sampson error is given by(3)ds=p^TFpˇ2Fpˇ12+Fpˇ22+Fp^12+Fp^22,where F is fundamental matrix;p^ is pixel coordinates in second frame;pˇ is pixel coordinates in first frame.Although this method has led to the best approximation in the context of multiple view geometry, its performance significantly worsens when integrated with 3D-RISS. An explanation for this performance degradation is that geometric feature errors are assumed to remain small between different views, typically within 1 pixel, which does not hold when comparing expected and matched features from two completely different systems. A comparison of the inlier feature set for MLESAC, R-AVO-G (using the Gold Standard), and R-AVO-S (using the Sampson error) is shown in Figure3.Figure 3
Comparison of feature inliers using different algorithms for outlier rejection. 2399 points were detected overall. MLESAC in (b) had 1477 inliers and took 0.106 s. R-AVO-G in (c) had 2177 inliers and took 0.044 s. R-AVO-S in (d) had 1268 inliers and took 0.0008 s.
(a)
All detected features (b)
MLESAC outlier rejection (c)
R-AVO-G outlier rejection (d)
R-AVO-S outlier rejectionAn interesting point of note is that using R-AVO provides a certain degree of robustness to nonstatic elements in the scene. Since only the vehicle dynamics are used, features corresponding to scene motion rather than vehicle motion are automatically rejected. This is apparent by the fact that features on the moving ambulance in Figure3, which do not faithfully represent the camera motion, were rejected. The limitation of the Sampson error metric is also evident. Features on the tree in the background were determined as outliers, even though MLESAC and the Gold Standard algorithm considered them inliers.


## 3.3. Scale Factor Ambiguity Resolution

A modest, yet important, addition to the INS/VO solution is using the odometer to compensate for the scale factor ambiguity inherent in VO. Although the scaled translation vectort1,mech2,cam is used to triangulate the 3D world points in R-AVO-G, the scale is lost at the final stage when computing motion from 2D to 2D correspondences. This scale must, therefore, be reintroduced at the end of the VO pipeline. The final translation vector is the unit translation vector from VO multiplied by vodΔt.As will be seen next, the scale factor of the odometer is considered in the integration filter, which directly relates to the scale factor of the VO solution. In effect, estimating errors in the odometer leads to compensating for a significant source of error in monocular VO.


## 3.4. Integration Filter Architecture

This paper integrates the 3D-RISS solution with 5-point VO using an indirect extended Kalman filter (EKF). The nonlinear motion model must be linearized to be used in the EKF, which is done using a Taylor series expansion and ignoring the higher order terms. For brevity, these are not presented here; however, interested readers may refer to [40] for an in-depth derivation. The error state vector δx is given by (4)δx=δφδλδhδveδvnδvuδAδaodδbzT,where δφ is error in latitude;δλ is error in longitude;δh is error in height;δve is error in east velocity;δvn is error in north velocity;δvu is error in up velocity;δA is error in azimuth;δaod is stochastic odometer scale factor error;δbz is stochastic gyroscope drift.Since the pitch and roll angles are computedwithout integration in 3D-RISS using the accelerometers and the up-facing gyroscope measurement, they do not experience drift. Furthermore, the pitch and roll angles from VO are prone to noise [35] and are inherently less accurate than the 3D-RISS solution, especially since the accelerometer data is first denoised. The azimuth angle, however, requires an integration, and since land vehicle navigation is sensitive to azimuth angle errors [41], VO is used to suppress the resulting drift. Therefore, in the error state formulation, only the error in azimuth angle δA and the gyroscope bias δbz are considered.δ a od and δbz are the parameters that model the odometer scale factor errors and the gyroscope drift based on a first-order Gauss-Markov process [7].The system block diagram is shown in Figure4. Different states are observed by the two measurement systems, so the design matrix H will vary based on the active system. During GPS availability, the design matrix is(5)HGPS=100000000010000000001000000000100000000010000000001000.Figure 4
INS/VO/GPS integration using a switching architecture.Figure 5
The vehicles used in the trajectories and the sensor test bed rigidly mounted.
(a)
Van (b)
Hatchback (c)
Van test bed (d)
Hatchback test bedWhen there is a GPS outage, the design matrix is(6)HVO=100000000010000000001000000000000100.Similar to when using GPS as the measurement update, the VO measurement noise matrixRk,VO needs to be determined at each epoch. This parameter was set to a scaled version of the average geometric distance for the inliers; see Section 3.2.


## 4. Results and Discussion

Abbreviations for the different algorithms experimentally compared in this work are listed below. In all cases, the mechanization was done using 3D-RISS:(i)
(INS)/(GPS): classic INS GPS integration(ii)
(INS)/(MLESAC-VO)/(GPS): switching architecture with VO updates, using MLESAC based outlier rejection(iii)
(INS)/(R-AVO-G)/(GPS): switching architecture with VO updates, using R-AVO based outlier rejection with the Gold Standard distance metric(iv)
(INS)/(R-AVO-S)/(GPS): switching architecture with VO updates, using R-AVO based outlier rejection with the Sampson error distance metric.


### 4.1. Equipment

The overall setup consisted of an external test bed mounted onto a vehicle. Two vehicles were used: a GMC Savana van shown in Figure5(a) and a Pontiac Vibe hatchback shown in Figure 5(b). For the van, the last row of seats were removed and the test bed was rigidly fixed in its place, attached to the vehicle floor. This is shown in Figure 5(c). With the hatchback, the cargo was modified with floor hooks to which the testbed was rigidly fixed, as shown in Figure 5(d). A MiVue 388 video recorder camera was attached to the outer windshield of each vehicle. Although the camera captured video at 30 fps, the VO algorithm was run at 5 Hz, owing to the increased computational demand of higher update rates; the VO localization estimates were then concatenated and used to update the RISS estimate at 1 Hz, similar to GPS. This method allowed for consistency at the update stage of the filter. The vehicles’ OBD-II port was used to record forward speed.The ground-truth solution, also called the reference solution, consisted of a Novatel SPAN unit, which provides a tightly coupled INS/GPS integrated solution. This unit included an OEM4 GPS receiver integrated with a tactical-grade SPAN-CPT IMU (model OM-20000122). The other two low-cost IMU sensors that were used to validate the algorithms were the MEMS grade Crossbow IMU (model IMU300CC-100) and the MEMS grade VTI IMU (model SCC1300-D04). More details of the three IMUs are given in Table1. Since the primary concern is the algorithm performance during outages, the GPS receiver used was the same for all algorithms. The test bed with these sensors marked on it is shown in Figure 6.Table 1
Comparison of different IMUs.
Specification SPAN-CPT Crossbow VTI Update rate 100 Hz 100 Hz 20 Hz  Gyroscopes  Bias 20 deg/h 2 deg/s 1.5 deg/s Scale factor 0.1% 1% 2% Angle random walk 0.0667 deg/hr 2.22 deg/hr 0.86 deg/hr  Accelerometers  Bias 50 mg 30 mg 70 mg Scale factor 0.4% 1% 1% Range 10 g 2 g 6 gFigure 6
The different sensors used in the experiment, shown with the respective model numbers.


### 4.2. Performance Metric

The metric used to quantify the algorithm performance is the 2D root mean square (RMS) error. Since the context is vehicular motion, the metric is limited to 2D, even though all algorithms provide the full 3D solutions. The 2D RMS error is computed as follows:(7)2DRMSError=1K∑k2Dposk,ref-2Dposk,ekf2.To better visualize the results, trajectory portions are overlaid on maps. These were created using the freely available online tool athttp://www.gpsvisualizer.com/ [42]. In all cases, color codes are as follows:Novatel reference: redOutage portions: black(INS)/(GPS): green(INS)/(MLESAC-VO)/(GPS): magenta(INS)/(R-AVO-G)/(GPS): cyan(INS)/(R-AVO-S)/(GPS): amber.Data was analyzed using Matlab 2017a, on an x64-based processor, Intel i7-4720HQ CPU @ 2.6 GHz. The PC RAM was 16 GB. Computation times for (INS)/(MLESAC-VO)/(GPS), (INS)/(R-AVO-S)/(GPS), and (INS)/(R-AVO-G)/(GPS) were determined for each solution epoch in which an outage occurred. Given that the time taken for the INS mechanization was negligible, (INS)/(GPS) times alone have not been recorded.


### 4.3. Trajectories

Three real road trajectories were conducted in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. During the trajectory, outages were simulated in postprocessing to reflect situations commonly encountered by AVs. The first two trajectories used the long GMC Savana van, shown in Figure5(a). The first trajectory lasted 34 minutes, consisted of six simulated outages, and tested the VTI IMU. The second trajectory lasted 43 minutes, consisted of 8 simulated outages, and tested the Crossbow IMU. The third trajectory used the older Pontiac Vibe hatchback, lasted 33 minutes, consisted of five simulated outages, and tested the VTI and Crossbow IMUs together. The trajectories are shown in Figure 7.Figure 7
Trajectory and outage portions of the three experimental tests.
(a)
Trajectory 1 (b)
Trajectory 2 (c)
Trajectory 3


### 4.4. Navigation Accuracy

For each of the three trajectories, the 2D RMS errors during the outages are shown in Figure8, with some trajectories overlaid on maps in Figure 9. In most cases, the inclusion of VO, apart from just eliminating error spikes, causes significant accuracy improvement. The proposed R-AVO paradigm further improves the INS/VO/GPS solution when the Gold Standard algorithm is used to determine outliers. As explained in Section 3.2, the Sampson error metric’s approximation does not faithfully represent the underlying sensor dynamics, resulting in erroneous feature matches that cause errors in the VO solution.Figure 8
Trajectory 2D RMS position errors.
(a)
Trajectory 1: Van, VTI Errors (b)
Trajectory 2: Van, Xbow Errors (c)
Trajectory 3: Hatchback, VTI Errors (d)
Trajectory 3: Hatchback, Xbow ErrorsFigure 9
Outage portions overlaid on map.
(a)
Traj. 1 VTI Outage 3 (b)
Traj. 3 VTI Outage 3 (c)
Traj. 3 VTI Outage 4 (d)
Traj. 2 Xbow Outage 8 (e)
Traj. 3 Xbow Outage 3 (f)
Traj. 3 Xbow Outage 4There are several cases, however, where the accuracy of classic INS/GPS is similar to INS/VO/GPS. These are mainly for Outage 1 and sometimes Outage 2 across the trajectories. An explanation for this difference from the norm is that the filter had a lot of time to converge before the first outage, trusting its estimated bias for the INS. So when the outage does occur, the system continues to trust the INS more than the VO solution, leading to similar accuracies for the INS/GPS and the INS/VO/GPS cases.When comparing the different types of VO algorithms used, a point of note is that in Trajectory 3 the accuracy of R-AVO-G was similar to or only slightly better than MLESAC based VO. This can be attributed to the fact that the vehicle used was different. Given that it was an older and smaller land vehicle, the resistance to road anomalies was less, and hence the vibrations experienced by the IMU were greater [43]. This can be seen by first comparing the trajectories’ performance during GPS availability (and hence without VO), shown in Table 2. The filter implemented using the VTI IMU outperformed the Xbow IMU, and the GMC van outperformed the Pontiac hatchback. Given that the same GPS receiver was used, the degradation in performance is most likely attributed to the IMU and vehicle type. Finally, since R-AVO depends directly on the IMU, its performance follows the same trend.Table 2
Comparison of overall trajectory accuracies.
Van VTI Van Xbow Hatchback VTI Hatchback Xbow RMS error 1.17 m 2.32 m 3.2 m 3.3 mIt should be noted that increased vehicle vibrations also affect the VO localization estimate, mainly due to the effect of the added noise on feature detection and matching [31, 44]. A deeper analysis into error correlation, propagation, and compensation between RISS and VO will be investigated as part of future work.


### 4.5. State Covariance Convergence

GPS provides direct estimates of the vehicle’s position, as seen in the measurement design matrixHGPS of (5). Given such observability, GPS updates cause the latitude and longitude error state covariances to almost instantly converge. This results in good positioning accuracy the moment GPS becomes available. However, GPS does not directly observe the attitude error states, azimuth in particular. The system needs considerable time with GPS availability for the azimuth error state covariance to converge. A comprehensive treatment of INS/GPS observability can be found in [45].Since the azimuth error angle is only weakly observable, although the position estimate is accurate during GPS availability, the overall navigation accuracy suffers when several outages occur in succession. This is the highlight of using VO. Since the azimuth angle is directly observable by VO, shown by the design matrixHVO in (6), the system retains convergence even during intermittent GPS availability.A major consequence of slow azimuth convergence is that the entire INS/GPS navigation solution becomes unusable, highlighted by the large error spikes in the INS/GPS solution across trajectories, shown in Figure8. In situations where there are short periods of GPS availability followed by considerable outages, the dead-reckoning INS, being embedded within an indirect EKF framework, increments upon an erroneous attitude estimate, which in turn causes significant errors. Given the operating environment of AVs, intermittent GPS availability is common, and, without the added VO azimuth estimate, INS/GPS alone is unsuitable.


### 4.6. Computational Complexity

Since R-AVO-S uses the Sampson error metric, which is algebraic and straightforward to implement, it has the lowest computation time among the three VO methods. Next comes the R-AVO-G method, which is more computationally intensive than R-AVO-S due to the triangulation involved. Finally, the MLESAC based approach requires several iterations and is more demanding than R-AVO-G.The average computation time needed for each VO outlier rejection paradigm during the outages is plotted in Figure10. The spread of computation times is an important parameter to consider, since it indicates whether or not the VO solution will be used. If a particular epoch requires too much time, a real-time system might discard the delayed solution. Due to the iterative nature of MLESAC, there is large variation in the time required. R-AVO, on the other hand, is always a single iteration, which limits the spread of time needed.Figure 10
A comparison of the mean computation time needed for the VO solutions during each outage. The whiskers represent one standard deviation above the mean processing times.


## 4.1. Equipment

The overall setup consisted of an external test bed mounted onto a vehicle. Two vehicles were used: a GMC Savana van shown in Figure5(a) and a Pontiac Vibe hatchback shown in Figure 5(b). For the van, the last row of seats were removed and the test bed was rigidly fixed in its place, attached to the vehicle floor. This is shown in Figure 5(c). With the hatchback, the cargo was modified with floor hooks to which the testbed was rigidly fixed, as shown in Figure 5(d). A MiVue 388 video recorder camera was attached to the outer windshield of each vehicle. Although the camera captured video at 30 fps, the VO algorithm was run at 5 Hz, owing to the increased computational demand of higher update rates; the VO localization estimates were then concatenated and used to update the RISS estimate at 1 Hz, similar to GPS. This method allowed for consistency at the update stage of the filter. The vehicles’ OBD-II port was used to record forward speed.The ground-truth solution, also called the reference solution, consisted of a Novatel SPAN unit, which provides a tightly coupled INS/GPS integrated solution. This unit included an OEM4 GPS receiver integrated with a tactical-grade SPAN-CPT IMU (model OM-20000122). The other two low-cost IMU sensors that were used to validate the algorithms were the MEMS grade Crossbow IMU (model IMU300CC-100) and the MEMS grade VTI IMU (model SCC1300-D04). More details of the three IMUs are given in Table1. Since the primary concern is the algorithm performance during outages, the GPS receiver used was the same for all algorithms. The test bed with these sensors marked on it is shown in Figure 6.Table 1
Comparison of different IMUs.
Specification SPAN-CPT Crossbow VTI Update rate 100 Hz 100 Hz 20 Hz  Gyroscopes  Bias 20 deg/h 2 deg/s 1.5 deg/s Scale factor 0.1% 1% 2% Angle random walk 0.0667 deg/hr 2.22 deg/hr 0.86 deg/hr  Accelerometers  Bias 50 mg 30 mg 70 mg Scale factor 0.4% 1% 1% Range 10 g 2 g 6 gFigure 6
The different sensors used in the experiment, shown with the respective model numbers.


## 4.2. Performance Metric

The metric used to quantify the algorithm performance is the 2D root mean square (RMS) error. Since the context is vehicular motion, the metric is limited to 2D, even though all algorithms provide the full 3D solutions. The 2D RMS error is computed as follows:(7)2DRMSError=1K∑k2Dposk,ref-2Dposk,ekf2.To better visualize the results, trajectory portions are overlaid on maps. These were created using the freely available online tool athttp://www.gpsvisualizer.com/ [42]. In all cases, color codes are as follows:Novatel reference: redOutage portions: black(INS)/(GPS): green(INS)/(MLESAC-VO)/(GPS): magenta(INS)/(R-AVO-G)/(GPS): cyan(INS)/(R-AVO-S)/(GPS): amber.Data was analyzed using Matlab 2017a, on an x64-based processor, Intel i7-4720HQ CPU @ 2.6 GHz. The PC RAM was 16 GB. Computation times for (INS)/(MLESAC-VO)/(GPS), (INS)/(R-AVO-S)/(GPS), and (INS)/(R-AVO-G)/(GPS) were determined for each solution epoch in which an outage occurred. Given that the time taken for the INS mechanization was negligible, (INS)/(GPS) times alone have not been recorded.


## 4.3. Trajectories

Three real road trajectories were conducted in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. During the trajectory, outages were simulated in postprocessing to reflect situations commonly encountered by AVs. The first two trajectories used the long GMC Savana van, shown in Figure5(a). The first trajectory lasted 34 minutes, consisted of six simulated outages, and tested the VTI IMU. The second trajectory lasted 43 minutes, consisted of 8 simulated outages, and tested the Crossbow IMU. The third trajectory used the older Pontiac Vibe hatchback, lasted 33 minutes, consisted of five simulated outages, and tested the VTI and Crossbow IMUs together. The trajectories are shown in Figure 7.Figure 7
Trajectory and outage portions of the three experimental tests.
(a)
Trajectory 1 (b)
Trajectory 2 (c)
Trajectory 3


## 4.4. Navigation Accuracy

For each of the three trajectories, the 2D RMS errors during the outages are shown in Figure8, with some trajectories overlaid on maps in Figure 9. In most cases, the inclusion of VO, apart from just eliminating error spikes, causes significant accuracy improvement. The proposed R-AVO paradigm further improves the INS/VO/GPS solution when the Gold Standard algorithm is used to determine outliers. As explained in Section 3.2, the Sampson error metric’s approximation does not faithfully represent the underlying sensor dynamics, resulting in erroneous feature matches that cause errors in the VO solution.Figure 8
Trajectory 2D RMS position errors.
(a)
Trajectory 1: Van, VTI Errors (b)
Trajectory 2: Van, Xbow Errors (c)
Trajectory 3: Hatchback, VTI Errors (d)
Trajectory 3: Hatchback, Xbow ErrorsFigure 9
Outage portions overlaid on map.
(a)
Traj. 1 VTI Outage 3 (b)
Traj. 3 VTI Outage 3 (c)
Traj. 3 VTI Outage 4 (d)
Traj. 2 Xbow Outage 8 (e)
Traj. 3 Xbow Outage 3 (f)
Traj. 3 Xbow Outage 4There are several cases, however, where the accuracy of classic INS/GPS is similar to INS/VO/GPS. These are mainly for Outage 1 and sometimes Outage 2 across the trajectories. An explanation for this difference from the norm is that the filter had a lot of time to converge before the first outage, trusting its estimated bias for the INS. So when the outage does occur, the system continues to trust the INS more than the VO solution, leading to similar accuracies for the INS/GPS and the INS/VO/GPS cases.When comparing the different types of VO algorithms used, a point of note is that in Trajectory 3 the accuracy of R-AVO-G was similar to or only slightly better than MLESAC based VO. This can be attributed to the fact that the vehicle used was different. Given that it was an older and smaller land vehicle, the resistance to road anomalies was less, and hence the vibrations experienced by the IMU were greater [43]. This can be seen by first comparing the trajectories’ performance during GPS availability (and hence without VO), shown in Table 2. The filter implemented using the VTI IMU outperformed the Xbow IMU, and the GMC van outperformed the Pontiac hatchback. Given that the same GPS receiver was used, the degradation in performance is most likely attributed to the IMU and vehicle type. Finally, since R-AVO depends directly on the IMU, its performance follows the same trend.Table 2
Comparison of overall trajectory accuracies.
Van VTI Van Xbow Hatchback VTI Hatchback Xbow RMS error 1.17 m 2.32 m 3.2 m 3.3 mIt should be noted that increased vehicle vibrations also affect the VO localization estimate, mainly due to the effect of the added noise on feature detection and matching [31, 44]. A deeper analysis into error correlation, propagation, and compensation between RISS and VO will be investigated as part of future work.


## 4.5. State Covariance Convergence

GPS provides direct estimates of the vehicle’s position, as seen in the measurement design matrixHGPS of (5). Given such observability, GPS updates cause the latitude and longitude error state covariances to almost instantly converge. This results in good positioning accuracy the moment GPS becomes available. However, GPS does not directly observe the attitude error states, azimuth in particular. The system needs considerable time with GPS availability for the azimuth error state covariance to converge. A comprehensive treatment of INS/GPS observability can be found in [45].Since the azimuth error angle is only weakly observable, although the position estimate is accurate during GPS availability, the overall navigation accuracy suffers when several outages occur in succession. This is the highlight of using VO. Since the azimuth angle is directly observable by VO, shown by the design matrixHVO in (6), the system retains convergence even during intermittent GPS availability.A major consequence of slow azimuth convergence is that the entire INS/GPS navigation solution becomes unusable, highlighted by the large error spikes in the INS/GPS solution across trajectories, shown in Figure8. In situations where there are short periods of GPS availability followed by considerable outages, the dead-reckoning INS, being embedded within an indirect EKF framework, increments upon an erroneous attitude estimate, which in turn causes significant errors. Given the operating environment of AVs, intermittent GPS availability is common, and, without the added VO azimuth estimate, INS/GPS alone is unsuitable.


## 4.6. Computational Complexity

Since R-AVO-S uses the Sampson error metric, which is algebraic and straightforward to implement, it has the lowest computation time among the three VO methods. Next comes the R-AVO-G method, which is more computationally intensive than R-AVO-S due to the triangulation involved. Finally, the MLESAC based approach requires several iterations and is more demanding than R-AVO-G.The average computation time needed for each VO outlier rejection paradigm during the outages is plotted in Figure10. The spread of computation times is an important parameter to consider, since it indicates whether or not the VO solution will be used. If a particular epoch requires too much time, a real-time system might discard the delayed solution. Due to the iterative nature of MLESAC, there is large variation in the time required. R-AVO, on the other hand, is always a single iteration, which limits the spread of time needed.Figure 10
A comparison of the mean computation time needed for the VO solutions during each outage. The whiskers represent one standard deviation above the mean processing times.


## 5. Conclusion

The impact of this work lies in presenting a positioning and navigation system for autonomous vehicles that is robust and reliable. The developed INS/VO/GPS integration utilizing reduced-aided VO (R-AVO) was shown to outperform the classic INS/GPS integration algorithm. Particularly for intermittent GPS availability, which is often the case for vehicles in downtown cores, the proposed system had faster error state convergence, which lead to a usable navigation solution even for extended and frequent outages.The R-AVO algorithm further improved classic VO, showing reduced computational requirements for the outlier rejection stage. The accuracy of R-AVO was similar to the MLESAC based outlier rejection scheme when the vehicle used was a hatchback and the IMU used consisted of very low grade MEMS sensors. In the case of a larger vehicle or a slightly better IMU (although still MEMS) the R-AVO based method outperformed the MLESAC based one.Future work would include statistical methods to judge the error threshold in the R-AVO based scheme, making use of INS error modelling techniques. Furthermore, the R-AVO method can be extended to include different systems, improving the outlier rejection capabilities of other feature based algorithms that use LiDAR or Radar data.



---

*Source: 6513970-2018-05-02.xml*