Odometry Error Estimation for a Differential Drive Robot Snowplow Edward J. Kreinar*" and Dr. Roger D. Quinn! *Depariment of Electical Engineering and Computer Science, Case Westem Reserve University ‘National Security Solutions Division, ENSCO, Inc. !Department of Mechanical Engineering, Case Western Reserve U Abstract —This paper presents a velocty-augmented Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) which can estimate both systematic and non-systematic odometry errors for a differential drive mobile robot. The proposed EKF is validated both within simulation and using postprocessed robot snowplow data from the Institute of Navigation's 2013 Autonomous Showplow Competition. Potential sensor configurations are explored using EKF Monte-Carlo simulations with Global Positioning System (GPS) sensors or ‘multilateration ranging sensors. 1. Intropuction ‘Wheel encoders provide a precise and inexpensive measure- ment of wheel rotation which, when solved for mobile robot velocity, constitutes odometry. Wheel odometry is used within typical mobile robot systems to implement localization and filtering algorithms [1]. Odometry error characterization and estimation is important in cases where a robot may experi ence wheel slip or where hardware dependent parameters are uncertain. Odometry errors can become a driving factor of localization error within an integrated multisensor navigation solution, Due to the increased availability and lower price of high- precision localization sensors including real-time kinematic (RTK) Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers and small- area location systems, Precision sensors allow filters to over-constrain robot ve- locity and use the additional information to estimate odometry errors. A robot snowplow must account for potentially extreme wheel slip in all operating scenatios. The robot position solution will be corrupted if odometry is believed as a perfect velocity measurement. Estimating wheel slip is also especially useful fora robot snowplow in order to understand its physical behavior in a challenging environment. Odometry errors are characterized in literature as either “systematic” or “non-systematie” errors [2]. A systematic error typically results from incorrectly calibrated odometry parameters, such as the encoder ticks-per-meter conversion (wheel diameter) or the robot track width, A non-systematic error, on the other hand, represents error from the robot environment, such as whee! slip, extemal forces, etc. ‘A variety of approaches to systematic odometry error esti- ‘mation have been proposed, Autocalibration tests determine systematic odometry error parameters using a dedicated a priori procedute [2|[3]|4]. Such autocalibration approaches ate relatively well-explosed. Filter-based estimation approaches versity from Martinelli [5] and Caltahiano [6] implement an aug- ‘mented Kalman Filter (AKF) with dedicated states for each ‘odometry calibration parameter (rightleft wheel ticks-per- ‘meter and track width); When fused with other sensors (e.g GPS or Lidar), the AKF estimates odometry calibration during localization. Non-systematic odometry error has been addressed with varying degrees of success. An early approach [7] attempted to use redundant sensor data in a unique robot featuring a sepa rate encoder trailer wheel to better estimate non-systematic codometry errors. A 2006 study on slip-compensated path driving for a Mars rover [8] uses an error-state EKF with an in- dependent statistical threshold filter based on wheel edometry and visual odometry, An approach from Martinelli etal. [9], presents a framework for estimating both systematic and non- systematic errors for a differential drive robot, implementing two separate fiters, an AKF for systematic error estimation, and an “observable filler” which stochastically monitors the ‘output of the first AKF. Experimental results show better than 1% error filtering systematic odometry error, yet 90% extor filtering non-systematic odometty error. A unified EKF solving for robot velocity, systematic, and non-systematic errors has not been proposed so far. Previous work using the CWRU Cutter robot platform demonstrates successful non-systematic odometty error esti- ‘mation during operation in & high whee! slip environment (10] using an AKF, but does not present a solution for systematic ‘odometry parameter estimation. In this paper, the procedure in [10] is expanded to include both systematic and non- systematic odometzy errors Section I intwoduces the localization approach adopted here for a differential drive mobile robot. Section IL builds fon the differential drive odometry measurement update us- ing augmented states for both systematic and non-systematic ‘odometry error parameters, Simulation results in Section IV demonstrate filter convergence in a nominal sirmulation case, Experimental results using postprocessed data from the CWRU Cutter robot lawnmower/snowplow are shown and discussed in Section V. Monte carlo results using various sensors are presented in Section VI IL, DIFFERENTIAL DRIVE EXTENDED KALMAN FILTER ‘The Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) is used to estimate two- dimensional differential drive robot postition and velocity. For 122background and theory of the EK, sources [1] and [11] both provide concise and detailed information. The chosen robot state and GPS/gyroscope measurement updates are consistent with prior work in [10]. The EKF state vector of interest for differential drive robot (without odometry error states) is: ez=[r y @v wl” a ‘Where 2, y refers to the origin coordinates in the world frame, 0 refers to the robot heading, and v,. refers to the velocity and angular velocity of the origin. For a differential drive robot, the origin is typically defined as the midpoint of both drive wheels. Many common approaches for mobile robot localization do not include », « states [1][12], electing instead to use wheel odometry as system inputs to propagate the robot slate, However, including »,. in the EKF provides a significant benefit. Additional sensors may supplement wheel odometzy to achieve a best estimate of the true robot velocity Individual velocity states are very helpful for odometry error estimation because they allow for an elegant and straightfor- ward odometry measurement update. ‘This section reviews the chosen robot state, system update, and measurement updates (GPS, gyroscope, and multilatera- tion ranger). Odomelry measurement updates are discussed in Section I A. Stem Update The following system model describes the transition for each individual state fe)=[f fy fo f& BI" Where the differential drive equations of motion can be approximated (13][14) as: @ femme 1 HU Ateos( ea + Som ve ma bm a Atsin(Gea + fo =O =O 1 wt fo =e = 4 (C) fa =k = Wha o Here, At represents the discrete timestep between suc- cessive system updates. The Jacobian Fs. is calculated with respect to the state vector a8 a typical EKF system update, Refer to [10] for a full solution of the system update matrix. B. GPS Measurement Update The GPS measwement (ie, dvect position measurement) assumes the robot position is measured at an arbitrary offset fom the origin in the local robot frame (2, yf) . termed the “leverarm offset” ment function hyp,(z) is then expressed as for this discussion. The GPS measure- m4 + 3h cosh — uh, sine et ak yysin Oy + ykpy 008 Op Mgpe(aee) = Lvs ® And the measurement update Tacobian Hp, is calelated with respect tothe state vector 0 at), indy —ylyy cost, 0 0 1 00 %) Hyp. (20) fi [o 1 2k osdy — why indy C. Gyroscope Measurement Update ‘An inertial measurement unit (MU) gyroscope measures rotational velocity along the z-axis, w. The stale vector = is augmented to include a single gyroscope bias term in the zeaxis, Grarw. The bias term will be ignored throughout the remainder of this discussion because the bias only appears in the gyroscope measurement update Bijwalze) = [ou + 8 ao) mo] Han(es) = [0 0 0 0 1 | 1] an D. Musitateration Measurement Update ‘A muliaterstion measurement update is defined a8 a single range between known location on the robot to a known location in the world, (2%, yf). For simplicity, we assume bere thatthe range measureneat is performed dicetly at the robot origin with no leverarm offset. Similar to the GPS ‘measurement, the equations can be expanded to accommodate an arbitrary offset in the local robot frame. A single range is expressed as Branoe(@) = Vell. 2) + (uv? 2) ‘And the corresponding linearized Jacobian is: Hyange(te) = [He Hy 9 0 0] ayy My = —— ay VG — 2)? + GR — uv)? Hy = ——— et as) Vi — 2? + ik — uP (16) III, ODOMETRY ERROR FILTERING FFor differential drive mobile robots, and the CWRU Cutter robot specifically, each wheel uses an encoder to directly ‘measure its rotation as an integer number of encoder “ticks.” ‘Three systematic parameters are necessary to convert from pure encoder measurements (in ticks) to origin velocity vw {in meters per second and radians per second, respectively), ‘The parameters are a ticks per meter scaling for each wheel, tpmy, and tpmg, and the track width between the wheels, 4, The velocity of each wheel can be approximated over a timestep Al using a ticks per meter conversion for each wheel: an as) = At(ticks:)/tom, At(ticksz) /tpmy 1123Furthermore, the velocity of the robot origin v,w is expressed. in terms of the velocities of the left and right wheel using the twack width b (19) v oe 20) Tn a typical case with no odometty errors, the EKF measure- rent function hex(#) solves equations 19 and 20 for the velocities of the left and right whee!: Donel) = [PE fark] en ‘he Jacobian matrix for the encoder measurement is tay- [9 0 91 -F " 2) = : ¢ ‘The established EKF will perform well for a two- séimensional differential drive robot when there are no odome- try errors, However, systematic and non-systematic odometry errors introduce measurement faults that are not handled using genetic EKF models. Both systematic and non-systematic errors can be estimated, because the state vector includes the origin velocity (v,). In addition, handling odometry errors in the EKF is convenient, Odometry cxror is isolated to the odometry measurement only, while all other system updates and measurement updates remain the same, A. Non-Systematic Error Due to the nature of non-systematic error, estimation is implemented as a “catch-all” solution where the measured wheel velocity (vj and vf) does not equal the true wheel velocity (vf"** and vf"). Non-systematic error estimation follows the approach in [10]. The encoder measurement is, now expressed as the sum ofthe true velocity v"™* and some unknown error velocity 0" vin = uf" + uf 2) UR SUR UT ey B. Systematic Error Systematic odometry error estimation is based on an ap- ‘roach suggested in [9], Systematic odometry errors are treated as scale factors 3%, 8%, and 4°, Systematic scale factors multiply the presumably incorrect odometty parameters tpn, tym, and 5 to determine the true odometry parameters. tomig = 54pm, 05) tpmit* = 3% tpmp. (26) ree = 5h C. Systematic and Non To estimate both types of odometry errors, the EKF is augmented to include both wheel velocity error states and systematic scale factor states. Systematic Error Update eof yoy or og ot a ol? aw ‘The combined measurement update includes behavior from both types of odometzy errors in the measurement function: [ap uy — Be oe Ho buy neces) = [En] = : | 29) RI Lae (4 Se ‘The corresponding linearized Jacobian matrix is HES) G0) po 01 -H 6 0 Hk, 0 HE ooo1 & o ff 0 HR, HR Hey, = v4 ~ Hoan + 08h 31) ogg =n — Han + OEE cy Boys Roos vet Him = et aon + OE 62) eget 5 uf ‘pe os) HE = 8B 5 34) The concent ofoneey meant a sown here is used throughout the rest of the paper for both simula- Sind CRU Ce pes it's ey tach een help eer ad ‘prune ain ee RE ny nh Sg Fonks Hower vient psc mth cove Tan KE necro pedo! ae ed iScoweu coms ne 1 Nima wl ey er eer mes wel 2) Syren dome ses mes + cas: sa tow fe shel ip fo ° | 38 1124“The systematic odometry pseudoupdate follows a similar mea- surement function and sensitivity mauix: aE) [se Wee ale) = [8] = Joss | 61 a] [se 9 000000100 H,(2)- {0 0 0 0 0.0001 0} 8 0000000001 Use of pseudoupdates may be informed by external knowl- edge of the situation, While a snowplow robot is plowing snow, for example, it would be appropriate to estimate non- systematic odometry parameters because wheel slip is assumed to be prevalent. Or, if the robot is known to be in a convenient low wheel slip scenario— high traction, low velocity, ete— it may be a good time to estimate systematic odometry ‘parameters, IV. SIMULATION ‘A proof-of-concept differential drive robot simulation demonstrates sequential odometry estimation of both system- atic and non-systematic errors, The simulation generates a “true” robot trajectory and sinmulated noisy measurement data from GPS, gyroscope, and encoders. The GPS is simulated with a leverarm offset where zor is -OAS m, similar to the CWRU Cutter robor’s physical configuration, Also, simulated ‘measurement data introduce both systematic and nonsystem- atic odometry errors ‘Measurements are processed in an EKE, which estimates the full robot state including position, heading, and odometry errors. To converge on both types of odometry errors, the division of labor for systematic and nonsystematic estimation follows the procedure’ )) Time 0 to 20 seconds: Apply a pseudo-update coercing wheel slip to 0. Allow the EKF to converge on system- atic odometry parameters. 2) Time 20 seconds to end: Apply a pseudo-update en- forcing systematic parameters remain constant, Estimate non-systematic wheel velocity errors, assuming the sys- tematic scale factors are now known, An overall view of the robot path is shown in figure 1 demonstrating the EKF position and beading states success- fully converge. Figures 2 and 3 show nonsytematic and systematic odom- etry error states with 3a bounds plotted with the true (sim- tulated) values. Both wheels experience a wheel slip of 0.5 ans at different points throughout the simulation. Also, the simulated systematic odometty parameters are scaled from ‘unity, introducing systematic errors. In both cases, wheel velocity error states and systematic scale factor states converge fon the true values after a brief delay, which is generally adjustable using typical EKF system and measurement noise tunings. ‘Sequential adometry error estimation is clearly visible by inspecting state covariance values in Figures 2 and 3. For 1. esimated robot poston and heading Let net sore Ear iT a 70 Pitt hel Oxmety Ene i 4 afney a “Tes 0 ig. 2, Simulation results: Nonsystematc velocity enor the first 20 seconds, during the zero whee! slip pseudoupdate, velocity error states are assumed known at 0 ms (figure 2), ‘Aller the first 20 seconds, the filler switches to velocity error filtering and the systematic seale factor states become “locked” ‘with small covariance estimates (figure 3) ‘An interesting note is that the track width parameter co- variance is not monotomically decreasing. Rather, the observ ability of the track width parameter is mherently related to the npe of robot motion. Around t=10 s, the track width covariance decreases dramatically. which physically comre- sponds with the robot pivoting. Because the GPS is offset {rom the origin, a pivot ot rotation significantly helps robot tack width estimation converge. Such intuition may be useful when generating a procedute or path for systematic odometry parameter estimation. A variant of this simulation is used later for Monte-Carlo 12spT np arsenate “inate Fig 3. Simslation ese Systematic velocity enone sensor testing V. IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS Iimplementaton results demonstrate use of the velocity augmented EKF in a realistic robot system. First, data from the CWRU Cutter robot are recorded over various robot tests to exercise several anecdotal scenarios. Then, an appropriate cdometry error filter is shown to converge in postprocessing Which allows the robot to robustly estimate and reject odom- etry errors ‘Onboard sensors used for data processing are Novatel RTK GPS, Christa IMU, and wheel encoders. Sensor measurement noise is chosen to reflect the noise levels of each sensor Raps = Oya = 0.05% 39) Royo = Faye = 00M rad/s (40) Rene = (0+ FuWene|)* = (0.005 +0.01|vene|)*m/s ay ‘Two scenarios are used to show the velocity-augmented EKE converges for both systematic and non-systematic errs Firsi, CWRU Cutter leisurely drives over a typical grass field. Second, CWRU Cutter competes in the 2013 ION Autonomous Snowplow Competition A. Grass Driving Here, CWRU Cutter is driven manually both forward and backward on a typical grass Geld. No significant wheel slip ‘occurs in this collection. ‘The ticks-per-meter and track width constants are well known due to a priori testing. However, during post process- ing, the ticks-per-meter and track width constants are scaled to introduce a systematic odometry error, Table T shows the measured odometry parameters on the robot, the simulated ‘parameters which introduce a systematic odometry error, and the “ground truth” scale factor to be estimated by the velocity augmented EKF. TABLE ‘Systeatarie Opoutay ERnons (Test 1) a EE wight 24940 29910 on Hekwan 0s? oes ot ast Bp eee reer pene eneg oa oa Tine) geet clea 3 a a) “ack Sa 1 Eas #09 O85 aa aa Fig. 4 Odomety scale factor esination duing a CWRU Cater dataset fo a grasy eld. Odamexy is intnonlly sealed to simulated «systematic ‘elometry cor To serially estimate both systematic and non-systematic, ‘odometry errors, the fist 40 seconds (approximately half of the dataset) estimate systematic errors only. The implementation uses pseudoupdates to enforce sequential odometty estimation, After the first 40 seconds, systematic scale factors are assumed known, so the EKF switches to wheel velocity error estimation, Figures 4 and $ show odometry scale factor states and wheel velocity errors states respectively. Similar to earlier simulation results, pseudoupdates coerce the desired states 10 known values. Figure 4 demonstrates the systematic odometry error filler converges on the simulated scale factors using true robot data (GPS, gyroscope, and odometry). The final estimated values for lefvight ticks per meter and track width are shown in Table I. The odometry scale factor errors are ‘within the bounds of uncertainty for each state after 40 seconds of processing, After allowing systematic odometry parameter states to converge, estimated wheel slip experiences RMS error (of 3.3 cm/s and 3.6 ems for left and right wheels respectively. B. Snowplow Competition 1/27/2013 In this collection, CWRU Cutter runs autonomously in the 2013 ION Autonomous Snowplow Competition, Postpro- cessing filters non-systematic errors in order to demonstrate successful wheel slip estimation, For a challenging wheel slip environment such as plowing snow, estimating only non- systematic errors is a realistic operating case; correct system- atic odometry parameters are assumed to be known using @ 1126Lem Wheel Odomeny Eror Let Wes! Odemeny Enor Eos £05 2 e 3 B of —___ijmpisraboiatseadtve 8 A= ho a0 ao aS 08 ae 30 3a a0 Tinga Times) Right neo! Soinety ror Fight nee! Odomety Err 1 Eos Eos] 2 2 Bo} pnp go 04 os 5 0 20 40 CDT a aoa SC Time) Time(s) Fig 5. Odometry whee! velocity enor duting a CWRU Cuter dataset on a Fg. 6. Odomctry wheel velociy enor ding the 2013 TON Autonomous assy el priori estimation Results show approximately 60 seconds of particularly dra- satic whee! slips, during which the snowplow robot repeatedly pushes into a pile of snow without success. Figure 6 shows estimated wheel slip during the collection. To compare filter zesults between EKF output with and without odometry esti- ration, Figure 7 shows position error between the projected GPS position and the measured GPS positon. “The EKF with odometry error estimation remains converged fn the GPS position throughout whee! slip faults. Figure 6 dis plays the estimated wheel behavior at each timestep. Inchuding wheel velocity error states for this collection highlights two practical benefits of using an odometry estimation EKF: 1) Even with a precise GPS, unhandled odometry errors may cause the filer (o diverge beyond the bounds of uncertainty 2) Using error estimation, the robot has a more comprehen- sive view of its physical behavior and may now act on the information to execute better driving contel VI. MonTE Carto Resutts ‘A drawback of implementing the velocity-augmented EKF {s that simultaneous estimation of velocity and edomety error requires sufficient observability of robot velocity using sensors other than wheel rotation (¢.g., position sensors, angular rate sensors, etc). To quantify the sensor precision required to successfuly estimate odometry errors, Monte-Carlo simula- tions test a set of possible robot measurements with various precisions to determine configurations which allow position, velocity, and odometry errors to converge. The sensors tested, in the Monte-Carlo simulations here are: 1) Raw position measurements (¢.g., GPS) 2) Angular velocity measurements (e-g., gyroscope) 3) Supplemental velocity measurements (e.g., visual odon tty provides both forward and angular velocity) 4) Range measurements for multiateration Stowplow Coapestion| __Intaarsve Dstance tna ott Sate an PS aon “0 20) ig. 7. EKF position deviation witwithout wheel veloiy erat estimation Position measurements and velocity measurements are already ‘mainstream robot measurements for both indoor and outdoor ‘mobile robots. Improving technology in the field of RF range ‘measurements may yield reseatch-oriented and commercially oriented local positioning systems in the near future. A 2010 prototype ranging system, for example, demonstrates standard deviation as low as 2.5 cm in a benign line-of-sight environ- ‘ment [15] {16} In the Monte-Carlo tests, measurement standard deviation is distributed uniformly throughout the desired range. EKF system noise is generated randomly. For each measurement setting, we run 50 randomly-generated system noise values. ‘To quantify results, we find the median RMS erzor for each of the systematic wheel velocity parameter states A. Configuration 1: GPS and Gyroscope ‘The first configuration uses GPS (position measurements) and gyroscope (angular Velocity measurements), similar to the 127Fig. 8. Monte Calo Simulation Rests, Configuration 1 CWRU Cutter onboard sensors, Measurement rate and noise levels are chosen to reflect the CWRU Cotter capabilities in an ‘optimistic case and also to test EKF capability while relaxing sensor precision. Table I shows tested sensor precision. GPS is simulated with a lever arm offset of 0.45 meters. Figure 8 shows results as a function of both position measurement and angular velocity measurement standard de- viation, A summary of results from the simulation: + The track width state appears sensitive to gyroscope precision, Track width seriously degrades once gyroscope standard deviation increases above approximately 0.05 rads + The ticks per meter states do not diverge with increasing gyroscope noise. A possible explanation is that absolute position measurements help constrain forward velocity + As GPS standard deviation degrades from 0.05 m to LS im, ticks per meter estimation degrades by approximately a factor of two. Throughout all tested settings in Configuration 1, the ticks per meter RMS error remains below approximately 5-10% of the true state, Because ticks per meter and non-systematic wheel slip filtering are closely related in performance, we also expect similar results estimating non-systematic odometry cxtor states. TABLE I. Mowre-Canio Sixes ation PARAMETERS, CONFIGURATION 1 Postion Tay Angular Vel fas) B. Configuration 2: GPS and Visual Odometry ‘The second configuration uses position measurements (GPS) and forward/angular velocity measurements (visual odometry), External forward and angular velocity measure- ments are simulated at § Hz, Maximom and minimum noise levels for forward and angular velocity are relatively lov, Which reflects a more precise velocity measurement than fa gyroscope. Table IIT shows tested sensor precision and ‘measurement rate Fig. 9. Monte Calo Simblation Results, Confguston 2 Figure 9 shows results as a function of both position ‘measurement precision and velocity measurement precision, Ticks per meter results are clamped to the maximum view. High noise settings cause the EKF to diverge at extents. + Odometry errors are dominated by velocity measurement precision, GPS precision has little to no impact on the chosen states + Track width errors are significantly lower compared to Configuration 1 + Ticks per meter errors ate also lower than in Configura- tion 1 as long as velocity standard deviation is less than 0.2 ays and 0.2 rads for forward and angular velocity, respectively Overall, wheel odometry error estimation is greatly improved by using a precise supplemental measurement of forward and angular velocity, even with a measurement rate as low as 5 Hy, MONTE CARLO SIMULATION PARAMETERS, CONFOURATION 2 Trae Fwd, Angular Vel mis nds) Sot OS C. Configuration 3: Range Measurements and Gyroscope ‘The final configuration uses ranging measurements and angular velocity measurements, Ranging measurements are tweated here as a GPS replacement. Three “beacons” with known locations are placed around the simulated wack. Three new measurements are generated every 20 Hz; one range ‘measurement to cach beacon. Range precision is chosen to reflect state-of-the-art RF ranging capabilities, which typically fall somewhere between 1 cm and 2 m standard deviation [16] ‘Table TV shows tested sensor precision, Range measurements are generated assuming zero lever arm offset from the robot origin, Figure 10 shows results as a function of both ranging ‘measurements and velocity measurements. Overall, ranging ‘measurements provide similar results as GPS (Configuration 1128os = nS pe ‘Range at enti mee Oa a Fig. 10, Monte Carlo Simmltion Rests, Consiguttion 3 1), The state estimates are slightly improved— this is ikely due to the higher measurement rate of a local position system vs GPS. Mow Te-CARL0 SIMULATION PARAMSTERS, CORFGURATION 3 i Range a Angus Velicidsy 250010 VIL. Conciuston Both whee! slips and systematic odometry errors can be esti- mated for a differential drive mobile robot using an extended Kalman filler with augmented robot velocity and odometry certor states. This work builds on a previous filter design [10] by adding systematic odometry error estimation to the EKE. EKF pseudoupdates may enforce sequential systematic and non-systematic odometry error estimation to allow all states to converge. The filter is demonstrated both in simulation and using actual data from the CWRU Cutter autonomous lawnmower/snowplow robot, After a 40 second collection using CWRU Cutter postprocessed sensor data with faulted systematic odometry parameters, the estimated ticks per meter and track width scale factors converge within 1% of the true values. ‘Monte-Carlo tests reveal insights regarding the impact of sensor precision on systematic odometry error estimation. As rule of thumb, a GPS precision improvement from 1.5 m to 0.05 m results in approximately a factor of two improvement in forward velocity odometty estimation. Given sufficiently precise velocity measurements, sensitivity to absolute position measurements may be reduced. A high-precision supplemental velocity measurement (e.g., gyroscope or visual odometry) is best suited for correctly estimating wheel odometry errors ACKNOWLEDEMED ‘The author would like to thank the CWRU Cutter team for their dedication and contsibutions to the robot platform used in this research. Also, special thanks to the project sponsor MTD, Inc. for supporting the CWRU Cutter lawnmower for nearly one decade, helping students learn engineering through hands-on experience. REFERENCES 1) 8, Toran, W. Bangad, and D. Fox, Probate Roboce. Insligent robots and autonomous agens, The MIT Press, Aug. 2005 (2) J Borenstein aud Feng, "Unbmarke A benchmark test for measuring domeuy errors in mobile robot 1995, (3) T Abbi, M. Ad and W. Almed, *Meautement and comection of astemiie odomcty sors cased by Kinematics inpefectons in tmobile robots” in SICELICASE, 2008. Inernaional lint Conference, pp. 2073-2078, 2006, 4] KS, Chong and I, Kleeman, “Accurate odometry and ero modelling for a mobil rbot” in Robuies and Audamation, 1997. Proceedings 1997 IEEE Intemational Confrence on. vol. 9p. 2783-2788 vol locahzation and odomety caibrton for mobile robo” ia Ineligent Robots and Satems, 200% (ROS 2003). Procedings. 2008 IEBERS? Inerational Conference on, vl. 2. pp. 1499-1804 val 2, 2003, (6) D. Caltbiano, G- Muscat, and FRws0, “Localization and Sele Calton of Robot for Valeano Exploration,” a International Com Jerence om Robotics and Automation, vo. 1, pp. S85-391, 2008 man encoder tle” International Conference om Intelligent Ratt fand Systems, vol 1 pp. 127-134, 1994 8) DIM Heimick, SL Rounliois, ¥.Cheag. D. S. Clouse. M. Bae sacha, and LH. Mathes, "Slig-eompentated pu following for Planetary exploration rovers” ddaneed Robotics, vel. 20, 2008 nd odomeary sl elation for mobile abot" Auton Robt, vol. 22 0.1 pp. 75-85, 2007, 10) E. 1. Kreinar, “Filer-Based Slip Detection for a Complete-Coverage Robot! Maver’ thesis, Case Westra Reserve Universi 2013. 11) A. Gelb, Applied optimal esumation. MET Press, 1974 12) FE Kiiy and M. Buchles “Three extended Kalan Ser fr mobile robot localization,” 2002 15] P Bootifat and G. Garcia, “A muliseasor localization algorithm for mobile robots and i realtime experimental validation” ia Int Conf fn Robotice and Automation, 1996, vl. 2. pp. 1395-140 vol2. 1996 1M) C. Wang, ‘Location estimation and neeriaty analyis fr mobile robots In Con on Robotics and Automation 1988, pp 1231-1235, 15] D.W. A. Tylor, W-7 Pastner, and B, D. Farnsworth, ‘Preison ranging 2s an aid to integrate navigation systems” in Proceeds of| ‘he 25d Intemational Technical Meeting of The Sele Dssin of the Insite of Navigation (ON GNSS 2010), yp. 2S08-2512, September 20, 16) B.D. Faraoworth and D.W. A. Taylor, “High precision narow-band x ranging” in Proceeding of the 2010 International Technol Meeting of The Intute of Sovigation, pp. VSI-195, Jay 2010, 1129