Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

MAC: Graph Sparsification by Maximizing Algebraic Connectivity (2403.19879v2)

Published 28 Mar 2024 in cs.RO

Abstract: Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) is a critical capability in autonomous navigation, but memory and computational limits make long-term application of common SLAM techniques impractical; a robot must be able to determine what information should be retained and what can safely be forgotten. In graph-based SLAM, the number of edges (measurements) in a pose graph determines both the memory requirements of storing a robot's observations and the computational expense of algorithms deployed for performing state estimation using those observations, both of which can grow unbounded during long-term navigation. Motivated by these challenges, we propose a new general purpose approach to sparsify graphs in a manner that maximizes algebraic connectivity, a key spectral property of graphs which has been shown to control the estimation error of pose graph SLAM solutions. Our algorithm, MAC (for maximizing algebraic connectivity), is simple and computationally inexpensive, and admits formal post hoc performance guarantees on the quality of the solution that it provides. In application to the problem of pose-graph SLAM, we show on several benchmark datasets that our approach quickly produces high-quality sparsification results which retain the connectivity of the graph and, in turn, the quality of corresponding SLAM solutions.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (49)
  1. D. M. Rosen, K. J. Doherty, A. T. Espinoza, and J. J. Leonard, “Advances in Inference and Representation for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 215–242, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-control-072720-082553
  2. N. Carlevaris-Bianco and R. M. Eustice, “Long-term simultaneous localization and mapping with generic linear constraint node removal,” in IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Tokyo, Japan, Nov. 2013.
  3. ——, “Conservative edge sparsification for graph SLAM node removal,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2014, pp. 854–860.
  4. H. Johannsson, M. Kaess, M. Fallon, and J. Leonard, “Temporally scalable visual SLAM using a reduced pose graph,” in RSS Workshop on Long-term Operation of Autonomous Robotic Systems in Changing Environments, Sydney, Australia, Jul. 2012, available as MIT CSAIL Technical Report MIT-CSAIL-TR-2012-013.
  5. G. Kurz, M. Holoch, and P. Biber, “Geometry-based graph pruning for lifelong SLAM,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.01286, 2021.
  6. H. Kretzschmar and C. Stachniss, “Information-theoretic compression of pose graphs for laser-based SLAM,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1219–1230, 2012.
  7. N. Boumal, A. Singer, P.-A. Absil, and V. D. Blondel, “Cramér–Rao bounds for synchronization of rotations,” Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–39, 2014.
  8. Y. Chen, S. Huang, L. Zhao, and G. Dissanayake, “Cramér–Rao bounds and optimal design metrics for pose-graph SLAM,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 627–641, 2021.
  9. K. Khosoussi, S. Huang, and G. Dissanayake, “Novel insights into the impact of graph structure on SLAM,” in 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.   IEEE, 2014, pp. 2707–2714.
  10. D. M. Rosen, L. Carlone, A. S. Bandeira, and J. J. Leonard, “SE-Sync: A certifiably correct algorithm for synchronization over the special Euclidean group,” Intl. J. of Robotics Research, vol. 38, no. 2-3, pp. 95–125, 2019.
  11. K. J. Doherty, D. M. Rosen, and J. J. Leonard, “Performance Guarantees for Spectral Initialization in Rotation Averaging and Pose-Graph SLAM,” in IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022.
  12. D. A. Spielman and S.-H. Teng, “Spectral sparsification of graphs,” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 981–1025, 2011.
  13. D. Mosk-Aoyama, “Maximum algebraic connectivity augmentation is NP-hard,” Operations Research Letters, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 677–679, 2008.
  14. A. Ghosh and S. Boyd, “Growing well-connected graphs,” in Proceedings of the 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.   IEEE, 2006, pp. 6605–6611.
  15. K. J. Doherty, D. M. Rosen, and J. J. Leonard, “Spectral Measurement Sparsification for Pose-Graph SLAM,” in IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2022.
  16. P.-Y. Lajoie and G. Beltrame, “Swarm-SLAM: Sparse decentralized collaborative simultaneous localization and mapping framework for multi-robot systems,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 475–482, 2024.
  17. P. Kaveti, M. Giamou, H. Singh, and D. M. Rosen, “OASIS: Optimal Arrangements for Sensing in SLAM,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10698, 2023.
  18. J. Nam, S. Hyeon, Y. Joo, D. Noh, and H. Shim, “Spectral trade-off for measurement sparsification of pose-graph SLAM,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 723–730, 2023.
  19. K. Khosoussi, M. Giamou, G. S. Sukhatme, S. Huang, G. Dissanayake, and J. P. How, “Reliable graphs for SLAM,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 38, no. 2-3, pp. 260–298, 2019.
  20. S. Boyd, “Convex optimization of graph Laplacian eigenvalues,” in Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, vol. 3, no. 1-3.   Citeseer, 2006, pp. 1311–1319.
  21. M. Fiedler, “Algebraic connectivity of graphs,” Czechoslovak mathematical journal, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 298–305, 1973.
  22. A. S. Lewis and M. L. Overton, “Eigenvalue optimization,” Acta numerica, vol. 5, pp. 149–190, 1996.
  23. A. S. Lewis, “The mathematics of eigenvalue optimization,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 97, no. 1, pp. 155–176, 2003.
  24. A. Shapiro and M. K. Fan, “On eigenvalue optimization,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 552–569, 1995.
  25. H. Nagarajan, “On maximizing weighted algebraic connectivity for synthesizing robust networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.07825, 2018.
  26. N. Somisetty, H. Nagarajan, and S. Darbha, “Optimal robust network design: Formulations and algorithms for maximizing algebraic connectivity,” arXiv preprint:2304.08571, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.08571
  27. G. Huang, M. Kaess, and J. Leonard, “Consistent sparsification for graph optimization,” in Proc. of European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR), Barcelona, Spain, Sep. 25–27, 2013, pp. 150–157.
  28. Y. Tian and J. P. How, “Spectral sparsification for communication-efficient collaborative rotation and translation estimation,” IEEE Trans. Robotics, 2023.
  29. A. Kim and R. Eustice, “Toward AUV survey design for optimal coverage and localization using the Cramer Rao lower bound,” in Proc. of the IEEE/MTS OCEANS Conf. and Exhibition, 2009.
  30. A. Papalia, N. Thumma, and J. Leonard, “Prioritized planning for cooperative range-only localization in multi-robot networks,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 10 753–10 759.
  31. F. Dellaert, D. M. Rosen, J. Wu, R. Mahony, and L. Carlone, “Shonan rotation averaging: Global optimality by surfing SO(p)nn{}^{\mbox{n}}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT n end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT,” in European Conference on Computer Vision.   Springer, 2020, pp. 292–308.
  32. J. C. Dunn and S. Harshbarger, “Conditional gradient algorithms with open loop step size rules,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 432–444, 1978.
  33. M. Manguoglu, E. Cox, F. Saied, and A. Sameh, “TRACEMIN-Fiedler: A parallel algorithm for computing the Fiedler vector,” in International Conference on High Performance Computing for Computational Science.   Springer, 2010, pp. 449–455.
  34. A. H. Sameh and J. A. Wisniewski, “A trace minimization algorithm for the generalized eigenvalue problem,” SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1243–1259, 1982.
  35. W. G. Madow, “On the Theory of Systematic Sampling, II,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 333–354, 1949.
  36. D. Paria and A. Sinha, “LeadCache: Regret-Optimal Caching in Networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 4435–4447, 2021.
  37. S. Lacoste-Julien, M. Jaggi, M. Schmidt, and P. Pletscher, “Block-coordinate frank-wolfe optimization for structural svms,” in International Conference on Machine Learning.   PMLR, 2013, pp. 53–61.
  38. Y. Chen, T. A. Davis, W. W. Hager, and S. Rajamanickam, “Algorithm 887: Cholmod, supernodal sparse cholesky factorization and update/downdate,” ACM Trans. Math. Softw., vol. 35, no. 3, oct 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/1391989.1391995
  39. N. Carlevaris-Bianco, A. K. Ushani, and R. M. Eustice, “University of Michigan North Campus long-term vision and lidar dataset,” International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 1023–1035, 2015.
  40. A. Krause and D. Golovin, “Submodular function maximization,” Tractability, vol. 3, no. 71-104, p. 3, 2014.
  41. M. Minoux, “Accelerated greedy algorithms for maximizing submodular set functions,” in Optimization Techniques: Proceedings of the 8th IFIP Conference on Optimization Techniques Würzburg, September 5–9, 1977.   Springer, 2005, pp. 234–243.
  42. W. Xu, Y. Cai, D. He, J. Lin, and F. Zhang, “Fast-LIO2: Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry,” IEEE Trans. Robotics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2053–2073, 2022.
  43. G. Kim and A. Kim, “Scan context: Egocentric spatial descriptor for place recognition within 3d point cloud map,” in IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2018, pp. 4802–4809.
  44. Y. Huang, T. Shan, F. Chen, and B. Englot, “DiSCo-SLAM: Distributed scan context-enabled multi-robot lidar SLAM with two-stage global-local graph optimization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1150–1157, 2021.
  45. F. Dellaert, “Factor graphs and GTSAM: A hands-on introduction,” Georgia Institute of Technology, Tech. Rep., 2012.
  46. C. Garner, G. Lerman, and S. Zhang, “Spectrally Constrained Optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04069, 2023.
  47. L. Carlone, Z. Kira, C. Beall, V. Indelman, and F. Dellaert, “Eliminating conditionally independent sets in factor graphs: A unifying perspective based on smart factors,” in Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014 IEEE International Conference on.   IEEE, 2014, pp. 4290–4297.
  48. A. Loukas, “Graph reduction with spectral and cut guarantees.” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 20, no. 116, pp. 1–42, 2019.
  49. M. L. Overton and R. S. Womersley, “Optimality conditions and duality theory for minimizing sums of the largest eigenvalues of symmetric matrices,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 321–357, 1993.

Summary

  • The paper introduces a convex relaxation method for graph sparsification by maximizing algebraic connectivity to improve SLAM state estimation.
  • It employs the Frank-Wolfe algorithm for efficient edge selection, outperforming existing sparsification techniques.
  • Experimental results show that MAC maintains high estimation accuracy while significantly reducing computational overhead in robotics applications.

Maximizing Algebraic Connectivity for Graph Sparsification via a Convex Relaxation Approach

Introduction

Graph-based methods play a crucial role in various applications across robotics and computer vision, notably including the field of Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM). A fundamental issue in SLAM is the management of computational resources, where a robot must judiciously decide which pieces of information are crucial for accurate state estimation and which can be safely discarded. This paper introduces a novel graph sparsification technique aimed at retaining the most informative subset of edges within a pose graph by maximizing its algebraic connectivity. Through a convex relaxation strategy, the proposed Maximizing Algebraic Connectivity (MAC) algorithm achieves this goal efficiently and with formal performance guarantees.

Graph Sparsification and Algebraic Connectivity

Graph sparsification seeks to reduce the complexity of a graph while preserving its essential characteristics. In the context of SLAM, this equates to selecting a subset of all available measurements (edges) that maintains the estimation quality. Central to this process is the concept of algebraic connectivity, a spectral property of the graph's Laplacian, which correlates directly with the graph's robustness and the accuracy of the estimation it supports.

The algebraic connectivity of a graph is defined as the second smallest eigenvalue of its Laplacian matrix. A higher value indicates a more robustly connected graph, which in turn implies a better-posed estimation problem in SLAM. The problem of maximizing this algebraic connectivity, subject to a constraint on the number of edges, forms the crux of the MAC algorithm.

The MAC Algorithm: A Spectral Approach

Given the NP-Hard nature of directly maximizing algebraic connectivity, MAC adopts a convex relaxation approach, transforming the original combinatorial problem into a tractable convex optimization problem. This relaxation involves allowing the solution space to include fractional edge selections, leading to a concave maximization problem over a convex set. Specifically, MAC maximizes a relaxation of the algebraic connectivity over the set of graphs formed by any convex combination of the candidate edges subject to a fixed budget.

The core of the MAC algorithm is the application of the Frank-Wolfe algorithm, a first-order optimization method that iteratively linearizes the objective function and solves a linear program over the convex set at each step. This method is particularly suitable due to its simplicity and efficiency in exploiting the problem structure, including the ability to leverage efficient eigenvalue computations and the inherent sparsity of the solution space.

Experimental Results and Implications

The efficacy of MAC is demonstrated through extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world SLAM datasets. These experiments highlight MAC's capability to produce sparsified graphs that closely approximate the connectivity of the original graph, thereby enabling high-quality state estimation with reduced computational overhead. Notably, the proposed method outperforms existing sparsification techniques in terms of preserving algebraic connectivity and consequently the fidelity of the SLAM solution.

Practical applications of the MAC algorithm extend beyond SLAM, including sensor network optimization, communication-constrained multi-robot systems, and incremental sparsification for lifelong SLAM. Furthermore, the introduction of formal suboptimality guarantees provides a foundation for future theoretical exploration, particularly in understanding the relationship between the algebraic connectivity of the solution to the convex relaxation and the original combinatorial problem.

Conclusion

The Maximizing Algebraic Connectivity algorithm represents a significant advancement in graph sparsification for robotics applications, particularly in the domain of SLAM. By efficiently maximizing the algebraic connectivity of a graph, MAC ensures that essential information is retained for accurate state estimation while minimizing computational requirements. The approach's generality, coupled with its formal performance guarantees, establishes a solid groundwork for further research and practical implementation in resource-constrained robotic systems.

Future developments may explore adaptive and incremental sparsification strategies, alternative formulations to accommodate varying constraints, and extensions to other problem domains where graph structure influences system performance.