2022
DOI: 10.1109/mits.2021.3092731
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Point Wise or Feature Wise? A Benchmark Comparison of Publicly Available Lidar Odometry Algorithms in Urban Canyons

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The second step matches the current scan and the point cloud map (scan-to-map) to mitigate the error estimation arising from scan-to-scan. According to our previous research [29], this computational load and accuracy of LOAM outperform other methods in highly urbanized areas.…”
Section: Pv-rcnn Training and Detectionsupporting
confidence: 52%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The second step matches the current scan and the point cloud map (scan-to-map) to mitigate the error estimation arising from scan-to-scan. According to our previous research [29], this computational load and accuracy of LOAM outperform other methods in highly urbanized areas.…”
Section: Pv-rcnn Training and Detectionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…We labeled the dynamic objects such as cars and buses in the datasets to explore how the dynamic objects affecting the position error. The density of dynamic objects factor [29] is defined as,…”
Section: Lidar Odometrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This section discusses the results obtained comparing different pose estimation algorithms. For this purpose, we selected a set of approaches among the most popular for both vision-based (see Legittimo et al, 2023) and LIDAR-based (see Huang et al, 2022;Jonnavithula et al, 2021) pose estimation. In particular, we considered:…”
Section: Robot Pose Estimationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This section discusses the results obtained comparing different pose estimation algorithms. For this purpose, we selected a set of approaches among the most popular for both vision‐based (see Legittimo et al, 2023) and LIDAR‐based (see Huang et al, 2022; Jonnavithula et al, 2021) pose estimation. In particular, we considered: Direct Sparse Odometry (DSO) (Engel et al, 2017) and ORB‐SLAM2 Mono (Mur‐Artal & Tardós, 2017) for monocular camera setups; VINS‐Mono (Qin et al, 2018) for monocular‐inertial setups; ORB‐SLAM2 Stereo (Mur‐Artal & Tardós, 2017) for stereo‐camera setups; Open‐VINS (Geneva et al, 2020) for stereo‐inertial setups; FLOAM (Wang et al, 2020) and LeGO‐LOAM (Shan & Englot, 2018) for LIDAR‐based setups.We performed comparative experiments on a selection of eight sequences, considering two sequences for each cultivation field.…”
Section: Applicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to a recent evaluation in [24], better positioning accuracy and robustness are obtained based on the assessment using typical autonomous driving datasets collected by the 360 • rotating mechanical LiDAR. As a result, the NDT-based map matching was employed in a wide range of autonomous driving applications [25][26][27][28]. Unfortunately, all these LiDAR matching-based localization mainly relied on the mechanical 3D LiDAR which is too expensive for massive deployment in ADVs.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%