In this paper, we address the problem of creating an objective benchmark for comparing SLAM approaches. We propose a framework for analyzing the results of SLAM approaches based on a metric for measuring the error of the corrected trajectory. The metric uses only relative relations between poses and does not rely on a global reference frame. The idea is related to graph-based SLAM approaches in the sense that it considers the energy needed to deform the trajectory estimated by a SLAM approach to the ground truth trajectory. Our method enables us to compare SLAM approaches that use different estimation techniques or different sensor modalities since all computations are made based on the corrected trajectory of the robot. We provide sets of relative relations needed to compute our metric for an extensive set of datasets frequently used in the SLAM community. The relations have been obtained by manually matching laser-range observations. We believe that our benchmarking framework allows the user an easy analysis and objective comparisons between different SLAM approaches. © 2009 IEEE.

A comparison of SLAM algorithms based on a graph of relations / Wolfram, Burgard; Cyrill, Stachniss; Grisetti, Giorgio; Bastian, Steder; R., Kuemmerle; Christian, Dornhege; Michael, Ruhnke; Alexander, Kleiner; Juan D., Tardos. - (2009), pp. 2089-2095. (Intervento presentato al convegno 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2009 tenutosi a St. Louis, MO, USA nel 11 October 2009 through 15 October 2009) [10.1109/iros.2009.5354691].

A comparison of SLAM algorithms based on a graph of relations

GRISETTI, GIORGIO;
2009

Abstract

In this paper, we address the problem of creating an objective benchmark for comparing SLAM approaches. We propose a framework for analyzing the results of SLAM approaches based on a metric for measuring the error of the corrected trajectory. The metric uses only relative relations between poses and does not rely on a global reference frame. The idea is related to graph-based SLAM approaches in the sense that it considers the energy needed to deform the trajectory estimated by a SLAM approach to the ground truth trajectory. Our method enables us to compare SLAM approaches that use different estimation techniques or different sensor modalities since all computations are made based on the corrected trajectory of the robot. We provide sets of relative relations needed to compute our metric for an extensive set of datasets frequently used in the SLAM community. The relations have been obtained by manually matching laser-range observations. We believe that our benchmarking framework allows the user an easy analysis and objective comparisons between different SLAM approaches. © 2009 IEEE.
2009
2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2009
04 Pubblicazione in atti di convegno::04b Atto di convegno in volume
A comparison of SLAM algorithms based on a graph of relations / Wolfram, Burgard; Cyrill, Stachniss; Grisetti, Giorgio; Bastian, Steder; R., Kuemmerle; Christian, Dornhege; Michael, Ruhnke; Alexander, Kleiner; Juan D., Tardos. - (2009), pp. 2089-2095. (Intervento presentato al convegno 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2009 tenutosi a St. Louis, MO, USA nel 11 October 2009 through 15 October 2009) [10.1109/iros.2009.5354691].
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
VE_2009_11573-218597.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 819.24 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
819.24 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/218597
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 103
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 49
social impact