对比点到点与点到特征ICP在激光惯性里程计中的表现
LiPO: LiDAR Inertial Odometry for ICP Comparison
- 构建LiPO框架,直接比较不同ICP方法
- 点到特征法漂移更小,地图精度更高
- 点到点法更稳定,适应性更强
本文提出LiPO框架,用于直接比较激光惯性里程计(LIO)中不同的迭代最近点(ICP)点云配准方法。对比了点到点(P2P)和点到特征(P2F)两种常见ICP方法。实验表明,在复杂环境中机器人高速运动时,P2F-ICP相比P2P-ICP具有更少的漂移和更高的建图精度;但P2F-ICP需更多人工调参,泛化能力较差。而P2P-ICP虽有稍大漂移,但在各类环境与运动下表现更一致,漂移增长小。研究通过在基准数据集及自建无人地面车辆(UGV)上测试,量化了二者权衡关系,为实际应用中选择方法提供依据。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
We introduce a LiDAR inertial odometry (LIO) framework, called LiPO, that enables direct comparisons of different iterative closest point (ICP) point cloud registration methods. The two common ICP methods we compare are point-to-point (P2P) and point-to-feature (P2F). In our experience, within the context of LIO, P2F-ICP results in less drift and improved mapping accuracy when robots move aggressively through challenging environments when compared to P2P-ICP. However, P2F-ICP methods require more hand-tuned hyper-parameters that make P2F-ICP less general across all environments and motions. In real-world field robotics applications where robots are used across different environments, more general P2P-ICP methods may be preferred despite increased drift. In this paper, we seek to better quantify the trade-off between P2P-ICP and P2F-ICP to help inform when each method should be used. To explore this trade-off, we use LiPO to directly compare ICP methods and test on relevant benchmark datasets as well as on our custom unpiloted ground vehicle (UGV). We find that overall, P2F-ICP has reduced drift and improved mapping accuracy, but, P2P-ICP is more consistent across all environments and motions with minimal drift increase.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。