Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09490 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866908187332968448 |
|---|---|
| author | Filipenko, Maksim Afanasyev, Ilya |
| author_facet | Filipenko, Maksim Afanasyev, Ilya |
| contents | This article presents a comparative analysis of a mobile robot trajectories computed by various ROS-based SLAM systems. For this reason we developed a prototype of a mobile robot with common sensors: 2D lidar, a monocular and ZED stereo cameras. Then we conducted experiments in a typical office environment and collected data from all sensors, running all tested SLAM systems based on the acquired dataset. We studied the following SLAM systems: (a) 2D lidar-based: GMapping, Hector SLAM, Cartographer; (b) monocular camera-based: Large Scale Direct monocular SLAM (LSD SLAM), ORB SLAM, Direct Sparse Odometry (DSO); and (c) stereo camera-based: ZEDfu, Real-Time Appearance-Based Mapping (RTAB map), ORB SLAM, Stereo Parallel Tracking and Mapping (S-PTAM). Since all SLAM methods were tested on the same dataset we compared results for different SLAM systems with appropriate metrics, demonstrating encouraging results for lidar-based Cartographer SLAM, Monocular ORB SLAM and Stereo RTAB Map methods. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2501_09490 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Comparison of Various SLAM Systems for Mobile Robot in an Indoor Environment Filipenko, Maksim Afanasyev, Ilya Robotics Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition This article presents a comparative analysis of a mobile robot trajectories computed by various ROS-based SLAM systems. For this reason we developed a prototype of a mobile robot with common sensors: 2D lidar, a monocular and ZED stereo cameras. Then we conducted experiments in a typical office environment and collected data from all sensors, running all tested SLAM systems based on the acquired dataset. We studied the following SLAM systems: (a) 2D lidar-based: GMapping, Hector SLAM, Cartographer; (b) monocular camera-based: Large Scale Direct monocular SLAM (LSD SLAM), ORB SLAM, Direct Sparse Odometry (DSO); and (c) stereo camera-based: ZEDfu, Real-Time Appearance-Based Mapping (RTAB map), ORB SLAM, Stereo Parallel Tracking and Mapping (S-PTAM). Since all SLAM methods were tested on the same dataset we compared results for different SLAM systems with appropriate metrics, demonstrating encouraging results for lidar-based Cartographer SLAM, Monocular ORB SLAM and Stereo RTAB Map methods. |
| title | Comparison of Various SLAM Systems for Mobile Robot in an Indoor Environment |
| topic | Robotics Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.09490 |