4.7 Article

Challenging data sets for point cloud registration algorithms

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH
卷 31, 期 14, 页码 1705-1711

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0278364912458814

关键词

Field robots; field and service robotics; search and rescue robots; range sensing; sensing and perception; computer vision

类别

资金

  1. EU FP7 IP projects Natural Human-Robot Cooperation in Dynamic Environments [ICT-247870]
  2. Fonds quebecois de recherche sur la nature et les technologies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The number of registration solutions in the literature has bloomed recently. The iterative closest point, for example, could be considered as the backbone of many laser-based localization and mapping systems. Although they are widely used, it is a common challenge to compare registration solutions on a fair base. The main limitation is to overcome the lack of accurate ground truth in current data sets, which usually cover environments only over a small range of organization levels. In computer vision, the Stanford 3D Scanning Repository pushed forward point cloud registration algorithms and object modeling fields by providing high-quality scanned objects with precise localization. We aim to provide similar high-caliber working material to the robotic and computer vision communities but with sceneries instead of objects. We propose eight point cloud sequences acquired in locations covering the environment diversity that modern robots are susceptible to encounter, ranging from inside an apartment to a woodland area. The core of the data sets consists of 3D laser point clouds for which supporting data (Gravity, Magnetic North and GPS) are given for each pose. A special effort has been made to ensure global positioning of the scanner within mm-range precision, independent of environmental conditions. This will allow for the development of improved registration algorithms when mapping challenging environments, such as those found in real-world situations.(1)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据