Fig 1.
System framework.
Fig 2.
Illustration of the time distribution.
Table 1.
Error comparison in the KITTI datasets (in units of meters).
Fig 3.
The experimental results on M2DGR dataset.
Our method displays a solid red line trajectory, with the ground truth as a black dashed line, LOAM’s estimate as a solid green line, and F-LOAM’s trajectory represented by a solid blue line for comparison. (a) The trajectory of the street06 sequence. (b) error distribution on the x, y, z axes in the street06 sequence. (c) APE result on street06 sequence. (d) The trajectory of the street08 sequence. (e) error distribution on the x, y, z axes in the street08 sequence. (f) APE result on street08 sequence.
Table 2.
Error comparison in the M2DGR datasets (in units of meters).
Fig 4.
The mapping results on the dataset sequences.
Fig 5.
The dense mapping results on the KITTI Seq 00 (part).
Fig 6.
The scan matching results on the KITTI sequences.
Fig 7.
The cost time of scan matching process on the KITTI sequences.
Fig 8.
The scan matching results KITTI LiDAR scans.
Fig 9.
The map maintenance results in local map.