Quantitative Evaluation of Feature Extractors for Visual SLAM
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a performance evaluation framework for visual feature extraction and matching in the visual simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) context. Although feature extraction is a crucial component, no qualitative study comparing different techniques from the visual SLAM perspective exists. We extend previous image pair evaluation methods to handle non-planar scenes and the multiple image sequence requirements of our application, and compare three popular feature extractors used in visual SLAM: the Harris corner detector, the Kanade-Lucas-Tomasi tracker (KLT), and the scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT). We present results from a typical indoor environment in the form of recall/precision curves, and also investigate the effect of increasing distance between image viewpoints on extractor performance. Our results show that all methods can be made to perform well, although it is possible to distinguish between the three. We conclude by presenting guidelines for selecting a feature extractor for visual SLAM based on our experiments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it