RTAB‐Map as an open‐source lidar and visual simultaneous localization and mapping library for large‐scale and long‐term online operation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Distributed as an open‐source library since 2013, real‐time appearance‐based mapping (RTAB‐Map) started as an appearance‐based loop closure detection approach with memory management to deal with large‐scale and long‐term online operation. It then grew to implement simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) on various robots and mobile platforms. As each application brings its own set of constraints on sensors, processing capabilities, and locomotion, it raises the question of which SLAM approach is the most appropriate to use in terms of cost, accuracy, computation power, and ease of integration. Since most of SLAM approaches are either visual‐ or lidar‐based, comparison is difficult. Therefore, we decided to extend RTAB‐Map to support both visual and lidar SLAM, providing in one package a tool allowing users to implement and compare a variety of 3D and 2D solutions for a wide range of applications with different robots and sensors. This paper presents this extended version of RTAB‐Map and its use in comparing, both quantitatively and qualitatively, a large selection of popular real‐world datasets (e.g., KITTI, EuRoC, TUM RGB‐D, MIT Stata Center on PR2 robot), outlining strengths, and limitations of visual and lidar SLAM configurations from a practical perspective for autonomous navigation applications.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.039 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".