A comparison of SLAM methods

Contents
Method Year Loosely coupled Tightly coupled filter IMU ICP NDT Features Loop closure (pose-graph optimization) Single session Multi-session Georeferencing Open source Open source LiDAR interface Real-time
Zhang et al. 2014 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
LOAM 2014 Yes Yes planar, edge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
LeGO-LOAM 2018 Yes Yes planar, edge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
LIO-SAM 2020 Yes EKF Yes planar, edge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
FAST-LIO 2020 ESKF Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
FAST-LIO2 2021 ESKF Yes planar, edge Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
FAST-LIO3 2022 ESKF Yes planar, edge, planes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
LINS 2021 Midpoint Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
R-LIO 2022 ESKF Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Notes

  • Loosely coupled vs. tightly coupled filter:
    • The distinction between loosely and tightly coupled systems is important. Loosely coupled systems process LiDAR and IMU data separately, while tightly coupled systems fuse them in a single estimation framework (e.g., EKF, ESKF, Gauss-Newton).
  • ICP (Iterative Closest Point):
    • ICP is rarely used in modern real-time LiDAR SLAM due to its computational cost. Most systems rely on feature-based or direct methods.

References

  • Modified table from Redovniković, L., Jakopec, A., Będkowski J., Jagetić, J., 2024. The affordable DIY Mandeye LiDAR system for surveying caves, and how to convert 3D clouds into traditional cave ground plans and extended profiles. International Journal of Speleology, 53(3), ijs2535. https://doi.org/10.5038/1827-806X.53.3.2535
Subscribe and receive updates, lessons, courses and more. No spam!

Get the latest updates and tips.

0%
If this helped you, it might help others too. Share: