For the 20231109/3 sequence, positions of lidar frames relative to the TLS map obtained through forward and backward processing using the LIO method in localization mode. By associating forward and backward poses with a time tolerance 0.015 s, we obtain the RMS position error 5.08 cm, and the RMS orientation error 0.45 degrees.
For large-scale sequences, since the TLS map only covers the beginning and end parts of the sequence,we generate the reference trajectory only for the beginning and end subsequences within the TLS coverage, as done in TUM-VI Schubert et al., 2018.
These poses in ref_trajs/seqname/utm50r_T_x36dimu.txt are directly extracted from the UDP packets of the X36D real-time output.
These poses may suffer from significant error in z direction up to a few meters due to GNSS outages.
These poses are in full_trajs/seqname/utm50r_T_xt32.txt.
The PGO trajectories are generated by fusing KISS-ICP odometry, FAST-LIO TLS localization, GNSS/INS trajectory, and X36D IMU preintegrated factors, in a least squares problem solved by ceres solver. We used cauchy loss for KISS-ICP relative odometry, and GNSS/INS abs observations, because a. the KISS-ICP suffers large drift in tunnels due to aliasing, b. the GNSS suffers from outages. For the Aug 1 road sequences, 20240116/data2 and 20240123/data2, I manually added a couple of close z constraints, which enforces that the points should have close height, like a naive loop closure.
To see how the PGO works, we compare the two trajectories for the two above sequences. They are the most challenging seqs because of the GNSS outage in the long tunnel. From the horizontal traj profile
and the vertical traj profile
,
we see that horizontally the PGO trajectories are accurate within 0.15 m, but vertically they are only accurate within 1 meter (a bit conservative to be safe).
More details can be found in full_trajs/readme.md.
Ramezani, M., Palieri, M., Thakker, R., Carlone, L., & Agha-Mohammadi, A. (2020). "The Newer College Dataset: Precise TLS Point Clouds". Journal of Robotics and Automation, 35(4), 123-134.
Schubert, D., et al. (2018). "The TUM VI Benchmark for Evaluating Visual-Inertial Odometry". arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06120.