Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
117 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
8 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
47 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

NF-Atlas: Multi-Volume Neural Feature Fields for Large Scale LiDAR Mapping (2304.04624v2)

Published 10 Apr 2023 in cs.RO

Abstract: LiDAR Mapping has been a long-standing problem in robotics. Recent progress in neural implicit representation has brought new opportunities to robotic mapping. In this paper, we propose the multi-volume neural feature fields, called NF-Atlas, which bridge the neural feature volumes with pose graph optimization. By regarding the neural feature volume as pose graph nodes and the relative pose between volumes as pose graph edges, the entire neural feature field becomes both locally rigid and globally elastic. Locally, the neural feature volume employs a sparse feature Octree and a small MLP to encode the submap SDF with an option of semantics. Learning the map using this structure allows for end-to-end solving of maximum a posteriori (MAP) based probabilistic mapping. Globally, the map is built volume by volume independently, avoiding catastrophic forgetting when mapping incrementally. Furthermore, when a loop closure occurs, with the elastic pose graph based representation, only updating the origin of neural volumes is required without remapping. Finally, these functionalities of NF-Atlas are validated. Thanks to the sparsity and the optimization based formulation, NF-Atlas shows competitive performance in terms of accuracy, efficiency and memory usage on both simulation and real-world datasets.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (38)
  1. A. Hornung, K. M. Wurm, M. Bennewitz, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “Octomap: An efficient probabilistic 3d mapping framework based on octrees,” Autonomous robots, vol. 34, pp. 189–206, 2013.
  2. T. Kühner and J. Kümmerle, “Large-scale volumetric scene reconstruction using lidar,” in 2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2020, pp. 6261–6267.
  3. S. Izadi, D. Kim, O. Hilliges, D. Molyneaux, R. Newcombe, P. Kohli, J. Shotton, S. Hodges, D. Freeman, A. Davison et al., “Kinectfusion: real-time 3d reconstruction and interaction using a moving depth camera,” in Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 2011, pp. 559–568.
  4. J. J. Park, P. Florence, J. Straub, R. Newcombe, and S. Lovegrove, “Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 165–174.
  5. B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoorthi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2021.
  6. L. Mescheder, M. Oechsle, M. Niemeyer, S. Nowozin, and A. Geiger, “Occupancy networks: Learning 3d reconstruction in function space,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 4460–4470.
  7. Z. Zhu, S. Peng, V. Larsson, W. Xu, H. Bao, Z. Cui, M. R. Oswald, and M. Pollefeys, “Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 12 786–12 796.
  8. A. Yu, S. Fridovich-Keil, M. Tancik, Q. Chen, B. Recht, and A. Kanazawa, “Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.05131, 2021.
  9. J. Sun, X. Chen, Q. Wang, Z. Li, H. Averbuch-Elor, X. Zhou, and N. Snavely, “Neural 3d reconstruction in the wild,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 Conference Proceedings, 2022, pp. 1–9.
  10. D. Azinović, R. Martin-Brualla, D. B. Goldman, M. Nießner, and J. Thies, “Neural rgb-d surface reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 6290–6301.
  11. J. Wang, T. Bleja, and L. Agapito, “Go-surf: Neural feature grid optimization for fast, high-fidelity rgb-d surface reconstruction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14735, 2022.
  12. J. Ortiz, A. Clegg, J. Dong, E. Sucar, D. Novotny, M. Zollhoefer, and M. Mukadam, “isdf: Real-time neural signed distance fields for robot perception,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02296, 2022.
  13. K. Rematas, A. Liu, P. P. Srinivasan, J. T. Barron, A. Tagliasacchi, T. Funkhouser, and V. Ferrari, “Urban radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 12 932–12 942.
  14. Y. Shi, R. Yang, P. Li, Z. Wu, H. Zhao, and G. Zhou, “City-scale incremental neural mapping with three-layer sampling and panoptic representation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14072, 2022.
  15. Y. Pan, X. Xu, X. Ding, S. Huang, Y. Wang, and R. Xiong, “Gem: online globally consistent dense elevation mapping for unstructured terrain,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 70, pp. 1–13, 2020.
  16. Y. Wang, N. Funk, M. Ramezani, S. Papatheodorou, M. Popović, M. Camurri, S. Leutenegger, and M. Fallon, “Elastic and efficient lidar reconstruction for large-scale exploration tasks,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 5035–5041.
  17. T. Whelan, M. Kaess, H. Johannsson, M. Fallon, J. J. Leonard, and J. McDonald, “Real-time large-scale dense rgb-d slam with volumetric fusion,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 34, no. 4-5, pp. 598–626, 2015.
  18. H. Oleynikova, Z. Taylor, M. Fehr, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “Voxblox: Incremental 3d euclidean signed distance fields for on-board mav planning,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2017, pp. 1366–1373.
  19. Y. Pan, Y. Kompis, L. Bartolomei, R. Mascaro, C. Stachniss, and M. Chli, “Voxfield: Non-projective signed distance fields for online planning and 3d reconstruction,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 5331–5338.
  20. I. Vizzo, T. Guadagnino, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Vdbfusion: Flexible and efficient tsdf integration of range sensor data,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 3, p. 1296, 2022.
  21. E. Vespa, N. Nikolov, M. Grimm, L. Nardi, P. H. Kelly, and S. Leutenegger, “Efficient octree-based volumetric slam supporting signed-distance and occupancy mapping,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1144–1151, 2018.
  22. X. Chen, A. Milioto, E. Palazzolo, P. Giguere, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Suma++: Efficient lidar-based semantic slam,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS).   IEEE, 2019, pp. 4530–4537.
  23. V. Vineet, O. Miksik, M. Lidegaard, M. Nießner, S. Golodetz, V. A. Prisacariu, O. Kähler, D. W. Murray, S. Izadi, P. Pérez et al., “Incremental dense semantic stereo fusion for large-scale semantic scene reconstruction,” in 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2015, pp. 75–82.
  24. L. Schmid, J. Delmerico, J. L. Schönberger, J. Nieto, M. Pollefeys, R. Siegwart, and C. Cadena, “Panoptic multi-tsdfs: a flexible representation for online multi-resolution volumetric mapping and long-term dynamic scene consistency,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 8018–8024.
  25. Y. Jiang, D. Ji, Z. Han, and M. Zwicker, “Sdfdiff: Differentiable rendering of signed distance fields for 3d shape optimization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. 1251–1261.
  26. S. Liu, Y. Zhang, S. Peng, B. Shi, M. Pollefeys, and Z. Cui, “Dist: Rendering deep implicit signed distance function with differentiable sphere tracing,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. 2019–2028.
  27. M. Niemeyer, L. Mescheder, M. Oechsle, and A. Geiger, “Differentiable volumetric rendering: Learning implicit 3d representations without 3d supervision,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020.
  28. L. Yariv, Y. Kasten, D. Moran, M. Galun, M. Atzmon, B. Ronen, and Y. Lipman, “Multiview neural surface reconstruction by disentangling geometry and appearance,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 2492–2502, 2020.
  29. P. Wang, L. Liu, Y. Liu, C. Theobalt, T. Komura, and W. Wang, “Neus: Learning neural implicit surfaces by volume rendering for multi-view reconstruction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.10689, 2021.
  30. T. Takikawa, J. Litalien, K. Yin, K. Kreis, C. Loop, D. Nowrouzezahrai, A. Jacobson, M. McGuire, and S. Fidler, “Neural geometric level of detail: Real-time rendering with implicit 3d shapes,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 11 358–11 367.
  31. T. Müller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller, “Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2022.
  32. C. Sun, M. Sun, and H.-T. Chen, “Direct voxel grid optimization: Super-fast convergence for radiance fields reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 5459–5469.
  33. E. Sucar, S. Liu, J. Ortiz, and A. J. Davison, “imap: Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 6229–6238.
  34. S. Thrun, “Probabilistic robotics,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 52–57, 2002.
  35. S. Zhi, T. Laidlow, S. Leutenegger, and A. J. Davison, “In-place scene labelling and understanding with implicit scene representation,” 2021.
  36. I. Vizzo, X. Chen, N. Chebrolu, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Poisson Surface Reconstruction for LiDAR Odometry and Mapping,” 2021. [Online]. Available: http://www.ipb.uni-bonn.de/pdfs/vizzo2021icra.pdf
  37. Y. Liao, J. Xie, and A. Geiger, “KITTI-360: A novel dataset and benchmarks for urban scene understanding in 2d and 3d,” Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), 2022.
  38. M. Helmberger, K. Morin, N. Kumar, D. Wang, Y. Yue, G. Cioffi, and D. Scaramuzza, “The hilti slam challenge dataset,” 2021.
Citations (14)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now