A review of feature detection and match algorithms for localization and mapping

Localization and mapping is an essential ability of a robot to keep track of its own location in an unknown environment. Among existing methods for this purpose, vision-based methods are more effective solutions for being accurate, inexpensive and versatile. Vision-based methods can generally be categorized as feature-based approaches and appearance-based approaches. The feature-based approaches prove higher performance in textured scenarios. However, their performance depend highly on the applied feature-detection algorithms. In this paper, we surveyed algorithms for feature detection, which is an essential step in achieving vision-based localization and mapping. In this pater, we present mathematical models of the algorithms one after another. To compare the performances of the algorithms, we conducted a series of experiments on their accuracy, speed, scale invariance and rotation invariance. The results of the experiments showed that ORB is the fastest algorithm in detecting and matching features, the speed of which is more than 10 times that of SURF and approximately 40 times that of SIFT. And SIFT, although with no advantage in terms of speed, shows the most correct matching pairs and proves its accuracy.

[1]  Pierre Vandergheynst,et al.  FREAK: Fast Retina Keypoint , 2012, 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[2]  Huiyu Zhou,et al.  Object tracking using SIFT features and mean shift , 2009, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[3]  Carlo Tomasi,et al.  Good features to track , 1994, 1994 Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[4]  Jiri Matas,et al.  Robust wide-baseline stereo from maximally stable extremal regions , 2004, Image Vis. Comput..

[5]  Adam Finkelstein,et al.  PatchMatch: a randomized correspondence algorithm for structural image editing , 2009, SIGGRAPH 2009.

[6]  Luc Van Gool,et al.  SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features , 2006, ECCV.

[7]  James J. Little,et al.  Mobile Robot Localization and Mapping with Uncertainty using Scale-Invariant Visual Landmarks , 2002, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[8]  Gary R. Bradski,et al.  ORB: An efficient alternative to SIFT or SURF , 2011, 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision.

[9]  C. Floyd,et al.  Characterization of difference of Gaussian filters in the detection of mammographic regions. , 2006, Medical physics.

[10]  Roland Siegwart,et al.  BRISK: Binary Robust invariant scalable keypoints , 2011, 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision.

[11]  J. Goldberg,et al.  SIFT: Design and analysis of a fault-tolerant computer for aircraft control , 1978, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[12]  Mohammad H. Marhaban,et al.  Review of visual odometry: types, approaches, challenges, and applications , 2016, SpringerPlus.

[13]  David G. Lowe,et al.  Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints , 2004, International Journal of Computer Vision.

[14]  S. Govindarajulu,et al.  A Comparison of SIFT, PCA-SIFT and SURF , 2012 .

[15]  Tom Drummond,et al.  Machine Learning for High-Speed Corner Detection , 2006, ECCV.

[16]  Christopher G. Harris,et al.  A Combined Corner and Edge Detector , 1988, Alvey Vision Conference.