LiDAR and Visual Perception-Based Indoor Semantic Mapping: Comparative Study of GMapping and SLAM Toolbox
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57152/malcom.v6i1.2521Keywords:
Robot Navigation, Robotics, Semantic Mapping, Sensor Fusion, SLAMAbstract
This study investigates semantic embedding strategies for indoor mapping by comparing Trajectory-Based Payload Embedding (TPE) in GMapping and Pose-Based Payload Embedding (PPE) in SLAM Toolbox. A custom Turtlebot3 platform equipped with a 2D LiDAR and six RGB cameras was used in the Gazebo simulation to acquire geometric and visual data. Object segmentation results from YOLOv11 were integrated into occupancy grids using two distinct embedding workflows: scan-level batch attachment in TPE and point-level graph persistence in PPE. Performance evaluation employed two metrics: pixel-level accuracy and time cost under three varied velocity conditions, followed by a comparative analysis. Results show that PPE achieved higher accuracy (mean 86.83%) and lower variability, while maintaining negligible time cost (<0.5 ms). TPE, although simpler to implement, exhibited greater sensitivity to motion dynamics and higher computational variability (average 350.47 ms). These findings highlight a trade-off between accuracy and efficiency, suggesting PPE as the more suitable approach for real-time semantic SLAM, while TPE remains useful for lightweight integration scenarios. Beyond quantitative results, the study contributes methodological insights into how embedding granularity and persistence affect semantic consistency, offering guidance for future implementations in both simulated and real-world robotic navigation.
Downloads
References
A. A. Fikri and L. Anifah, “Mapping And Positioning System On Omnidirectional Robot Using Simultaneous Localization And Mapping (Slam) Method Based On Lidar,” J. Teknol., vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 41–52, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.11113/jurnalteknologi.v83.16918.
P. S. Laksono and T. M. Kusuma, “Performance Analysis Of Hector Slam And Gmapping For Navigation For Mobile Robot Navigation,” Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi dan Rekayasa, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 144–153, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.35760/tr.2022.v27i2.6063.
Y. Ran, X. Xu, Z. Tan, and M. Luo, “A Review of 2D Lidar SLAM Research,” Remote Sens. (Basel)., vol. 17, no. 7, p. 1214, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.3390/rs17071214.
Q. An et al., “Dynamic SLAM Dense Point Cloud Map by Fusion of Semantic Information and Bayesian Moving Probability,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 17, p. 5304, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.3390/s25175304.
J. Li, R. Zhang, Y. Liu, Z. Zhang, R. Fan, and W. Liu, “The Method of Static Semantic Map Construction Based on Instance Segmentation and Dynamic Point Elimination,” Electronics (Basel)., vol. 10, no. 16, p. 1883, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.3390/electronics10161883.
A. Tourani, H. Bavle, J. L. Sanchez-Lopez, and H. Voos, “Visual SLAM: What Are the Current Trends and What to Expect?,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 23, p. 9297, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22239297.
Z. Zheng, K. Su, S. Lin, Z. Fu, and C. Yang, “Development of vision–based SLAM: from traditional methods to multimodal fusion,” Robotic Intelligence and Automation, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 529–548, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1108/RIA-10-2023-0142.
M. R. Hanafi, M. A. Faadhilah, M. T. Dwi Putra, and D. Pradeka, “Comparison Analysis of Bubble Sort Algorithm with Tim Sort Algorithm Sorting Against the Amount of Data,” Journal of Computer Engineering, Electronics and Information Technology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29–38, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.17509/coelite.v1i1.43794.
A. Adiwilaga, I. Taufikurrahman, E. Hidayat, and B. R. Trilaksono, “Design of a modular, compact, long endurance autonomous underwater vehicle with gliding capabilities for research purpose operations,” in 2017 2nd International Conference on Control and Robotics Engineering (ICCRE), IEEE, Apr. 2017, pp. 150–154. doi: 10.1109/ICCRE.2017.7935060.
Q. U. Islam, H. Ibrahim, P. K. Chin, K. Lim, and M. Z. Abdullah, “MVS?SLAM: Enhanced multiview geometry for improved semantic RGBD SLAM in dynamic environment,” J. Field Robot., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 109–130, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1002/rob.22248.
Y. Lu, H. Wang, J. Sun, and J. A. Zhang, “Enhanced Simultaneous Localization and Mapping Algorithm Based on Deep Learning for Highly Dynamic Environment,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 8, p. 2539, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.3390/s25082539.
Y. Sun et al., “Multi-Objective Location and Mapping Based on Deep Learning and Visual Slam,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 19, p. 7576, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22197576.
Z. Li, J. Zhao, X. Zhou, S. Wei, P. Li, and F. Shuang, “RTSDM: A Real-Time Semantic Dense Mapping System for UAVs,” Machines, vol. 10, no. 4, p. 285, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3390/machines10040285.
F. Wang, L. Zhao, Z. Xu, H. Liang, and Q. Zhang, “LDVI-SLAM: a lightweight monocular visual-inertial SLAM system for dynamic environments based on motion constraints,” Meas. Sci. Technol., vol. 35, no. 12, p. 126301, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1088/1361-6501/ad71e7.
Y. Wu et al., “An FPGA Based Energy Efficient DS-SLAM Accelerator for Mobile Robots in Dynamic Environment,” Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 1828, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.3390/app11041828.
Q. Ji, Z. Zhang, Y. Chen, and E. Zheng, “DRV-SLAM: An Adaptive Real-Time Semantic Visual SLAM Based on Instance Segmentation Toward Dynamic Environments,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 43827–43837, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3379269.
Y. Shen and X. Zhang, “A dynamic SLAM system with YOLOv7 segmentation and geometric constraints for indoor environments,” Robotica, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 2527–2545, Jul. 2025, doi: 10.1017/S0263574725101823.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhammad Salam Pararta Saragi, Deden Pradeka, Anugrah Adiwilaga, Dyah Kusuma Dewi, Roni Permana Saputra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright © by Author; Published by Institut Riset dan Publikasi Indonesia (IRPI)
This Indonesian Journal of Machine Learning and Computer Science is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
