ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparative Analysis of LiDAR-SLAM Systems: A Study of a Motorized Optomechanical LiDAR and an MEMS Scanner LiDAR.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Real-World Benchmark of Monte Carlo-Assisted EKF Odometry for Online Pose Estimation in 2D LiDAR SLAM.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) is crucial for the safe navigation of autonomous systems. Its accuracy is not based solely on the robustness of the algorithm employed or the metrological performances of the sensor, but rather on a combination of both factors. In this work, we present a comprehensive comparison framework for evaluating LiDAR-SLAM systems, focusing on key performance indicators including absolute trajectory error, uncertainty, number of tracked features, and computational time. Our case study compares two LiDAR-inertial SLAM configurations: one based on a motorized optomechanical scanner (the Ouster OS1) with a 360° field of view and the other based on MEMS scanners (the Livox Horizon) with a limited field of view and a non-repetitive scanning pattern. The sensors were mounted on a UGV for the experiments, where data were collected by driving the UGV along a predefined path at different speeds and angles. Despite substantial differences in field of view, detection range, and noise, both systems demonstrated comparable trajectory estimation performance, with average absolute trajectory errors of 0.25 m for the Livox-based system and 0.24 m for the Ouster-based system. These findings underscore the importance of sensor-algorithm co-design and demonstrate that even cost-effective, lower-field-of-view solutions can deliver competitive SLAM performance in real-world conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.