Proceedings of 11th IEEE International Conference
on CYBER Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems
2021 IEEE 11th Annual International Conference on CYBER Technology in Automation, Control, and Intelligent Systems (CYBER) | 978-1-6654-2527-8/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/CYBER53097.2021.9588225
July 27 - 31, 2021, Jiaxing, China
A Robot Obstacle Avoidance Approach with LiDAR and RGB
Camera Data Combined
Zesen Liu, Chuanhong Guo, Sheng Bi*, Kezheng Yu, Guojun Peng, Yuyang Yue

Abstract— A robot obstacle avoidance approach is
proposed in this paper, which combines 2D LiDAR data with
images from the RGB camera attached to the mobile robot.
With accurate information of distance to obstacles provided
by the LiDAR, conventional obstacle avoidance methods have
good performance navigating in simple environments, which
means that the ground is level and no low reflectivity object
is blocking the robot’s way. However, lacking global
awareness of its surrounding environment, the robot may not
perform well in complex environments. In our approach to
obstacle avoidance, the robot uses the camera as a second
data source to get more information about its surroundings.
Based on the end-to-end deep learning algorithm proposed in
this paper, images from the camera are classified into two
categories, telling the possibility of whether there are
obstacles ahead. A method integrating the possibility to the
navigation process is also proposed, making the robot more
reliable and less likely to run into an obstacle while navigating
in a complex environment. Finally, The Timed Elastic Band
(TEB) local path planning method is used to produce the local
path and generate the velocity command for the robot. An
experiment is conducted to verify the overall performance by
deploying the approach to an embedded system on a mobile
robot. By evaluating the experimental result, we found the
method effective and reliable for obstacle avoidance.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Autonomous obstacle avoidance is a critical part of
robot intelligence. Traditional algorithms control the robot
by using real-time data from LiDAR, sonar, and other
sensors. The global map is built in advance of navigation
by SLAM or vSLAM[1] algorithms to guide the robot while
calculating the global path, and sensor data is fed into the
local planner, which computes the kinematic trajectory and
the current velocity commands of the robot. Global and
local path planners used in conventional navigation
approaches are based on the costmap[2] to find the best
trajectory. When a navigation target is specified, the global
planner searches for the best global path through the A*[3]
and Dijkstra[4] algorithms. Based on the global path, local
planners such as Dynamic Window Approach (DWA)[5]
and Timed Elastic Band (TEB)[6] produce the local
trajectory in a specific size of space around the robot with
the costmap.
Local path planning algorithms have good performance
when deployed to a robot navigating in simple
environments. However, in complicated environments,
robots may experience difficulties navigating using the
same algorithm, as is shown in the experiment part of the
paper. Some obstacles cannot be seen by LiDAR or can
*Corresponding author is Sheng Bi. Email: picy@scut.edu.cn.
978-1-6654-2527-8/21/$31.00 © 2021 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Regina IEL. Downloaded on June 07,2023 at 20:58:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
only be found when the robot gets very near to them. In
these scenarios, the local planner may produce the wrong
trajectory, resulting in the robot hitting or oscillating around
the obstacle.
Benefit from the development of artificial intelligence,
some obstacle avoidance approaches based on the end-to-
end deep learning algorithm were proposed some time ago.
The end-to-end based obstacle avoidance model classifies
an image as two or three categories typically. The result of
classification will guide the robot to avoid the obstacle
ahead and continue moving. [7] proposed an end-to-end
approach of obstacle avoidance using images from two
cameras ahead of the robot. The rotation command is
instructed by possibilities returned by the network, and the
researchers had achieved good performance in the wild
scene. The experimental result proves that the end-to-end
deep learning algorithm is effective for avoiding obstacles
in complex environments. [8] proposed a three-category
CNN network with three output nodes on the latest fully
connected layer and obtained good results in the indoor
scene.
Besides the image classification method, some
researchers have proposed methods that predict the depth of
objects ahead of the robot with an RGB camera. Based on
the predicted depth, the robot could make rotation and avoid
running into obstacles. [9] adapted the reinforcement
learning to predict the depth data. The researchers deployed
it to an RC car and found it works well moving in the grass.
However, without the awareness of the goal and precise
information about the distance to obstacles, the end-to-end
deep learning method can hardly be applied to real
situations. This approach does not consider the navigation
target, and the robot would turn only if there are obstacles
ahead. Moreover, approaches using image classification
models would rotate the robot at a certain angular velocity
when the robot meets with obstacles as [8] do, or generate
the angular velocity considering the possibility of “left-
blocked” or “right-blocked” as [7] do. With the inaccurate
velocity values, the produced trajectory comes out with
worse smoothness than the conventional local path
planning method. However, in terms of the obstacle
avoidance performance, it is better than the conventional
methods in complex scenes such as the wild, since the 2D
LiDAR solution is not that easy to distinguish free space
and obstacle area in the uneven ground as the experiential
result shows. Combining these two local path planning
approaches can enhance the robot’s flexibility without
losing its precision while moving towards the target, which
140
would eventually improve its performance of obstacle II. OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE METHODS
avoidance.
A. End-to-end Based Obstacle Avoidance Approach
B. Analysis for the Demand of Combining MobileNetV2 is a neural network framework
Since the conventional obstacle avoidance method is specifically tailored for mobile platforms with limited
too mechanical but has better accuracy, while the end-to- computing resources[12]. It brings computer vision models
end based method has good adaptability to the environment to embedded systems without sacrificing too much
but is not accurate enough, the two methods are being accuracy with a reduced number of operations and memory
combined in the approach proposed in this paper to achieve usage. The main contribution made by MobileNetV2 lies
better performance avoiding obstacles and finding the best mainly in the Inverted residuals and the Linear Bottleneck
trajectory. structures. Low dimensional data is taken as an input of the
Inverted Residual block[13] and expanded to a higher
The cognitive part of the obstacle avoidance approach
dimension before being reduced to a lower dimension later.
is based on a deep learning algorithm, which uses images
Moreover, the Linear Bottleneck structure acts as a
captured by the camera as input and outputs the possibility
replacement of the ReLU function to prevent possible loss
of obstacles ahead. With the cognitive data, obstacles that
of feature. The overall structure of the MobileNetV2 is
are hardly visible to LiDAR can be detected by the visual
shown in Fig. 1.
image. The cognitive part could improve the performance
of obstacle avoidance in the case that the LiDAR data is
unreliable due to factors like low reflectivity or low height
of the obstacles when the LiDAR module is not so close to
the ground.
Our research found that the conventional single-line
LiDAR solutions cannot effectively identify and avoid the
robot running into uneven ground. They perform poorly on
recognizing obstacles that are difficult for wheeled robots
to pass, such as rolled-edge carpets, tangled threads, and
black table legs with low reflectivity. There have been
solutions using infrared cliff sensors to prevent the robot
from being stuck onto a low-level obstacle[10]. However,
that method needs physical contact with the obstacle to
measure the obstacle's height and determine whether the
robot can pass. To address these issues, we found the
vision-based end-to-end deep learning approach has a
higher success rate recognizing these kinds of obstacles
compared to the LiDAR solution, though it may be
relatively mediocre in ideal scenarios (i.e., without the
various special conditions described above). Therefore, the
LiDAR and camera data combination method takes
advantage of both obstacle avoidance methods to produce a
reliable and accurate local path.
C. Contributions
In this paper, we proposed an obstacle avoidance
approach by involving the camera image to produce the
local trajectory. The main contributions are as follows:
(1) Designed and implemented the overall architecture
of the robot obstacle avoidance approach combining
LiDAR and RGB camera data. (2) Designed a deep learning
network model based on MobileNetV2 for obstacle
detection and deployed it to the mobile robot running on an Figure 1. The architecture of MobileNetV2
embedded system. (3) Designed a costmap level fusion
strategy of LiDAR and Camera data, enabling the robot to B. TEB – A Conventional Obstacle Avoidance Approach
detect obstacles that were previously undetectable and Timed Elastic Band (TEB) is an improved approach
understand the surroundings better. (4) Conducted a test on compared to the conventional Elastic Band (EB)
a real robot running the Robot Operating System (ROS)[11] method[14]. This approach produces optimal local
and had obtained good results. trajectory based on the global path provided by the global
planner and takes various constrictions into key account.
By converting the path optimization problem to a multi-
objective function optimization problem, the TEB method
adapted the idea of graph optimization[15]. Several

141
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Regina IEL. Downloaded on June 07,2023 at 20:58:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Global Costmap Global Planner Global Path

Robot
Master
Map Server
Output TEB Local Planner

Obstacle
Ahead

MobileNetV2 or
Optimal Local
Free
RGB Camera Images Space Trajectory

Cognitive Layer

PointCloud
Obstacle Layer
LiDAR
Local Costmap

Figure 2. Structure of the proposed obstacle avoidance approach

restrictions such as the path length, the time required for
path execution, and distance to obstacles are considered in
the algorithm to produce the optimal local trajectory.
Each configuration defining the robot’s poses in the
classic Elastic Band usually comes with three parameters
‫ݔ‬௜ , ‫ݕ‬௜ , ߠ௜ . Sequence defined as ܳ contains all configurations
used to present a local path. Based on the classic method,
TEB incorporates time intervals ȴܶ௜ for every neighboring
configuration, which represents the time needed to transit
between them. Sequence defined as ߬ contains ݊ െ 1
intervals for there are ݊ poses in the pose sequence. Then a
trajectory ‫ ܤ‬can be defined with ܳ and ߬ in the form:
input image into two categories, which are labeled “blocked”
or “free space”. For these two categories, 60 pictures were
collected respectively in our test, and we fine-tune the
model based on the ImageNet[17] pre-trained model.
During the obstacle avoidance process of the robot, the
network model obtains a 640h480 RGB image from the
camera placed in the front of the robot and resizes it to an
image sized 224h224 to fit our model. We then deployed
the network to the embedded system using a high-
performance neural network inference computing
framework called NCNN. The probability of obstacles
ahead outputted by the network is taken into account in the
update process of the cognitive layer.
 ‫ ܤ‬ൌ ሺܳ, ߬ሻ 
Considering the constrictions, we can define ݂ሺ‫ܤ‬ሻ
shown in (2) as the global objective function, which is the
sum of all objective functions ݂ ሺ‫ܤ‬ሻ with weights ߬
multiplied. The goal of the TEB planner is to find the best
trajectory ‫ כܤ‬with minimum ݂ሺ‫ܤ‬ሻ, as (3) shows

B. Adoption of the TEB Local Planner
This obstacle avoidance method uses the TEB local path
planning package on the ROS platform as the
implementation of the TEB algorithm. Our approach uses
the costmap converter to reduce the need for computing
power on embedded systems. With the Density-Based
 ݂ሺ‫ܤ‬ሻ ൌ σ߬௞ ݂௞ ሺ‫ܤ‬ሻ  Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN)
algorithm[18], discrete points on the costmap created by
 ‫ כܤ‬ൌ argmin ݂ሺ‫ܤ‬ሻ 
஻ computation load and boost the speed of path planning. The
TEB’s graph optimization strategy is based on the
Hypergraph[16]. In the initialization step, the algorithm
first obtains the global path and generate the sequence of ܳ
and ȴܶ . Points in the sequence become nodes while the
various constraints mentioned above become edges in the
hypergraph. Each edge in the hypergraph is connected to
those nodes that are associated with the constraints.
Configurable weight on each of these edges would have
different effects on the overall cost function in future
optimization.
III. THE PROPOSED APPROACH
A. Adoption of the MobileNetV2 model
In this paper, we adopted the lightweight model
MobileNetV2 described above to a new costmap layer
called the “cognitive layer”. By changing the output nodes
of the fully connected layer from 1280 to 2, we classify the
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Regina IEL. Downloaded on June 07,2023 at 20:58:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 LiDAR are converted to multiple polygons to reduce
penalty weight for going backward was set to a relatively
higher value, which could avoid collision with obstacles
behind the robot, considering the LiDAR module on our bot
has a limited angle of view at about 240 degrees.
C. Strategy of Combination
In the ROS platform, the local costmap used for
navigation normally consists of the obstacles layer and
inflation layer. On the obstacle layer, LiDAR provides
precise information about the distance to obstacles around
the robot by flagging the corresponding grids as occupied.
The inflation layer at the top of the costmap adds new value
in the costmap around obstacles considering the robot's
radius. Based on the local costmap, the local path planner
takes the grid values around the robot into account and
plans the optimal local trajectory following the direction of
the global path.
142
 The dynamic obstacle avoidance approach considering
LiDAR and camera data mainly focuses on modifying
costmap layers. The overall structure of the navigation
system proposed in this paper is shown in Fig. 2. Detailed
strategies of the combination are as follows.
The possibility of obstacle ahead outputted by the
cognitive node is used to update the occupancy grid of the
cognitive layer. The current state of the robot switches
during the obstacle avoidance process according to the
change of probability so that it can slow down early when
moving to an obstacle. The states are shown in Fig. 3.
Figure 3. The states of robot while navigating
The robot stays in the initial state when the probability
of obstacle ahead is low. Navigating in this state, the robot
proactively clears the occupancy value of grids ahead of the
robot in the cognitive layer. Since the robot moves towards
the target following the global map considering obstacles
obtained by the LiDAR sensor, if the probability value of
obstacles rises, there may be coming obstacles which is the
kind that is difficult to scan by LiDAR. When the rise of
probability value was detected, the robot shifts to the
inhibited state and slows down. If the probability value
continues raising and exceeds the threshold, the
corresponding grids in front of the robot would be set as
occupied. By modifying the corresponding grids, the local
path planner gets the information of visually obtained
obstacles. Thus, the robot could eventually find an
alternative path around the obstacle.
In the inhibited state, when the probability value drops
and stays at a low value within two seconds, the recovery
state is entered. The state corresponds to the accelerating
procedure while the robot is moving away from obstacles.
The robot's speed is increased in this state, but it is still
lower than the initial state. This strategy aims to prevent the
robot from ignoring blocks of small obstacles that are easily
overlooked like thin strings in its way. During the two
seconds of the recovery state, if the probability value stays
low, the robot reentered the initial state and continued
navigating towards the target.
Bionic ideas are applied to this scheme of obstacle
avoidance. Humans tend to have a higher pace walking to a
specified goal in an open space. When this person finds the
143
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Regina IEL. Downloaded on June 07,2023 at 20:58:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
road in front of him is no longer so smooth, he would be
more careful and slows down. Limited by the computing
power of embedded systems, if the robot moves fast all the
way before the probability value exceeds the threshold, the
robot may end up being very close to the obstacle and needs
to come to a sudden stop to prevent the collision. This
strategy can slow down the robot in advance, while the
robot can still move fast in the open space. By applying this
strategy, the robot could have both reliability and efficiency
navigating.
IV. EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS
A. Brief Description
The obstacle avoidance approach described in this paper
is tested on the Szarbase platform from Shenzhen Academy
of Robotics. The platform is equipped with a six-core
RockChip RK3399 CPU and 4GB LPDDR4 memory. A 2D
LiDAR modeled LS01B is mounted in the front of the robot.
We collected 60 images for each category and fine-tuned
the pre-trained model using PyTorch[19]. After that, we
converted the model to an NCNN model, which was
transferred to the mobile robot later. The robot was placed
on one side of the experimental site and assigned a target.
Then we observed the robot’s behavior while navigating.
Fig. 4 shows the mobile robot we used for the test and the
vertical view of the experimental site.
Figure 4. The robot and the experimental site
B. Data Collecting and Model Training
In our experiment, two categories of data were collected
on the experimental site. We controlled the robot walking
around the field and saved images captured by the camera.
Then we manually placed some obstacles like network
cables or colored mats on the ground, and collected images
feed by the camera while the robot moves towards them.
Using the Adam optimizer[20] with a learning rate of 1e-4,
we fine-tuned the pre-trained model for 30 epochs and got
high accuracy above 90 percent. The model was uploaded
to the mobile robot after training. On the RK3399 CPU, we
got about 13 fps doing inference work on two Cortex-A73
cores, which means that the processing time for a single
frame is around 0.077 seconds. When the robot is running
at about 0.4m/s, additional 0.03 meters is need for the robot
to come to a complete stop, which is tolerable in our case.
C. Model Prediction Results
We tested the model deployed to the mobile robot by
placing various objects in front of the robot at different
distances. The result shows that this model would label the
image as “free space” with high confidence when the
obstacle is far away. While the robot is moving near the
obstacle, the confidence of “obstacle ahead” rises. When
the threshold for obstacle detection is set to a value of about
0.7, the robot will recognize the obstacle at a distance of
about 0.25 meters behind it. This is enough for the local
planner to plan for a new trajectory around the obstacle.
Examples of prediction results are shown in Fig. 5.
Figure 5. Prediction results in multiple cases
D. Navigation Performance
With the NCNN package for ROS, we integrated the
prediction result into the navigation stack. The NCNN node
publishes the possibility output of the model, and the new
cognitive layer listens to the possibility and performs
updates to the local costmap to guide the local planner TEB.
The static map is built using Gmapping[21] on the same
platform ahead of time, and we placed some obstacles on
the experimental site, as Fig. 6 shows.
Figure 6. Experimental site with obstacles marked
Obstacles within the red circles cannot be scanned by
the 2D LiDAR attached to our test platform. The initial
position of the mobile robot is pointed by the blue circle on
the right side. We manually select a target on another side
across the obstacles to see how the robot behaves.
144
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Regina IEL. Downloaded on June 07,2023 at 20:58:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
When the robot is first brought up, the local costmap
contains obstacles found by LiDAR only, as Fig. 7(a) shows.
During the navigation process, the robot found the
yellow mat in front of it with the camera. Grids ahead of the
robot in the cognitive layer were flagged as occupied
correspondingly. When the trajectory of moving straight
forward is infeasible, the local planner chose to rotate to the
left to avoid collision with the obstacle, as shown in Fig.
7(b). The yellow line represents the robot’s moving path. In
this navigation process, the yellow mat is found because it
blocks the robot’s path to the destination, while the obstacle
at the top of the site is still not found. In another experiment,
the local planner produced a trajectory that would pass
through the obstacle at the top, and then the robot can find
that obstacle and avoid it by rotating to another direction,
as shown in Fig. 7(c) and (d).
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 7. The status of costmap during navigation
E. Comparison with Methods Having Single Data
Source Only
To find out how our combined method improves the
performance of robot navigation, we compared the robot’s
path when the robot uses different methods to detect
obstacles in the navigation process. In the same
experimental site, we compared our method with other
methods described below.
When the robot uses the LiDAR data only, it cannot
detect the mat placed on the ground. The local path planner
would produce a path across the mat, which would
eventually cause a collision.
When the collision possibility inferred from the camera
image is the only data source, the robot's functionality is
limited. While it performs well at avoiding obstacles, the
loss of the current location makes the robot unable to locate
and move towards the target. Fig. 8 shows that the robot
only turns when it finds an obstacle visually.
F. Improvement on the Distance to Obstacles
In this paper, we have proposed a strategy that could
adjust the linear and angular speed limit dynamically to
slow down the robot while approaching visual obstacles.
This strategy is implemented and tested to see the distance
between the robot and the obstacle before the robot
eventually takes action to avoid it. We placed the robot at a
fixed position on the experimental site, then a specific goal
is specified for navigation. The distance described above is
recorded for each test. Table ĉ shows the parameters we
used. We also tested the robot’s performance when it is
always in the initial state (there are no further restrictions
on speed) or inhibited state (the robot would move slowly).
After repeating the experiment 5 times for each setting, we
summarize the data in Fig. 9 and found that using the
dynamic speed limit would keep the robot safe from the
obstacle without slowing down the robot in the whole
navigation process.
Figure 8. The robot’s trajectory when the collision
possibility is the only data source
Figure 9. Distance between the robot and obstacles using
different strategies
TABLE I. PARAMETERS FOR LINEAR AND ANGULAR SPEED
LIMITS
Speed
State
Linear Angular
Initial 0.3m/s 0.5rad/s
Inhibited 0.05m/s 0.3rad/s
Recovery 0.2m/s 0.4rad/s
V. CONCLUSION
The obstacle avoidance approach proposed in this
article is tested on the embedded system running ROS. In
our tests, this method shows good performance avoiding
collision with floor mat and cables. The RGB camera
successfully detected the obstacles we placed on the
experimental site, and the robot avoids them with ease.
However, this method still does not perform satisfactorily
in some scenarios. For example, in a narrow aisle, the
fusion scheme may judge some paths as infeasible, thus
increases the length of the trajectory or makes the target
unreachable. This method is also a bit short-sighted because
the robot can only mark obstacles when it gets close to them.
That requires the camera to be a low-latency one so that it
can return the image of obstacles in time. Apart from this,
our method is mainly focused on introducing the cognitive
layer to the costmap to assist the local planner. A higher
level of integration with the local planner is needed for
145
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Regina IEL. Downloaded on June 07,2023 at 20:58:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
future researches. We will look at how to achieve the
abstraction of the cognitive scheme as an objective function
in TEB graph optimization, thus could eliminate
unreachable paths while preserving reachable paths as
much as possible in future research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research work is supported by the National
Training Program of Innovation and Entrepreneurship for
Undergraduates (202010561079), Guang Dong Province
Science and Technology Plan Projects
(2020A0505100015), and Ministry of Education
Cooperative Education Project-robot innovation platform
construction based on artificial intelligence technology
(201902146063).
REFERENCES
[1] N. Karlsson, E. Di Bernardo, J. Ostrowski et al., "The vSLAM
algorithm for robust localization and mapping." pp. 24-29.
[2] D. V. Lu, D. Hershberger, and W. D. Smart, "Layered costmaps
for context-sensitive navigation." pp. 709-715.
[3] P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, “A formal basis for the
heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,” IEEE transactions
on Systems Science and Cybernetics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 100-107,
1968.
[4] E. W. Dijkstra, “A note on two problems in connexion with
graphs,” Numerische mathematik, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 269-271, 1959.
[5] D. Fox, W. Burgard, and S. Thrun, “The dynamic window
approach to collision avoidance,” IEEE Robotics & Automation
Magazine, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 23-33, 1997.
[6] C. Rösmann, W. Feiten, T. Wösch et al., "Efficient trajectory
optimization using a sparse model." pp. 138-143.
[7] U. Muller, J. Ben, E. Cosatto et al., "Off-road obstacle avoidance
through end-to-end learning." pp. 739-746.
[8] C. Liu, B. Zheng, C. Wang et al., "CNN-based vision model for
obstacle avoidance of mobile robot." p. 00007.
[9] J. Michels, A. Saxena, and A. Y. Ng, "High speed obstacle
avoidance using monocular vision and reinforcement learning." pp.
593-600.
[10] S. Yang, J.-H. Kim, D. Noh et al., "Cliff-sensor-based Low-level
Obstacle Detection for a Wheeled Robot in an Indoor
Environment." pp. 1-6.
[11] M. Quigley, K. Conley, B. Gerkey et al., "ROS: an open-source
Robot Operating System." p. 5.
[12] M. Sandler, A. Howard, M. Zhu et al., "Mobilenetv2: Inverted
residuals and linear bottlenecks." pp. 4510-4520.
[13] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren et al., "Deep residual learning for image
recognition." pp. 770-778.
[14] S. Quinlan, and O. Khatib, "Elastic bands: Connecting path
planning and control." pp. 802-807.
[15] R. Kümmerle, G. Grisetti, H. Strasdat et al., "g 2 o: A general
framework for graph optimization." pp. 3607-3613.
[16] A. Bretto, “Hypergraph theory,” An introduction. Mathematical
Engineering. Cham: Springer, 2013.
[17] J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher et al., "Imagenet: A large-scale
hierarchical image database." pp. 248-255.
[18] M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander et al., "A density-based
algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with
noise." pp. 226-231.
[19] A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa et al., ĀPytorch: An imperative
style, high-performance deep learning library,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1912.01703, 2019.
[20] D. P. Kingma, and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic
optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014.
[21] G. Grisetti, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “Improved techniques
for grid mapping with rao-blackwellized particle filters,” IEEE
transactions on Robotics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 34-46, 2007.