Does Dynamic-Point Filtering Help When Texture Is Scarce? A Controlled Study of ORB-SLAM2 Front-Ends in Synthetic Indoor Scenes
arXiv:2610.10564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Dynamic-point filters are routinely added to feature-based visual SLAM, and several recent systems argue that removing dynamic features can leave too few static features in low-texture regions. So far, these systems have been evaluated only on texture-rich benchmark sequences. We present a controlled study that isolates this interaction. We render synthetic indoor sequences in which surface texture (four levels, quantified by FAST-corner density a
Overview
arXiv:2610.10564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Dynamic-point filters are routinely added to feature-based visual SLAM, and several recent systems argue that removing dynamic features can leave too few static features in low-texture regions. So far, these systems have been evaluated only on texture-rich benchmark sequences. We present a controlled study that isolates this interaction. We render synthetic indoor sequences in which surface texture (four levels, quantified by FAST-corner density and image-gradient entropy) and scene dynamics (three levels) are varied factorially along identical camera trajectories, with stereo, RGB-D, ground-truth poses and dynamic masks. On this grid we compare ORB-SLAM2 without filtering, with an optical-flow and epipolar-residual filter (FLOW), and with a multi-view depth-consistency filter (GEOM), and report trajectory error, tracking completeness and surviving static features over five runs. Because the masks give per-keypoint ground truth, we also measure each filter's dynamic-point precision and recall and its static-feature false-removal rate, so that mechanistic explanations can be tested directly. We do not propose a new filter. On 720 runs over 24 sequences, filtering helped mainly in the most dynamic cells; the benefit did not decline monotonically with texture, but at the lowest level filtering reduced tracking completeness, and ORB-SLAM2 never initialised in static L3 scenes. Contrary to our hypothesis, GEOM discarded more static keypoints than FLOW (median FRR 6.8% vs. 1.5% for RGB-D, 19.6% vs. 1.5% for stereo); its RGB-D advantage tracked dynamic-point recall and vanished in stereo mode. Data and code are available at https://github.com/felixxxue/texture-dynamics-slam.
Source
Originally published at arxiv.org.
Related Articles
Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.10564
