RTISSLAM-3D: Full 6-DoF SLAM With an In-Air 3D Imaging Sonar
Authors: Jan Steckel, Vincent Katter, Wouter Jansen
Organizations: Cosys-Lab, Faculty of Applied Engineering, University of Antwerp, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium · Flanders Make Strategic Research Centre, 3920 Lommel, Belgium
Echolocating bats navigate dense forests using sonar alone, and in-air 3D imaging sonars now capture the entire frontal hemisphere with every pulse. Sonar SLAM, however, has so far been planar: current systems estimate a 2D trajectory and discard the elevation information in the sonar images, an assumption that does not hold on rough and sloped terrain such as a forest floor. In this paper, we introduce RTISSLAM-3D, a novel 6-DoF SLAM system for a wheeled robot that carries an in-air 3D imaging sonar, an IMU and wheel encoders. A CFAR detector on the sphere reduces every sonar image to a sparse set of 3D detections, which we use for a 3D acoustic odometry that models the shape of the sonar beam, for place recognition with polar submap descriptors, and for the verification of loop closures by 3D registration, all combined in a 6-DoF pose graph with attitude factors. We evaluated RTISSLAM-3D on a 545m drive through a forest, with a 3D lidar SLAM as reference. The loop closures reduced the horizontal error of the acoustic odometry from 1.74m to 0.28m, with a height error of 0.12m, and 94.6% of the resulting 3D sonar map lies within 0.3 m of the lidar map.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of RTISSLAM-3D. Every eRTIS pulse is imaged over the frontal hemisphere (DMAS5 with coherence factor) and reduced to a sparse 3D detection set by a CFAR detector on the sphere; a fitted ground plane removes the ground multipath mirrors. The detection sets drive a 3D acoustic odometry (sonar translation, gyroscope rotation), keyframes every 1m enter a 6-DoF pose graph with IMU attitude factors, and loop closures are proposed by a polar descriptor of the keyframe submaps and verified by 4-DoF submap registration. The 3D occupancy map is built on the optimized poses.
Submap
20 captures
Beam (range / az. / el.)
3cm / 3\SIUnitSymbolDegree / 5\SIUnitSymbolDegree
Neighbors / gate
6 / 0.6m
Cov. floor / Cauchy scale
5cm / 2.5
Prior, rotation
0.05\SIUnitSymbolDegree
Prior, fwd. / lat. / vert.
1cm / 5cm / 5mm
TABLE I: Parameters of the 3D Acoustic Odometry (Prior per Step; Forward Prior Grows by 5% of the Wheel Distance).
Fig. 2: 3D Detections of a Single eRTIS Capture in the Forest. Panel a) shows the view of the robot’s camera (for illustration only). Panel b) shows the acoustic image of the capture (DMAS5 with coherence factor, maximum over range, 40dB dynamic range) over the frontal hemisphere as seen from behind the sensor, with circles at 30\SIUnitSymbolDegree and 60\SIUnitSymbolDegree off the sensor axis, and the directions of the CFAR detections (white circles; cyan crosses: ground mirrors). Panels c) and d) show the 3D detections in the sensor frame, in a side view and a top view, colored by their height above the fitted ground plane, on top of the lidar scan of the same instant (dark gray: lidar returns above the ground, light gray: ground). Red crosses: detections removed as ground multipath mirrors, i.e., more than 0.15m below the fitted ground plane (dashed line in panel c)). The sonar sees the ground in front of the robot and the near sides of the trunks.
Fig. 3: 3D Acoustic Odometry Against the Lidar Reference. Panel a) shows the horizontal RPE (Relative Pose Error) as a function of the segment length, for the wheels and gyroscope alone (gray), the acoustic odometry in which the sonar estimates the full translation (green), and the final 3D acoustic odometry, in which the sonar estimates the horizontal translation only (orange). Panel b) shows the height RPE. Panel c) shows the dead-reckoning trajectories of the wheels and gyroscope and of the 3D acoustic odometry after a 4-DoF fit on the lidar reference (black). The sonar reduces the horizontal drift of the wheels by about 40% , equally in both variants; estimating the vertical motion with the sonar reduces the height drift of the odometry alone, but not the error of the final SLAM trajectory (see text).
Fig. 4: 3D Place Recognition. Panel a) shows the polar descriptors (rings from 1 to 8m , 60 sectors, the arrow marks the heading) of a query keyframe and of the keyframe it was matched with, for a loop closure with the median error. Panel b) shows the above-ground points of the two keyframe submaps after the 4-DoF registration (gray: matched keyframe, magenta: query). Panel c) shows the distribution (logarithmic scale) of the inlier fraction of the above-ground points after registration, for all top-five candidates of all keyframes without a position gate, split into candidates that were registered to within 0.5m and 5\SIUnitSymbolDegree of the reference (magenta) and the others (gray); the dashed line is the acceptance threshold.
Fig. 5: RTISSLAM-3D Against the 3D Lidar Reference. Panel a) shows the trajectories after a 4-DoF fit: the reference (black), the 3D acoustic odometry without loop closures (orange) and RTISSLAM-3D (blue); magenta circles mark the query keyframes of its 233 loop closures. Panel b) shows the height along the drive. Panels c) and d) show the horizontal and the height error of both trajectories on a logarithmic scale; the dashed lines are the RMSE of RTISSLAM-3D.
Variant
Loops
xy
z
Max
Bad
RTISSLAM-3D (ours)
233
0.28
0.12
0.64
0
No loop closures
0
1.74
2.82
3.23
–
Wheel odometry
237
0.81
0.09
1.46
0
Wheel odometry, no loops
0
2.40
3.00
3.87
–
Sonar vertical
217
0.32
0.23
0.69
0
Four height bands
236
0.28
0.12
0.66
0
TABLE II: Ablation of RTISSLAM-3D Against the Lidar Reference: Horizontal ATE, Height RMSE and Maximum Horizontal Error After a 4-DoF Fit (m), and Loop Closures With an Error Above 0.5m (Bad).
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
Height Band
Lidar Poses
Ours
Ours
Ground ( <0.25m )
0.970
0.959
0.363
Trunks, Vegetation (0.25– 2m )
0.941
0.927
0.243
Canopy ( >2m )
0.977
0.938
0.010
All
0.960
0.946
0.141
TABLE III: Precision and Recall of the 3D Sonar Map Against the Lidar Map, per Height Band (Tolerance 0.3m ; Recall Within 6m in Front of the Sensor Poses).
Fig. 6: 3D Map of the Forest. Panel a) shows the 3D occupancy map of RTISSLAM-3D ( 0.1m voxels) from above and panel b) the lidar map of the reference, limited to the points within 6m in front of a sensor pose (the volume in which the recall is scored, Section IV ) and up to 3m above the ground, at the same scale; the gray line is the path of the robot. Colors encode the height above the local ground; the ground itself is light gray. Panel c) shows the sonar map of the most revisited part of the site (dashed square) in perspective, and panel d) the same part from above, the sonar map above the ground drawn over the lidar map above the ground (gray). The trunks and the vegetation along the paths are resolved in the sonar map; the canopy is outside the sonar’s view.
Fig. 7: The Map and Trajectory as RTISSLAM-3D Builds Them (Three Moments of the Supplementary Video, Top View, Same Scale). The sonar map above the ground is carried by the keyframe poses of the estimate at that moment, the trajectory of RTISSLAM-3D is drawn in blue and the lidar reference in gray; magenta circles mark the loop closures found so far and the arrow the current pose. Panel a) shows the first lap, before any loop closure, panel b) the middle of the drive, and panel c) the final map.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Test
Loops
xy
z
Max
Bad
Inliers ≥ 0.75
290
0.27
0.13
0.62
1
Inliers ≥ 0.80
259
0.27
0.12
0.64
0
Inliers ≥ 0.85
233
0.28
0.12
0.64
0
Inliers ≥ 0.90
182
0.28
0.12
0.65
0
Inliers ≥ 0.95
95
0.28
0.11
0.67
0
Gate 3m
248
0.28
0.12
0.65
0
Appendix
TABLE IV: Sensitivity of RTISSLAM-3D to the Loop Closure Test (All Else as the Default, in Bold; Errors as in Table II ).
Sonar was one of the first sensors with which mobile robots built maps, and in-air sonar keeps working where cameras and lidar fail, in darkness, smoke, dust and next to glass. Classical sonar SLAM, however, relied on geometric features or occupancy grids built from sparse range readings, and both struggle with the specular reflections that dominate indoor sonar. In this letter, we introduce RTISSLAM, a novel sonar-only SLAM system for an embedded 3D imaging sonar, which combines the robust pose graph of BatSLAM 2.0 as back-end with an occupancy grid as map. Energyscapes from delay-multiply-and-sum beamforming with a range-wise CFAR serve as place descriptors for sequence-verified loop closures, acoustic odometry calibrates the wheel odometry online, recognized revisits are registered metrically, and the grid is stored per keyframe and anchored to the pose-graph nodes, so that it follows every loop closure. In simulated worlds with specular walls, RTISSLAM reduces the trajectory error of the wheel odometry from \SI{8.2}{\meter} to \SI{0.31}{\meter} in an office, while lidar-style grid SLAM on the same sonar data fails.
Jan Steckel
Cosys-Lab, Faculty of Applied Engineering, University of Antwerp, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium · Flanders Make Strategic Research Centre, 3920 Lommel, Belgium
Echolocating bats can navigate dark and cluttered spaces using echolocation. Over a decade ago, BatSLAM showed that a robot with a biomimetic binaural sonar can build a topological map of the environment, by recognizing places from the received acoustic signals. Sonar place recognition, however, is ambiguous by nature: corridors produce nearly identical echo trains, and wrong loop closure can collapse the topological map. In this paper, we introduce BatSLAM 2.0, a novel sonar-only SLAM system built from three elements: an updated acoustic front-end, a sequence verifier that tracks and verifies loop closure candidates and a pose graph implemented on a high performance factor graph framework. The system was thoroughly evaluated both in simulated as well as real world recordings. In both cases, the BatSLAM2.0 algorithm shows the capability of robust topological map creation, countering map collapse, and robust scaling of map size.
Jan Steckel
Cosys-Lab, Faculty of Applied Engineering, University of Antwerp, 2020 Antwerp, Belgium · Flanders Make Strategic Research Centre, 3920 Lommel, Belgium
Autonomous underwater navigation typically relies on complex and expensive multi-modal sensor suites designed to prioritize global Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) accuracy. However, local reactive behaviors such as coarse navigation and obstacle avoidance require only local consistency---a capability that should be feasible using only a Forward-Looking Sonar (FLS), yet remains largely unaddressed, leaving a critical gap in FLS-only local SLAM. Moreover, existing acoustic SLAM frameworks predominantly rely on sparse feature extraction methods that discard substantial portions of the already information-sparse acoustic returns. To overcome these limitations, this work introduces a dense direct registration approach that aligns full acoustic intensity scans to a recursively updated local map. Real-time execution is achieved via an Inverse Compositional Gauss-Newton optimization strategy that minimizes computational overhead. Experimental evaluations show that this dense method yields significant improvements on translation error compared to sparse keypoint baselines, maintaining stable sub-meter tracking precision over wide displacement gaps. Moreover, this approach delivers odometry performance comparable to multi-sensor fusion pipelines (FLS, DVL, and IMU), bypassing expensive payload dependencies in feature-rich environments. We validate real-world applicability through AUV field trials, running the full local SLAM approach onboard an embedded, resource-constrained computer.