Comparative trial evaluates three LiDAR point cloud metrics for AV localization, suggesting optimal choices for real-world applications.
Accurate localization is a critical requirement for autonomous vehicle (AV) navigation, particularly in environments where GPS signals are unreliable or unavailable. A wide range of LiDAR-based point cloud similarity metrics have been proposed for high-definition (HD) map localization, but systematic comparisons of distinct metric families on the same real-world dataset, under identical conditions, remain scarce. In this paper, we present an offline comparative study of three point cloud similarity metrics within a unified HD map-based localization framework, under the assumption of largely static environments and planar, yaw-dominant vehicle motion typical of on-road driving. The HD map is constructed as a directed graph of GPS coordinates, each linked to a corresponding LiDAR scan, collected over a 30-min drive on a university campus using a Velodyne VLP-16 sensor and a ublox ZED-F9P RTK-GPS receiver, yielding 19,500 time-synchronized point clouds. Within this framework, we develop and compare three similarity metrics drawn from distinct families: Fast Point Feature Histograms (FPFH) with KDTree-based matching, Procrustes-based alignment via singular value decomposition, and a planar projection method based on 2D angular histogram cross-correlation. Each metric is evaluated on the same dataset in terms of similarity score profile (localizability) and per-pair computational cost. FPFH provides rich local geometric matching but at an average per-pair cost of approximately 1018 s, making it suitable only for offline analysis. Procrustes alignment yields the smoothest score profiles, with an exact self-similarity baseline of zero, at an average of 2.63 s per pair. The planar projection method produces the most location-invariant profiles at an average of 11.6 s per pair. We also discuss the recursive localization architecture into which any of these metrics could be embedded, and analyze the gap between current per-pair costs and what would be required for online deployment, which we identify as a direction for future work. The study contributes a controlled, reproducible benchmark of three metric families on a single real-world dataset, and provides guidance for selecting similarity metrics under stated operating assumptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reddy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: