Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add package to evaluate the impact of the beam skipping feature in nav2 #116

Draft
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

glpuga
Copy link
Collaborator

@glpuga glpuga commented Oct 31, 2024

Proposed changes

Crude benchmark package to compare nav2-vs-nav2, likelihood vs likelihood_prob vs beam_skip.

This is part of a fact finding campaing for Ekumen-OS/beluga#187 .

Type of change

  • 🐛 Bugfix (change which fixes an issue)
  • 🚀 Feature (change which adds functionality)
  • 📚 Documentation (change which fixes or extends documentation)

💥 Breaking change! Explain why a non-backwards compatible change is necessary or remove this line entirely if not applicable.

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. This is simply a reminder of what we will require before merging your code.

  • Lint and unit tests (if any) pass locally with my changes
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

Additional comments

Anything worth mentioning to the reviewers.

@glpuga glpuga marked this pull request as draft October 31, 2024 22:06
Copy link
Collaborator

@hidmic hidmic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is great! Two thoughts.

  • We can but we don't necessarily have to add another package for a different benchmark. We can accumulate benchmarks in a single package too.
  • Tied to the above, eventually I would very much like to move Beluga benchmarks to Beluga. Putting all benchmarks in a single package will simplify that transition while keeping the Beluga repo sane. Either that or we have to start considering a separate Beluga benchmarks repository.

- Description
* - `Willow Garage dataset <https://web.archive.org/web/20151207202459id_/http://cgi.cs.duke.edu/~mac/papers/iros12_sm.pdf>`_
- Large office environment with multiple recordings along different trajectories and times, including multiple rooms and hallways.
* - `TorWIC SLAM dataset <https://github.com/Viky397/TorWICDataset>`_
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@glpuga do all these datasets apply here?

@glpuga glpuga force-pushed the glpuga/beam_skipping_evaluation branch 2 times, most recently from 21ae1dd to 1df7924 Compare November 1, 2024 12:44
@glpuga
Copy link
Collaborator Author

glpuga commented Nov 1, 2024

This is great! Two thoughts.

  • We can but we don't necessarily have to add another package for a different benchmark. We can accumulate benchmarks in a single package too.
  • Tied to the above, eventually I would very much like to move Beluga benchmarks to Beluga. Putting all benchmarks in a single package will simplify that transition while keeping the Beluga repo sane. Either that or we have to start considering a separate Beluga benchmarks repository.

This is not necesarily intended to merge. It's just a quick and dirty benchmark draft to share with @DPR00 to get him up to speed with Ekumen-OS/beluga#187 , sparing him hitting the learning curve head on .

We can later decide what we want to do with this.

@glpuga glpuga force-pushed the glpuga/beam_skipping_evaluation branch from 1df7924 to 54e0742 Compare November 1, 2024 13:20
@glpuga glpuga force-pushed the glpuga/beam_skipping_evaluation branch from 54e0742 to 816ba4b Compare December 5, 2024 14:12
@glpuga glpuga force-pushed the glpuga/beam_skipping_evaluation branch from 7c1ef77 to f657f40 Compare December 17, 2024 20:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants