Yi-Tian Hong

This study develops a comprehensive robotic system, termed the robot cognitive system, for complex environments, integrating three models: the engagement model, the intention model, and the human–robot interaction (HRI) model. The system aims to enhance the naturalness and comfort of HRI by enabling robots to detect human behaviors, intentions, and emotions accurately. A novel dual-arm-hand mobile robot, Mobi, was designed to demonstrate the system’s efficacy. The engagement model utilizes eye gaze, head pose, and action recognition to determine the suitable moment for interaction initiation, addressing potential eye contact anxiety. The intention model employs sentiment analysis and emotion classification to infer the interactor’s intentions. The HRI model, integrated with Google Dialogflow, facilitates appropriate robot responses based on user feedback. The system’s performance was validated in a retail environment scenario, demonstrating its potential to improve the user experience in HRIs.

SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping), primarily relying on camera or LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) sensors, plays a crucial role in robotics for localization and environmental reconstruction. This paper assesses the performance of two leading methods, namely ORB-SLAM3 and SC-LeGO-LOAM, focusing on localization and mapping in both indoor and outdoor environments. The evaluation employs artificial and cost-effective datasets incorporating data from a 3D LiDAR and an RGB-D (color and depth) camera. A practical approach is introduced for calculating ground-truth trajectories and during benchmarking, reconstruction maps based on ground truth are established. To assess the performance, ATE and RPE are utilized to evaluate the accuracy of localization; standard deviation is employed to compare the stability during the localization process for different methods. While both algorithms exhibit satisfactory positioning accuracy, their performance is suboptimal in scenarios with inadequate textures. Furthermore, 3D reconstruction maps established by the two approaches are also provided for direct observation of their differences and the limitations encountered during map construction. Moreover, the research includes a comprehensive comparison of computational performance metrics, encompassing Central Processing Unit (CPU) utilization, memory usage, and an in-depth analysis. This evaluation revealed that Visual SLAM requires more CPU resources than LiDAR SLAM, primarily due to additional data storage requirements, emphasizing the impact of environmental factors on resource requirements. In conclusion, LiDAR SLAM is more suitable for the outdoors due to its comprehensive nature, while Visual SLAM excels indoors, compensating for sparse aspects in LiDAR SLAM. To facilitate further research, a technical guide was also provided for the researchers in related fields.