Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

TRIP: Terrain Traversability Mapping With Risk-Aware Prediction for Enhanced Online Quadrupedal Robot Navigation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read TRIP reconstructs dense terrain traversability maps online by weighting Bayesian kernel inference by steppability risk and rejecting outliers with a steppability-based Mahalanobis distance, improving terrain reconstruction and…

desk verdict The T-BGK contribution cancels algebraically: Eq. (8) is identical to vanilla BGK, so the central risk-aware inference claim is unsupported; the outlier filter and conditional pooling may still hold value. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17134 v1 pith:4IBQT47V submitted 2024-11-26 cs.RO

Minho Oh , Byeongho Yu , I Made Aswin Nahrendra , Seoyeon Jang , Hyeonwoo Lee , Dongkyu Lee , Seungjae Lee , Yeeun Kim
show 3 more authors
Marsim Kevin Christiansen Hyungtae Lim Hyun Myung
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords traversabilityterrainmappingquadrupedrobotBayesiangeneralizedkernelsteppabilityoutlierrejectionLiDARnavigation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces TRIP, a module that builds dense 2.5D terrain maps for quadruped robots in real time while predicting where it is safe to step. Its central claim is that making terrain inference steppability-aware produces denser, more accurate maps than existing Bayesian generalized kernel methods, because the kernel discounts neighbors that are themselves risky to stand on. It further claims that using steppability and surface orientation in a Mahalanobis-distance gate removes outliers from dynamic objects and sensor noise before they pollute the map. If right, online footstep and path planning get a more complete and more trustworthy picture of rough terrain from sparse LiDAR. The paper supports the claim with comparisons on the QRC simulation, SemanticKITTI, and an in-house campus dataset.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the traversability-aware Bayesian generalized kernel (T-BGK), kT(eα,eβ) = (1 - rstep_eβ) k(eα,eβ), a modified version of the BGK kernel from Eq. (5) with the sparse covariance function of Melkumyan and Ramos. It does the work of weighting height inference away from cells that are geometrically risky to step on, while the inference function LT averages neighbor heights with those weights. Steppability risk rstep comes from a spherical-projection surfel map via a proximity function that measures distance and convexity between surfels. A second mechanism, the steppability-based Mahalanobis distance of Eq. (15), compares the new local map's verticality and steppability to the previous static map and rejects cells that are statistically too far, before a Kalman filter merges the surviving measurements with bias models σo and σh as measurement noise.

What would settle it

Run TRIP on a sequence with known ground-truth terrain while artificially corrupting the steppability map with increasing levels of noise; if the mean traversable height error and collision-cell F1 score drop to or below the vanilla BGK baseline once steppability noise exceeds a modest level, the claim that steppability-aware gating improves reconstruction is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TRIP's central discovery is that traversability risk can be fed back into the terrain reconstruction itself rather than computed afterward. The standard BGK kernel infers a missing cell's height from all neighbors within a radius; TRIP instead multiplies each neighbor's weight by (1 - rstep) so that high-risk cells contribute less, and it bounds inference to regions actually observed by the sensor. The same steppability score, paired with surface verticality, defines a Mahalanobis distance against the previously updated map; cells that deviate too far are treated as dynamic-object or sensor-noise outliers and are not merged. The result is a local map that fills occluded and sparse areas without hallucinating terrain beyond walls, and a global static map that keeps traces of moving objects out. The paper reports lower mean height errors and higher collision-cell precision and accuracy than BGK-based baselines across simulated and real datasets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the steppability score rstep reliably reflects which terrain is safe in sparse, noisy, or partly occluded regions, because that same score decides both which neighbors the kernel trusts and which measurements the outlier filter rejects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Online quadruped navigation can use a denser local terrain map with fewer empty cells, reducing blind spots during stair descent and traversal over box stacks.
  • Collision cells near walls and unobservable regions are less likely to be hallucinated, improving the precision of navigation maps without sacrificing recall.
  • Outlier traces from pedestrians, vehicles, and sensor noise are suppressed in the global static map, giving downstream planners a stable terrain representation.
  • Multi-modal risks (steppability, inclination, collision) let planners distinguish visually similar but mechanically different terrain.
  • The reported per-update processing times of about 9 ms in narrow scenes and 14 ms in open scenes indicate the mapping pipeline is compatible with online onboard use.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the same steppability-gated kernel could be applied to learned elevation-completion methods by using a risk-weighted attention mask.
  • A testable extension would be adapting the steppability-based Mahalanobis rejection as an online dynamic-object filter in SLAM backends, since it maintains a static map without requiring semantic labels for runtime.
  • Because the method relies on geometric steppability rather than semantics, it may transfer to wheeled or tracked off-road robots, though the paper only evaluates quadrupeds.
  • A useful sensitivity analysis we infer from the paper's logic is to corrupt rstep with increasing noise and measure whether T-BGK's advantage over vanilla BGK disappears, which would reveal how much of the gain depends on precise steppability estimates.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents TRIP, an online terrain traversability mapping pipeline for quadruped robots. It estimates steppability risk in spherical projection space, completes sparse local elevation maps with a proposed traversability-aware Bayesian generalized kernel (T-BGK), and fuses measurements into a static map via Kalman filtering with Mahalanobis-distance outlier rejection. The authors evaluate reconstruction and navigation-map metrics on the QRC simulation, SemanticKITTI sequences, and a campus dataset, comparing against BGK+ and tf-map baselines and a TRIP-S ablation.

Significance. If the described mechanisms worked as claimed, the contributions would be practically useful: dense, outlier-robust, multi-risk terrain maps for online legged navigation are an active need, and the paper includes a clear system description, public-data experiments, an ablation, and a demo video. The main mathematical claim, however, is not supported as written: the T-BGK weight cancels in the inference formula, so the risk-aware completion reduces to vanilla BGK. The empirical comparisons also report single numbers without uncertainty, so the strength of the reported gains is unclear.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-B, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The claimed traversability-aware inference is mathematically vacuous as written. Because kT(e_i, e) = (1 - rstep_e) k(e_i, e), the factor (1 - rstep_e) is constant over the summation index e_i and cancels between numerator and denominator in Eq. (8), yielding exactly the BGK inference L in Eq. (6). The same cancellation occurs in the bias models (11)-(12). Consequently, the T-BGK module differs from BGK only by the informally mentioned bounding of the inference region, and Eq. (8) is undefined (0/0) when rstep_e = 1. This directly contradicts the contribution statement that T-BGK enhances local terrain map completion while emphasizing traversability risks and undermines the attribution of the Table II improvements to T-BGK. Please correct the kernel so the risk weight depends on the neighbor cell (e.g., kT(e_i, e) = (1 - rstep_{e_i}) k(e_i, e)) and rerun the experiments, or state explicitly that only the bounded inference region differs and validate that mechanism separately.
  2. [V-B, Table II] The quantitative evaluation reports a single value per metric and sequence without variance, trials, or significance tests, although the abstract claims significant performance increases. Please provide multiple runs or error bars, and perform a statistical test or at least report per-trial results, to support the significance language. Also, the table header uses MHE while Section IV-B.2 defines MAE; the metric name should be consistent.
  3. [V-A, Table I] Several key parameters are set contextually: l is 0.5 m in narrow environments and 1.0 m in open ones, and tau_M is 3.0 in dynamic scenes and 1.0 in static ones. No sensitivity analysis is provided, so it is unclear whether the reported gains persist under fixed parameters or how much tuning is needed for new environments. This is important for the claimed scalability and generality of TRIP.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Index Terms] The Index Terms contain the typo Traversabiltiy; it should be Traversability.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption has Vanila BGK instead of Vanilla BGK.
  3. [Eq. (15)] The covariance matrix Sigma_{e(t-1)} is said to be derived from the Kalman filter update, but the text does not define which state covariance is used or how it is initialized; please specify.
  4. [V-A] The local completion range is 6 m x 6 m for QRC, 20 m x 20 m for campus, and 80 m x 80 m for SemanticKITTI; please state whether the same range is used for all baselines in each environment and discuss the effect on runtime comparisons in Table III.
  5. [V-B.1] The statement that tf-map has the lowest MTE in the QRC simulation should also note that TRIP achieves comparable MTE (7.47 cm vs. 7.13 cm) while having much higher precision, F1, and accuracy, and explain why MTE is not the sole criterion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

T-BGK's risk weight cancels in Eq. (8), making the central traversability-aware inference algebraically identical to vanilla BGK.

  1. renaming known result [Section III-B, Eqs. (7)-(8); also Eqs. (11)-(12)]
    "kT (eα, eβ) = (1 − rstep eβ )k(eα, eβ), (7) ... LT (K E e ) ≜ ¯ye = PKE e ei kT (ei, e)yei PKEe ei kT (ei, e) . (8)"

    By Eq. (7), the kernel used in Eq. (8) is kT(ei, e) = (1 − rstep_e) k(ei, e). The factor (1 − rstep_e) depends only on the query cell e, not on the neighbor ei, so it is a common factor in every term of the numerator and denominator of Eq. (8) and cancels. Hence LT reduces exactly to the vanilla BGK inference L of Eq. (6). The same cancellation occurs in the bias models (11) and (12). Therefore the paper's stated mechanism, that risky neighbors are downweighted during terrain height inference, is not present in the equations as written; T-BGK is a renamed version of BGK.

full rationale

The paper's own equations force the central T-BGK contribution to collapse: substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (8) gives a neighbor-independent query factor that cancels, so the T-BGK inference function is identical to the vanilla BGK inference of Eq. (6), and the bias models in Eqs. (11)-(12) collapse in the same way. This makes one of the three headline contributions vacuous by construction. The remaining contributions, spherical-projection steppability estimation and steppability-based Mahalanobis outlier rejection, are self-contained algorithm steps applied directly to sensor data and are not fitted to evaluation targets, so they are not circular. The self-citations to prior work ([29], [33]) provide algorithmic components rather than load-bearing external uniqueness claims. Because one central claimed prediction reduces by construction to the baseline while other contributions retain independent content, the appropriate circularity score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method relies on standard BGK inference, PCA normals, Kalman filtering, and several hand-set context-dependent thresholds. The most paper-specific assumptions are the steppability-weighted kernel and the semantic-plus-geometry ground-truth rule, both of which are introduced without theoretical or statistical validation.

free parameters (6)
  • tau_r = 0.6
    Conditional pooling threshold in Eq. (4); chosen by hand, affects which cells are max-pooled in the steppability risk map.
  • h_p = 1.0 m
    Platform height used to reject overhanging elements during re-projection in Section III-B; physically motivated by robot dimensions but a manual choice.
  • tau_h = 0.25 m
    Height-difference threshold for collision classification in Eq. (10) and ground-truth construction; also used by baselines, but still a free threshold.
  • l (kernel radius) = 0.5 (narrow) / 1.0 (open)
    Inference kernel radius in Eq. (5); set per environment context in Table I, directly controls smoothing and completion range.
  • tau_M = 3.0 (static) / 1.0 (dynamic)
    Mahalanobis rejection threshold in Eq. (14); set per environment context; controls how aggressively outliers are rejected.
  • map resolution and local completion range = 0.1/0.2 m resolution, 6/20/80 m range
    Set per dataset in Section V-A; affects the scale of map details and processing time.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math BGK kernel k(eα,eβ) from Melkumyan and Ramos [32] is a valid sparse covariance function for GP-like inference.
    Invoked in Eq. (5) as the base kernel; the paper modifies it but does not re-derive it.
  • standard math PCA over neighboring surfel points yields reliable normals.
    Section III-A uses PCA normals n to compute verticality nz and proximity in Eqs. (2)-(3).
  • domain assumption Traversability can be represented as 2.5D elevation with overhanging elements removable by a platform-height threshold.
    Section III-B filters elements whose height differs by more than h_p; this assumes the terrain surface is the lowest visible structure and the robot cannot fit under overhangs taller than itself.
  • ad hoc to paper Steppability risk is a reliable gate for kernel inference.
    Eq. (7) sets kT = (1 - rstep) k; the paper provides no theoretical or sensitivity analysis for this weighting when rstep is noisy.
  • ad hoc to paper SemanticKITTI traversability ground truth is adequately defined by semantic labels plus the tau_h height-difference rule, excluding vegetation above -1.0.
    Section IV-B1 builds E_gt this way, so the reported gains are relative to this geometric and semantic definition of traversability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TRIP: Terrain Traversability Mapping With Risk-Aware Prediction for Enhanced Online Quadrupedal Robot Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4IBQT47V

@misc{pith2026241117134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TRIP: Terrain Traversability Mapping With Risk-Aware Prediction for Enhanced Online Quadrupedal Robot Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4IBQT47V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17134}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate traversability estimation using an online dense terrain map is crucial for safe navigation in challenging environments like construction and disaster areas. However, traversability estimation for legged robots on rough terrains faces substantial challenges owing to limited terrain information caused by restricted field-of-view, and data occlusion and sparsity. To robustly map traversable regions, we introduce terrain traversability mapping with risk-aware prediction (TRIP). TRIP reconstructs the terrain maps while predicting multi-modal traversability risks, enhancing online autonomous navigation with the following contributions. Firstly, estimating steppability in a spherical projection space allows for addressing data sparsity while accomodating scalable terrain properties. Moreover, the proposed traversability-aware Bayesian generalized kernel (T-BGK)-based inference method enhances terrain completion accuracy and efficiency. Lastly, leveraging the steppability-based Mahalanobis distance contributes to robustness against outliers and dynamic elements, ultimately yielding a static terrain traversability map. As verified in both public and our in-house datasets, our TRIP shows significant performance increases in terms of terrain reconstruction and navigation map. A demo video that demonstrates its feasibility as an integral component within an onboard online autonomous navigation system for quadruped robots is available at https://youtu.be/d7HlqAP4l0c.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17134 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of terrain traversability mapping with risk-aware predic￾tion (TRIP). TRIP generates a local and global terrain map with multi-modal traversability risk prediction, enhancing online quadruped robot navigation. All figures in this paper are best viewed in color. in the field-of-view, data occlusion, and data sparsity, leading to compromised locomotion capabilities [18]–[21]. Moreover, for safer navigation, s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed TRIP framework. (a) Using 3D LiDAR or depth camera, a surfel map ˜ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Steppability map results from (a) surfel map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Local inference results, E¯, on the enclosed flat and bumpy terrains: (a) Vanila BGK-based inference L(·) results. (b) The proposed T-BGK-based inference LT (·) results. The grey points represent the predicted results of each inference function. Vanila BGK infers unobs…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ground-truth terrain traversability maps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Terrain traversability map in the SemanticKITTI dataset [37]. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Global terrain terrain traversability map updating time comparison. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative results in Quadruped Robot Challenge (QRC) environments: (a) Example scenes featuring box stacks in simulated QRC and real QRC sites + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative results on SemanticKITTI dataset. (a) A naively accumulated 3d point cloud map of seq. + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative results on our campus dataset: (a) Example scenes depicting traversal over flat urban terrain and irregular stairs within a forest. (b) BGK [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Locomotion policy guided traversability learning using volumetric representations of com- plex environments,

    J. Frey, D. Hoeller, S. Khattak, and M. Hutter, “Locomotion policy guided traversability learning using volumetric representations of com- plex environments,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. , 2022, pp. 5722–5729

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Per- ceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control,

    R. Grandia, F. Jenelten, S. Yang, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter, “Per- ceptive locomotion through nonlinear model-predictive control,” IEEE Trans. Robot., pp. 1–20, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Elevation mapping for locomotion and navigation using GPU,

    T. Miki, L. Wellhausen, R. Grandia, F. Jenelten, T. Homberger, and M. Hutter, “Elevation mapping for locomotion and navigation using GPU,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. , 2022, pp. 2273– 2280

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Traversability analysis for autonomous driving in complex environment: A LiDAR- based terrain modeling approach,

    H. Xue, H. Fu, L. Xiao, Y . Fan, D. Zhao, and B. Dai, “Traversability analysis for autonomous driving in complex environment: A LiDAR- based terrain modeling approach,” J. Field Robot. , vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 1779–1803, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Probabilistic terrain mapping for mobile robots with uncertain localization,

    P. Fankhauser, M. Bloesch, and M. Hutter, “Probabilistic terrain mapping for mobile robots with uncertain localization,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3019–3026, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Trajec- tory optimization through contacts and automatic gait discovery for quadrupeds,

    M. Neunert, F. Farshidian, A. W. Winkler, and J. Buchli, “Trajec- tory optimization through contacts and automatic gait discovery for quadrupeds,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1502–1509, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Gait and trajectory optimization for legged systems through phase-based end- effector parameterization,

    A. W. Winkler, C. D. Bellicoso, M. Hutter, and J. Buchli, “Gait and trajectory optimization for legged systems through phase-based end- effector parameterization,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. , vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1560–1567, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    An efficient locally reactive controller for safe navigation in visual teach and repeat missions,

    M. Mattamala, N. Chebrolu, and M. Fallon, “An efficient locally reactive controller for safe navigation in visual teach and repeat missions,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2353–2360, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    iPlanner: Imperative path planning,

    F. Yang, C. Wang, C. Cadena, and M. Hutter, “iPlanner: Imperative path planning,” in Robot.: Science and Syst. , 2023. [Online]. Available: 10.15607/rss.2023.xix.064

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    SMUG planner: A safe multi-goal planner for mobile robots in challenging environments,

    C. Chen, J. Frey, P. Arm, and M. Hutter, “SMUG planner: A safe multi-goal planner for mobile robots in challenging environments,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05309, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Footstep planning for autonomous walking over rough terrain,

    R. J. Griffin, G. Wiedebach, S. McCrory, S. Bertrand, I. Lee, and J. Pratt, “Footstep planning for autonomous walking over rough terrain,” in Proc. IEEE-RAS Int. Conf. Humanoid Robot. , 2019, pp. 9–16

    2019

  4. [12]

    Detecting usable planar regions for legged robot locomotion,

    S. Bertrand, I. Lee, B. Mishra, D. Calvert, J. Pratt, and R. Griffin, “Detecting usable planar regions for legged robot locomotion,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. , 2020, pp. 4736–4742

    2020

  5. [13]

    Multi-layered safety for legged robots via control barrier functions and model pre- dictive control,

    R. Grandia, A. J. Taylor, A. D. Ames, and M. Hutter, “Multi-layered safety for legged robots via control barrier functions and model pre- dictive control,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat. , 2021, pp. 8352–8358

    2021

  6. [14]

    Perceptive locomotion in rough terrain – online foothold optimization,

    F. Jenelten, T. Miki, A. E. Vijayan, M. Bjelonic, and M. Hutter, “Perceptive locomotion in rough terrain – online foothold optimization,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 5370–5376, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Vision aided dynamic exploration of unstructured terrain with a small- scale quadruped robot,

    D. Kim, D. Carballo, J. Di Carlo, B. Katz, G. Bledt, B. Lim, and S. Kim, “Vision aided dynamic exploration of unstructured terrain with a small- scale quadruped robot,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat. , 2020, pp. 2464–2470

    2020

  8. [16]

    Learning robust perceptive locomotion for quadrupedal robots in the wild,

    T. Miki, J. Lee, J. Hwangbo, L. Wellhausen, V . Koltun, and M. Hutter, “Learning robust perceptive locomotion for quadrupedal robots in the wild,” Science Robot. , vol. 7, no. 62, p. eabk2822, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    TAMOLS: Terrain-aware motion optimization for legged syst

    F. Jenelten, R. Grandia, F. Farshidian, and M. Hutter, “TAMOLS: Terrain-aware motion optimization for legged syst.” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3395–3413, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Real-time neural dense elevation mapping for urban terrain with uncertainty estimations,

    B. Yang, Q. Zhang, R. Geng, L. Wang, and M. Liu, “Real-time neural dense elevation mapping for urban terrain with uncertainty estimations,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 696–703, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Vision-assisted localization and terrain reconstruction with quadruped robots,

    C. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Wu, and Q. Zhu, “Vision-assisted localization and terrain reconstruction with quadruped robots,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. , 2022, pp. 13 571–13 577

    2022

  12. [20]

    Neural scene representation for locomotion on structured terrain,

    D. Hoeller, N. Rudin, C. Choy, A. Anandkumar, and M. Hutter, “Neural scene representation for locomotion on structured terrain,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 8667–8674, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Bayesian generalized kernel inference for terrain traversability mapping,

    T. Shan, J. Wang, B. Englot, and K. Doherty, “Bayesian generalized kernel inference for terrain traversability mapping,” in Proc. Conf. Robot Learning, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Proba- bilistic traversability model for risk-aware motion planning in off-road environments,

    X. Cai, M. Everett, L. Sharma, P. R. Osteen, and J. P. How, “Proba- bilistic traversability model for risk-aware motion planning in off-road environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.00153 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Risk-aware off-road navigation via a learned speed distribution map,

    X. Cai, M. Everett, J. Fink, and J. P. How, “Risk-aware off-road navigation via a learned speed distribution map,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. , 2022, pp. 2931–2937

    2022

  16. [24]

    Bayesian generalized kernel inference for occupancy map prediction,

    K. Doherty, J. Wang, and B. Englot, “Bayesian generalized kernel inference for occupancy map prediction,” inProc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat., 2017, pp. 3118–3124

    2017

  17. [25]

    Learning-aided 3-D occupancy mapping with Bayesian generalized kernel inference,

    K. Doherty, T. Shan, J. Wang, and B. Englot, “Learning-aided 3-D occupancy mapping with Bayesian generalized kernel inference,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 953–966, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Robot-centric elevation mapping with uncertainty estimates,

    P. Fankhauser, M. Bloesch, C. Gehring, M. Hutter, and R. Siegwart, “Robot-centric elevation mapping with uncertainty estimates,” in Mob. Serv. Robot., 2014, pp. 433–440

    2014

  19. [27]

    Navigation planning for legged robots in challenging terrain,

    M. Wermelinger, P. Fankhauser, R. Diethelm, P. Krüsi, R. Siegwart, and M. Hutter, “Navigation planning for legged robots in challenging terrain,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. , 2016, pp. 1184–1189

    2016

  20. [28]

    Fast traversability estimation for wild visual navigation,

    J. Frey, M. Mattamala, N. Chebrolu, C. Cadena, M. Fallon, and M. Hutter, “Fast traversability estimation for wild visual navigation,” in Robot.: Science and Syst. , 2023. [Online]. Available: 10.15607/rss.2023.xix.054

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    TRA VEL: Traversable ground and above-ground object segmentation using graph representation of 3D LiDAR scans,

    M. Oh, E. Jung, H. Lim, W. Song, S. Hu, E. M. Lee, J. Park, J. Kim, J. Lee, and H. Myung, “TRA VEL: Traversable ground and above-ground object segmentation using graph representation of 3D LiDAR scans,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7255–7262, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Efficient surfel-based SLAM using 3D laser range data in urban environments,

    J. Behley and C. Stachniss, “Efficient surfel-based SLAM using 3D laser range data in urban environments,” in Robot.: Science Syst. , 2018. [Online]. Available: 10.15607/rss.2018.xiv.016

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Patchwork: Concentric zone-based region-wise ground segmentation with ground likelihood estimation using a 3D LiDAR sensor,

    H. Lim, M. Oh, and H. Myung, “Patchwork: Concentric zone-based region-wise ground segmentation with ground likelihood estimation using a 3D LiDAR sensor,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 6458–6465, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    A sparse covariance function for exact Gaussian process inference in large datasets,

    A. Melkumyan and F. T. Ramos, “A sparse covariance function for exact Gaussian process inference in large datasets,” in Proc. Int. Joint Conf. Artif. Intell. , 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    DynaVINS: A visual- inertial SLAM for dynamic environments,

    S. Song, H. Lim, A. J. Lee, and H. Myung, “DynaVINS: A visual- inertial SLAM for dynamic environments,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 11 523–11 530, 2022. 9

    2022

  26. [34]

    DreamWaQ: Learning robust quadrupedal locomotion with implicit terrain imagination via deep reinforcement learning,

    I. M. Aswin Nahrendra, B. Yu, and H. Myung, “DreamWaQ: Learning robust quadrupedal locomotion with implicit terrain imagination via deep reinforcement learning,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Automat. , 2023, pp. 5078–5084

    2023

  27. [35]

    Robust odometry system for quadruped robots utilizing tightly-coupled and cross-modality feature association,

    K. C. Marsim, M. Oh, S. Lee, I. M. A. Nahrendra, B. Yu, and H. Myung, “Robust odometry system for quadruped robots utilizing tightly-coupled and cross-modality feature association,” under review, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Taking the first step toward autonomous quadruped robots: The Quadruped Robot Challenge at ICRA 2023 in London [competitions],

    A. Jacoff, J. Jeon, O. Huke, D. Kanoulas, S. Ha, D. Kim, and H. Moon, “Taking the first step toward autonomous quadruped robots: The Quadruped Robot Challenge at ICRA 2023 in London [competitions],” IEEE Robot. Automat. Magazine , vol. 30, no. 3, p. 154–158, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    SemanticKITTI: A dataset for semantic scene understand- ing of LiDAR sequences,

    J. Behley, M. Garbade, A. Milioto, J. Quenzel, S. Behnke, C. Stachniss, and J. Gall, “SemanticKITTI: A dataset for semantic scene understand- ing of LiDAR sequences,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. , 2019, pp. 9297–9307

    2019

  30. [38]

    ERASOR: Egocentric ratio of pseudo occupancy-based dynamic object removal for static 3D point cloud map building,

    H. Lim, S. Hwang, and H. Myung, “ERASOR: Egocentric ratio of pseudo occupancy-based dynamic object removal for static 3D point cloud map building,” IEEE Robot. Automat. Lett. , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2272–2279, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.