Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

StaR Maps: Unveiling Uncertainty in Geospatial Relations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read StaR Maps turn per-feature map uncertainty into probability distributions over spatial relations, returning probabilities instead of single geometric answers.

desk verdict StaR Maps is a clean integration of known pieces into a queryable uncertainty-annotated map, but the flagship probabilistic reasoning over conjunctions is not supported by the stored marginals. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18356 v1 pith:5FOPGBT2 submitted 2024-12-24 cs.RO

Simon Kohaut , Benedict Flade , Julian Eggert , Devendra Singh Dhami , Kristian Kersting This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords statisticalrelationalmapsuncertaintyannotatedspatialrelationsprobabilisticlogicprogrammingmapGaussianprocessinterpolationautonomousnavigationcrowd-sourced
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

This paper introduces Statistical Relational Maps (StaR Maps), an environment representation that treats every map feature as carrying a positional error model and turns that uncertainty into probability distributions over spatial relations. The authors argue that common digital maps, especially crowd-sourced ones, omit accuracy information, and that navigation and planning systems should be able to ask for the probability that a spatial fact holds, such as a point lying over a park or farther than 30 meters from a road. A StaR Map is built by sampling many perturbed versions of an uncertainty-annotated map, fitting categorical and continuous distributions to the resulting relation statistics, and interpolating the parameters into scalar fields over navigation space. Experiments on real-world crowd-sourced map data show that the construction scales with Gaussian-process interpolation and that the resulting fields support probabilistic first-order logic queries.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three linked pieces. First, an Uncertainty Annotated Map (UAM) augments each vertex of a map with translation parameters and transformation parameters, so a stochastic error model can generate many alternative map instances via affine perturbations such as translation, rotation, and scaling. Second, spatial relations between a point, a feature type, and a sampled map are evaluated across all instances and summarized by moment matching, meaning the distribution's parameters are set from the sample statistics: a Bernoulli for categorical relations such as over (is the point inside or above a feature of the given type) and a Gaussian for quantitative relations such as distance to the closest feature of the given type. Third, the relation parameters are turned into functions on continuous space by interpolation, and a Gaussian Process variant selects new sampling locations by its own predictive variance, making the field construction scalable and providing a natural stopping criterion. The sampling from the UAM is what connects raw map-error assumptions to queryable probability statements; without it, the scalar fields would reduce to deterministic distance or occupancy maps.

What would settle it

Compare a StaR Map's predicted probabilities with empirical frequencies on a region where ground-truth positions are known independently: for many query points, record the predicted probability that the distance to the nearest road exceeds 30 meters and compare it with the frequency observed after applying the same error model to surveyed geometry. Systematic divergence where per-feature accuracy varies would show that the single synthetic error model miscalibrates the map's outputs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that a StaR Map provides a unified representation that takes map-related error parameters, processes them through stochastic sampling, and stores the processed statistics so applications can reason probabilistically about spatial facts. Concretely, for each point in navigation space, the categorical relation over(feature type) is modeled by moment-matching a Bernoulli distribution and the quantitative relation distance(feature type) by a Gaussian, using N sampled maps generated from an Uncertainty Annotated Map, i.e., a map whose vertices carry translation and transformation statistics. These relation parameters are approximated as continuous scalar fields, with a Gaussian Process variant that samples additional points where its confidence is low. The authors demonstrate that the resulting fields answer logical queries, such as a simple airspace rule defined over park and road relations, with probabilities rather than crisp geometric verdicts.

Load-bearing premise

The whole approach depends on having trustworthy estimates of how far each map feature might be from its true position; in the experiments every feature is given the same synthetic Gaussian error, so if real errors differ by feature, are correlated, or are non-Gaussian, the output probabilities are not dependable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If StaR Maps work as claimed, any point query against a map can return a probability rather than a single geometric answer, such as the chance that the distance to the nearest road exceeds 30 meters.
  • The Gaussian-process construction makes it practical to build these probability fields over wide urban areas, adding sample points where uncertainty is high instead of covering the whole space with a uniform grid.
  • Hybrid probabilistic logic programs can consume StaR Map fields directly, so regulatory or mission constraints phrased as logical rules become queries with probabilistic answers.
  • The representation extends the earlier mission-design approach by putting a probabilistic regression model on top of the sampling process, so the map itself reports where its relation statistics are least certain.
  • Because the uncertainty annotation is per vertex, the same pipeline applies to roads, buildings, parks, and other tagged features once suitable error parameters are supplied.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit a natural next step: estimate the per-feature error models online by comparing crowd-sourced geometry against higher-accuracy surveys, extending the road-segment method to buildings, parks, and other feature types.
  • If real relation statistics are skewed or heavy-tailed, moment matching to Gaussian and Bernoulli families will miscalibrate; testing mixture or beta models would show how much calibration is lost by the fixed distributional choice.
  • A promising untested connection is feeding detector covariances from neural perception into the Uncertainty Annotated Map, so sensing uncertainty and map uncertainty are answered by the same query language.
  • The GP's confidence field could double as a safety monitor: a planner could refuse to act in regions where the variance of the relation statistics exceeds a threshold, since those are exactly the places the map cannot support a reliable decision.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Statistical Relational Maps (StaR Maps), a representation for uncertain geospatial data. Maps are augmented with per-vertex error parameters to form Uncertainty Annotated Maps, from which N random map instances are sampled. For each query point and feature type, categorical relations (e.g., over) and quantitative relations (e.g., distance) are summarized via moment matching into Bernoulli and Gaussian distributions, and scalar fields over the navigation space are approximated by linear interpolation or Gaussian Process regression. The authors demonstrate the pipeline on OpenStreetMap data with a synthetic isotropic translation error and show that GP-based construction reduces interpolation error more efficiently than grid sampling. They also show a hybrid probabilistic logic program that queries spatial constraints over the resulting scalar fields.

Significance. If validated, the representation would be a useful bridge between raw GIS data and statistical relational reasoning: it gives a uniform interface for probabilistic spatial predicates and proposes a scalable sampling-plus-regression construction. Strengths include clear formal definitions, an open-source implementation, and honest acknowledgment of limitations (e.g., the synthetic error model and the need for better distribution families). The main significance is limited by the fact that the evaluation is self-consistency on a single synthetic error model; the paper does not yet demonstrate calibrated probabilities on real uncertainty, nor does it validate composite query probabilities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.C, Definition 1.3, Listing 1] The central claim that StaR Maps provide probabilistic answers to first-order logic spatial queries is unsupported for composite queries. Each spatial relation is stored as an independent marginal scalar field (ui,j, vk,l), and the sampled maps W are discarded after moment matching. Listing 1 includes the conjunction airspace(X) :- distance(X, road) < 15, distance(X, pilot) < 250; its probability is not determined by the two marginals unless independence is assumed, and the paper neither states nor justifies that assumption. Since the two distances are measured on the same randomly translated map, they are typically dependent, so the probability returned for this conjunction is generally not the probability induced by the Uncertainty Annotated Map. The demonstrated reasoning mechanism is therefore unsound for the paper's flagship example. Please either preserve the joint information (e.g., evaluate composite queries by Monte Carlo on W, or store cross-covariances) or explicitly restrict the claims to single-relation queries with a stated independence assumption.
  2. [Section IV.A and Conclusion] The experimental evaluation supports only internal self-consistency under a single synthetic error model, not calibrated probabilities on real map uncertainty. All OSM features are given the same Gaussian translation error N(0, diag(10 m, 10 m)), which the authors call a 'stark simplification.' The conclusion acknowledges that general error-parameter estimation and non-Gaussian relation models are future work. Because the correctness of the resulting probabilities is conditional on the input error parameters and the assumed distribution families, the experiments do not establish the abstract's claim of an 'honest view of the data's accuracy.' There is also no baseline comparison (e.g., a deterministic map query) and no error bars on the MAE curves in Figures 7 and 9. Please add experiments with heterogeneous, correlated, or non-Gaussian error models and calibration checks, or temper the claims to the synthetic setting.
  3. [Section III.C and Figure 5] The moment-matching step assumes a Gaussian distribution for distance relations and a Bernoulli distribution for over, but this parametric assumption is not validated. The distance to the closest road under Gaussian map translation is generally not Gaussian, yet probability queries such as P(D > 30 m) in Figure 4(c) are computed from the Gaussian CDF. Figure 5 overlaid a Gaussian on a histogram but reports no goodness-of-fit or calibration statistic. The conclusion mentions that Gaussian models are 'not general tools,' but this is load-bearing for the central claim: a misspecified family leads to miscalibrated probabilities. Please provide a quantitative assessment of the fit, or show that the query probabilities are robust to the choice of family.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 7] The figure caption ends with a stray '43' that appears to be a formatting artifact and should be removed.
  2. [Section III.A] The equation for the translation sample uses the symbol ⃗βi, but the annotator function is defined as b(⃗ v) = ⃗β; the subscript is otherwise unused and should be removed for consistency.
  3. [Section IV.B] The term 'Star Map' appears once and should be written 'StaR Map' for consistency with the rest of the paper.
  4. [Listing 1] The syntax 'distance(x, building) ˜ normal (20, 0.5)' contains a spacing and tilde typo, and the feature type 'pilot' is used without explaining how it is represented in the map data.
  5. [Definition 1.3] The integer e in the codomains [0,1]^e and R^e is not defined; it should be stated as the number of parameters of the relation distribution.
  6. [Figure 3] Figure 3 illustrates translation, scaling, and rotation error models, but the experiments only exercise translation; the authors should state whether the implementation supports the other transformations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: StaR Maps' derivation is a compositional sampling-to-statistics pipeline; self-citations are contextual and not load-bearing.

full rationale

StaR Maps are constructed by taking an uncertainty-annotated map U, sampling N instantiations W = {M0,...,MN}, evaluating spatial relations r(x,tau,Mn), moment-matching the resulting rho values to Bernoulli/Gaussian families, and storing and interpolating these parameters (Sec. III.C). Querying, e.g., P(D > 30m) from the fitted N(mu,sigma^2) is an application of the fitted model, not a hidden identity: the fitted parameters are not defined in terms of the query answer, and the query answer is not fed back into the fit. The interpolation experiments (Sec. IV.B and Figs. 6-9) validate approximation fidelity against a dense raster computed from the same Monte-Carlo process, which tests the interpolation/GP approximation rather than claiming independent evidence for the error model; the paper honestly acknowledges the limitation in Sec. IV.A ('a stark simplification of the real-world characteristic of such maps'). The citations to the authors' prior work [26] and [42] are contextual or point to an optional error-parameter estimator; they do not carry the derivation, and the paper explicitly flags [42] as covering only road segments and calls for more general estimation in Sec. V. The skeptic's concern about conjunction queries in Listing 1 is a soundness/independence-assumption issue of the probabilistic logic layer, not a circular reduction of outputs to inputs. No equation in Sec. III is defined in terms of a result it is claimed to predict; hence no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; StaR Maps are a data structure formed from existing techniques (probabilistic logic, Monte Carlo sampling, moment matching, GP regression). The main free choice is the error model and its parameters, all assumed or synthetic in the experiments.

free parameters (3)
  • Synthetic translation error standard deviation = 10 m per axis
    Chosen by hand for all map features in Section IV.A; the resulting spatial relation probabilities depend on it and no real uncertainty data are used.
  • Number of sampled maps N = 50
    Fixed in Section IV.B for every experiment; affects the variance of moment estimates, and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Gaussian Process hyperparameters = not reported
    The Figure 9 caption notes the necessity of tuning hyper-parameters, but the kernel and hyper-parameter values used to produce the results are not reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A map is a graph of vertices, edges, and tags (Definition 1.1).
    The representation assumes vector map data with semantic tags; unstructured point clouds or image-based maps are treated as outside scope.
  • domain assumption Each vertex carries independent transformation and translation moments (a and b), and sampling from these moments produces plausible map instances.
    Section III.A defines UAMs this way; the paper provides no evidence that real map errors are independent or Gaussian, and notes only that [42] estimates road-segment errors online.
  • ad hoc to paper Spatial relations can be summarized by Bernoulli and Gaussian distributions via moment matching.
    Section III.C fits a Gaussian to distance samples and a Bernoulli to overlap samples; the authors themselves state in the conclusion that Gaussian distributions are not a general tool for such data.
  • domain assumption N sampled maps yield sufficient statistics for the spatial relations.
    N=50 is used without convergence checks or confidence intervals; estimates for high-variance quantities may be unreliable.
  • standard math Gaussian Process regression with confidence-guided sampling accurately interpolates the relation fields.
    GP regression is a standard method, but its accuracy depends on kernel choice and hyper-parameters, which are not fully reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of StaR Maps: Unveiling Uncertainty in Geospatial Relations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FOPGBT2

@misc{pith2026241218356,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: StaR Maps: Unveiling Uncertainty in Geospatial Relations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FOPGBT2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18356}
}
read the original abstract

The growing complexity of intelligent transportation systems and their applications in public spaces has increased the demand for expressive and versatile knowledge representation. While various mapping efforts have achieved widespread coverage, including detailed annotation of features with semantic labels, it is essential to understand their inherent uncertainties, which are commonly underrepresented by the respective geographic information systems. Hence, it is critical to develop a representation that combines a statistical, probabilistic perspective with the relational nature of geospatial data. Further, such a representation should facilitate an honest view of the data's accuracy and provide an environment for high-level reasoning to obtain novel insights from task-dependent queries. Our work addresses this gap in two ways. First, we present Statistical Relational Maps (StaR Maps) as a representation of uncertain, semantic map data. Second, we demonstrate efficient computation of StaR Maps to scale the approach to wide urban spaces. Through experiments on real-world, crowd-sourced data, we underpin the application and utility of StaR Maps in terms of representing uncertain knowledge and reasoning for complex geospatial information.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18356 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Statistical Relational Maps (StaR Maps) capture uncertain environments: StaR Maps provide a unified interface to heterogeneous background knowledge. Given symbolic, geographic data, and neural perception of the navigation space, they offer semantic, probabilistic answers to first-order logic based spatial queries. task due to the cost of the equipment and frequent changes in the respective areas. Instead, today’s an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Statistical Relational Maps (StaR Maps) architecture: Uncertain maps, annotated with translational and transformational statistics, are passed into a density estimator. Given a set of sample locations and the map sampler, generating variations of the annotated data according to its uncertainty, spatial relations are estimated. Using, e.g., moment matching, for each sample request the spatial relations are repres… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sampling from UAMs: Each map element carries an expectation of its true spatial occupancy, annotated with uncertainties that result from, e.g., the employed sensors or measurement methodology. Once a set of maps has been sampled, we probe the environment from a selection of points to fit StaR Maps’ spatial relations. Here, sampling the distance of a point to the closest uncertain road with different error models (a … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scalar and vector fields in StaR Maps express uncertainties in spatial relations: Queried road network for which random maps have been generated. (a) and (b) show parameters of a normal distribution that model the distance to the closest road, while (c) models the prob…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Parameter estimation of the distance relation: Here, a histogram of the sampling process of the distance to the closest road is shown for a single point. From the set of samples we compute mean and standard deviation in order to parameterize the Gaussian that will mode…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gaussian Process (GP) prediction of distance mean using confidence guided refinement: The GP’s prediction capabilities allow us to obtain mean and standard deviation across the mapped area. Sampling at points of low confidence (green dots), we can incrementally refine …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Interpolation-based StaR Map creation: Analo￾gously to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Reasoning on StaR Maps: Through StaR Maps’ vocabulary of probabilistic predicates over the navigation space, they facilitate complex semantic queries. Across a variety of environments, namely (a) an urban city park, (b) a bay area, (c) a major junction with a pedestri…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Mission Design for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles using Hybrid Probabilistic Logic Programs,

    S. Kohaut, B. Flade, D. S. Dhami, J. Eggert, and K. Kersting, “Mission Design for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles using Hybrid Probabilistic Logic Programs,” in 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1506–1513

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Managing uncertainty in GIS,

    G. J. Hunter, “Managing uncertainty in GIS,” Geographical informa- tion systems, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 633–641, 1999

    work page 1999

  3. [2]

    De Raedt, K

    L. De Raedt, K. Kersting, S. Natarajan, and D. Poole, Statistical Relational Artificial Intelligence , ser. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    Lateral Control in Precision Docking Using RTK- GNSS/INS and LiDAR for Localization,

    T. Ando, W. Kugimiya, T. Hashimoto, F. Momiyama, K. Aoki, and K. Nakano, “Lateral Control in Precision Docking Using RTK- GNSS/INS and LiDAR for Localization,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 78–87, mar 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Mitigation of multipath effect in GNSS short baseline positioning by the multipath hemispherical map,

    D. Dong, M. Wang, W. Chen, Z. Zeng, L. Song, Q. Zhang, M. Cai, Y . Cheng, and J. Lv, “Mitigation of multipath effect in GNSS short baseline positioning by the multipath hemispherical map,” Journal of Geodesy, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 255–262, mar 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Reliable Vehicle Pose Estimation Using Vision and a Single-Track Model,

    J. Nilsson, J. Fredriksson, and A. C. E. Odblom, “Reliable Vehicle Pose Estimation Using Vision and a Single-Track Model,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 2630–2643, dec 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    State of the Art in Vision- Based Localization Techniques for Autonomous Navigation Systems,

    Y . Alkendi, L. Seneviratne, and Y . Zweiri, “State of the Art in Vision- Based Localization Techniques for Autonomous Navigation Systems,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 76 847–76 874, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Robust Localization with Low-Mounted Multiple LiDARs in Urban Environments,

    M. Demir and K. Fujimura, “Robust Localization with Low-Mounted Multiple LiDARs in Urban Environments,” in 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC) . IEEE, oct 2019, pp. 3288–3293

    work page 2019

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Vehicle localization with low cost radar sensors,

    E. Ward and J. Folkesson, “Vehicle localization with low cost radar sensors,” in 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), vol. 2016- Augus, no. Iv. IEEE, jun 2016, pp. 864–870

    2016

  2. [9]

    Visual map matching and localization using a global feature map,

    O. Pink, “Visual map matching and localization using a global feature map,” in 2008 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. IEEE, jun 2008, pp. 1–7

    2008

  3. [10]

    Vehicle self-localization with high-precision digital maps,

    A. Schindler, “Vehicle self-localization with high-precision digital maps,” in 2013 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium Workshops . IEEE, jun 2013, pp. 134–139

    2013

  4. [11]

    Monocular cam- era localization in 3D LiDAR maps,

    T. Caselitz, B. Steder, M. Ruhnke, and W. Burgard, “Monocular cam- era localization in 3D LiDAR maps,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, oct 2016, pp. 1926–1931

    2016

  5. [12]

    Behavior-based relative self-localization in intersection scenarios,

    B. Flade, E. Casapietra, C. Goerick, and J. Eggert, “Behavior-based relative self-localization in intersection scenarios,” in 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, oct 2017, pp. 1–8

    2017

  6. [13]

    Monocular localization in urban environments using road markings,

    Y . Lu, J. Huang, Y .-T. Chen, and B. Heisele, “Monocular localization in urban environments using road markings,” in 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, jun 2017, pp. 468–474

    2017

  7. [14]

    Lane Detection Based Camera to Map Alignment Using Open-Source Map Data,

    B. Flade, M. Nieto, G. Velez, and J. Eggert, “Lane Detection Based Camera to Map Alignment Using Open-Source Map Data,” in 21st IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2018, pp. 890–897

    2018

  8. [15]

    Vision-Enhanced Low-Cost Localization in Crowdsourced Maps,

    B. Flade, A. Koppert, G. Velez, A. Das, D. Betaille, G. Dubbelman, O. Otaegui, and J. Eggert, “Vision-Enhanced Low-Cost Localization in Crowdsourced Maps,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 70–80, 2020

    2020

  9. [16]

    Kalman Filter-Based Integration of DGPS and Vehicle Sensors for Localization,

    S. Rezaei and R. Sengupta, “Kalman Filter-Based Integration of DGPS and Vehicle Sensors for Localization,” IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1080–1088, nov 2007

    2007

  10. [17]

    Ego-lane estimation by modeling lanes and sensor failures,

    A. L. Ballardini, D. Cattaneo, R. Izquierdo, I. Parra, M. A. Sotelo, and D. G. Sorrenti, “Ego-lane estimation by modeling lanes and sensor failures,” in 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) . IEEE, oct 2017, pp. 1–7

    2017

  11. [18]

    From statistical relational to neurosymbolic artificial intelligence: A survey,

    G. Marra, S. Duman ˇci´c, R. Manhaeve, and L. De Raedt, “From statistical relational to neurosymbolic artificial intelligence: A survey,” Artificial Intelligence, p. 104062, 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    An introduction to prolog iii,

    A. Colmerauer, “An introduction to prolog iii,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 69–90, 1990

    1990

  13. [20]

    Bayesian logic programming: Theory and tool,

    K. Kersting and L. De Raedt, “Bayesian logic programming: Theory and tool,” 2007

    2007

  14. [21]

    Problog: A probabilistic prolog and its application in link discovery

    L. De Raedt, A. Kimmig, and H. Toivonen, “Problog: A probabilistic prolog and its application in link discovery.” in IJCAI, vol. 7. Hy- derabad, 2007, pp. 2462–2467

    2007

  15. [22]

    Inference and learning in probabilistic logic programs using weighted boolean formulas,

    D. Fierens, G. Van den Broeck, J. Renkens, D. Shterionov, B. Gut- mann, I. Thon, G. Janssens, and L. De Raedt, “Inference and learning in probabilistic logic programs using weighted boolean formulas,” Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 358– 401, 2015

    2015

  16. [23]

    Deepproblog: Neural probabilistic logic programming,

    R. Manhaeve, S. Dumancic, A. Kimmig, T. Demeester, and L. De Raedt, “Deepproblog: Neural probabilistic logic programming,” advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  17. [24]

    Neurasp: Embracing neural networks into answer set programming,

    Z. Yang, A. Ishay, and J. Lee, “Neurasp: Embracing neural networks into answer set programming,” in 29th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2020) , 2020

    2020

  18. [25]

    Scalable neural-probabilistic answer set programming,

    A. Skryagin, D. Ochs, D. S. Dhami, and K. Kersting, “Scalable neural-probabilistic answer set programming,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 78, pp. 579–617, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Probabilistic logic program- ming for hybrid relational domains,

    D. Nitti, T. De Laet, and L. De Raedt, “Probabilistic logic program- ming for hybrid relational domains,” Machine Learning , vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 407–449, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    First-order context-specific likelihood weighting in hybrid probabilistic logic programs,

    N. Kumar, O. Ku ˇzelka, and L. De Raedt, “First-order context-specific likelihood weighting in hybrid probabilistic logic programs,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , vol. 77, pp. 683–735, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Segment Anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, P. Dollar, and R. Girshick, “Segment Anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , oct 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  22. [30]

    Object- centric learning with slot attention,

    F. Locatello, D. Weissenborn, T. Unterthiner, A. Mahendran, G. Heigold, J. Uszkoreit, A. Dosovitskiy, and T. Kipf, “Object- centric learning with slot attention,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 11 525–11 538, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Conditional object- centric learning from video,

    T. Kipf, G. F. Elsayed, A. Mahendran, A. Stone, S. Sabour, G. Heigold, R. Jonschkowski, A. Dosovitskiy, and K. Greff, “Conditional object- centric learning from video,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Multi-class target tracking using the semantic phd filter,

    J. Chen and P. Dames, “Multi-class target tracking using the semantic phd filter,” in The International Symposium of Robotics Research . Springer, 2019, pp. 526–541

    2019

  25. [33]

    Fast segmentation of 3d point clouds for ground vehicles,

    M. Himmelsbach, F. v. Hundelshausen, and H.-J. Wuensche, “Fast segmentation of 3d point clouds for ground vehicles,” in 2010 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium. IEEE, 6 2010, pp. 560–565

    2010

  26. [34]

    Openstreetmap: User-generated street maps,

    M. Haklay and P. Weber, “Openstreetmap: User-generated street maps,” IEEE Pervasive Computing, vol. 7, pp. 12–18, 10 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    Lanelets: Efficient map repre- sentation for autonomous driving,

    P. Bender, J. Ziegler, and C. Stiller, “Lanelets: Efficient map repre- sentation for autonomous driving,” in 2014 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2014, pp. 420–425

    2014

  28. [36]

    Driving situation analysis with relational local dynamic maps (r-ldm),

    J. Eggert, D. A. Salazar, T. Puphal, and B. Flade, “Driving situation analysis with relational local dynamic maps (r-ldm),” in FAST-Zero Symposium. Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Robust vehicle localization in urban envi- ronments using probabilistic maps,

    J. Levinson and S. Thrun, “Robust vehicle localization in urban envi- ronments using probabilistic maps,” Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pp. 4372–4378, 2010

    2010

  30. [38]

    An Online Multi-lidar Dynamic Occupancy Mapping Method,

    J. Huang, M. Demir, T. Lian, and K. Fujimura, “An Online Multi-lidar Dynamic Occupancy Mapping Method,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), no. Iv. IEEE, jun 2019, pp. 517–522

    2019

  31. [39]

    City gps using stereo vision,

    H. Lategahn and C. Stiller, “City gps using stereo vision,” 2012 IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety, ICVES 2012, pp. 1–6, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    Creating semantic hd maps from aerial imagery and aggregated vehicle telemetry for autonomous vehicles,

    Y . Wei, F. Mahnaz, O. Bulan, Y . Mengistu, S. Mahesh, and M. A. Losh, “Creating semantic hd maps from aerial imagery and aggregated vehicle telemetry for autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, pp. 15 382–15 395, 9 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Creating Enhanced Maps for Lane-Level Vehicle Navigation,

    D. Betaille and R. Toledo-Moreo, “Creating Enhanced Maps for Lane-Level Vehicle Navigation,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 786–798, dec 2010

    2010

  34. [42]

    Error decomposition for hybrid localization systems,

    B. Flade, S. Kohaut, and J. Eggert, “Error decomposition for hybrid localization systems,” in 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Trans- portation Systems Conference (ITSC) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 149–156

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.