Graph2Nav: 3D Object-Relation Graph Generation to Robot Navigation

Abhinav Rajvanshi; Han-Pang Chiu; Niluthpol Mithun; Tixiao Shan

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Graph2Nav: 3D Object-Relation Graph Generation to Robot Navigation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Object relationships cut robot search time by up to 35 percent

desk verdict A genuine real-robot integration of 2D panoptic scene graphs into 3D for LLM-based navigation, but the headline navigation gain is confounded by an under-specified paired-trial design. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16782 v1 pith:W6BFV7AN submitted 2025-04-23 cs.RO

Tixiao Shan , Abhinav Rajvanshi , Niluthpol Mithun , Han-Pang Chiu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords 3Dscenegraphobject-relationpanopticrobotnavigationSLAMsemanticmappinglargelanguagemodelplanningobjectsearch

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

Graph2Nav claims that a robot can build a useful 3D scene graph in real time by lifting 2D panoptic scene graphs into 3D with SLAM, and that the resulting object-relation edges make navigation more efficient. The paper tests this indoors and outdoors on a real unmanned ground robot, measuring both object localization and relation-labeling accuracy. When the relations are fed to an LLM-based planner during object search, the robot finds targets between 18.1% and 34.8% faster than when the same graph lacks relations. The significance is practical: it suggests robots can get spatial common sense from a small set of object relations without needing large 3D-labeled training datasets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a 2D-to-3D lift-and-merge pipeline. At each SLAM keyframe, a panoptic scene graph transformer produces a 2D graph of object masks, labels, and relations; using calibrated pixel-to-point correspondences, the masks are projected into the 3D point cloud, Bayesian updates assign consistent semantic labels to voxels, Euclidean clustering groups voxels into object nodes, and each frame's graph is translated into 3D and merged into a global layered scene graph. The merge step is what lets noisy single-view relations become temporally consistent graph edges without learning directly from 3D data.

What would settle it

Place two objects that are physically separated but appear stacked from one oblique viewpoint, drive the same sensor-equipped robot around them, and inspect the final global graph: if the 'on top of' relation appears even though the objects are not in contact, the single-frame merge assumption is producing false permanent edges.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a 3D object-relation scene graph can be generated online, for both indoor and outdoor scenes, by combining a per-frame 2D panoptic scene graph network with a pose-graph SLAM mapping system, and that the graph's relation edges directly improve downstream search navigation. Per keyframe, the network outputs object masks, class labels, and pairwise relations; pixel-to-point correspondences project them into 3D, Bayesian voxel updates reconcile labels, Euclidean clustering forms object nodes, and the per-frame graph is merged into a global layered graph. This lift-and-merge route sidesteps the lack of labeled 3D scene graph training data by reusing 2D panoptic scene graph datasets with 133 object classes and 56 relation types. In the paper's measurements, the merged graphs locate representative objects more accurately than single-image baselines, label indoor and outdoor relations correctly in 83-94% of annotated cases, and, when the relations are included in an LLM-based planner's prompts, reduce real-robot search times by 18-35% across six trials.

Load-bearing premise

Every relation detected in one camera frame is assumed to hold in the global 3D graph, because new edges are added directly when their nodes appear, with no multi-view or geometric check that the relation is still true from other viewpoints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Including object-relation edges in the planner's scene graph prompt shortens measured search times by 18.1% to 34.8% over the same graph without edges, across six real-robot trials.
Graph2Nav's merged 3D graphs reduce object centroid localization error by 11.6% to 37.1% compared with using a single 2D segmented image.
Relation labeling in the global graph is more accurate than in single 2D frames: 83.3% vs 56.7% indoors and 94.1% vs 64.7% outdoors on the annotated test pairs.
Because the graph is built from keyframes of the robot's own SLAM trajectory, the representation is available online during exploration, not precomputed before the mission.
The same 133-class, 56-relation taxonomy covers indoor and outdoor settings, so the framework transfers without retraining on 3D scene graphs.

Reading between the lines

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

If a multi-view consistency check were added before an edge enters the global graph, false relations from a single oblique viewpoint would likely be filtered, which could push relation accuracy above the reported 83-94% and make the navigation gain more robust.
The same lift-and-merge construction could work with open-vocabulary or larger relation sets, because the graph does not depend on the specific 133/56 taxonomy; any per-frame relation head that can output labels could feed the merged graph.
The navigation gain measured here is for a small-object search task; a natural extension is to test whether relation edges also speed up coverage, exploration, or manipulation planning, where object layout matters more directly.
The reported search-time reduction with relations is consistent with the planner using relations to skip redundant waypoints, for example visiting one table to observe two nearby chairs; a direct plan-length comparison would tell whether the savings come mainly from fewer stops.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the short version: this paper is a real but uneven integration of 2D panoptic scene graph prediction with LiDAR SLAM to build a 3D layered scene graph with intra-level object relations, and it demonstrates the result on a real UGV with an LLM planner. That combination is new as far as I know, and the accuracy tables are plausible. The real-world deployment is a step forward. But the headline navigation result rests on a paired-trial design that is not described carefully enough to rule out an order effect, and the quantitative support is thinner than the positive claims imply.

The core idea is clean: don't train a 3D scene graph network; lift a 2D panoptic scene graph (PSGFormer) into 3D using LIO-SAM poses and merge per-frame graphs. The layered structure (site / region / object) plus same-level object relation edges is what distinguishes it from Kimera, Hydra, and similar real-time 3D scene graph systems. The paper is honest about using existing components, and the citation pattern is fine. The real-robot search experiments, even with the confound, show a complete system working in a previously unseen lab.

Concerns, in rough order of severity. First, Table III: six scenarios, each with a no-relations and a with-relations trial. The text never says whether the SLAM map and scene graph are reset between the pair, nor whether order is randomized or counterbalanced. If the with-relations trial always came second, the robot has already explored the room, and the improvement could come from memory rather than from relation edges. That is the central claim, so it needs repeated, randomized trials. Second, the relation ground truth is tiny: 30 indoor and 17 outdoor hand-picked pairs. The 94% outdoor accuracy is 16/17, so one error matters a lot. Third, internal inconsistencies: the object count text sums to 105, not the stated 67, and the text says 'three environments' while the table has four. These are fixable but they undercut trust. Fourth, the 3D merge carries over each frame's edges with no geometric or multi-view check; a false 'on top of' seen once is inserted into the global graph permanently.

The math is simple—the only equation is a factorization—and the components are clearly attributed. Who gets value: robotics researchers working on 3D scene graphs and LLM-based navigation will find this a useful systems demonstration. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject, because it fills a real gap and the flaws are addressable.

Recommendation: send to peer review with a request for major revision—clarify the experimental protocol, add repeated trials and statistics, release data and code, and either add a multi-view consistency check or discuss the limitation. Conditional accept is the right ceiling.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. Graph2Nav proposes a real-time framework for building 3D object-relation scene graphs from RGB and LiDAR data. A modified PSGFormer predicts 2D panoptic scene graphs per keyframe; LIO-SAM provides poses and semantically labeled voxel clusters form 3D object nodes; per-frame 2D relation graphs are merged into a global 3D layered graph. The authors evaluate object centroid accuracy in four indoor/outdoor environments, relation accuracy on 30 indoor and 17 outdoor human-annotated relations, and integrate the graph with SayNav on a UGV for six object-search scenarios, reporting 18.1-34.8% search time reductions when object relations are used.

Significance. The contribution is potentially significant: it is among the first demonstrations of a real robot using a 3D scene graph with object-object relations to ground an LLM planner in both indoor and outdoor settings, and the design of leveraging 2D panoptic scene graph training data avoids the direct 3D relation training data constraint. The paper's strengths include a clear system architecture, use of an external PSG baseline and SayNav as a prior planner, and an ablation of relations within the same Graph2Nav graph rather than comparing to unrelated methods. However, the evidence for the headline claim is thin: six single-run paired trials without randomization/reset details, and small hand-annotated relation sets. The accuracy claims also contain a numerical inconsistency in object counts. If the experimental protocol is clarified and the relation and navigation results are strengthened, the paper would be a useful contribution.

major comments (4)

[Section V-C, Table III] The central claim that object relations improve search efficiency rests entirely on Table III, but the protocol description does not state whether the SLAM map and 3D scene graph are reset between the paired 'No Relations' and 'With Relations' trials, nor whether the order is randomized or counterbalanced across the six scenarios. If the with-relations trial always follows the no-relations trial, the robot benefits from prior exploration independent of any relation edges; even with resets, six single runs per condition without standard deviations or a statistical test cannot establish causation. Please report the exact protocol (map reset, order, number of runs, randomization), and ideally add repeated trials and a paired test.
[Section V-B, Table II] Relation accuracy is measured on only 30 indoor and 17 outdoor hand-labeled relations, with no inter-annotator agreement or sampling protocol described. The outdoor comparison is 16/17 versus 11/17, i.e., a difference of five relations; this is too sparse to support the claim of outdoor relation-generation generalization. Report a larger annotation set, annotation guidelines, agreement metrics, and confidence intervals or significance tests.
[Section III-C] The global 3D scene graph merge accepts relations from a single 2D keyframe without geometric or multi-view verification: 'New nodes are added to G with the corresponding edges from Gi' and updating existing nodes are the only merge steps described. A false relation detected from one oblique viewpoint is therefore inserted permanently into the 3D graph, which can inflate both the relation accuracy in Table II and the navigation benefit in Table III. Please specify an edge-verification mechanism (e.g., voting across viewpoints, geometric relation classifiers, or an uncertainty threshold) and report how many edges come from single versus multiple observations.
[Section V-B, Table I] The ground-truth object counts are internally inconsistent: the text states 'total 67 measured objects' and then lists 32 (cafeteria) + 38 (lab) + 22 (courtyard) + 13 (parking lot) = 105, and it refers to 'these three environments' while four environments are named. Since the localization errors in Table I depend on these counts, please correct the numbers and clarify per-environment totals so that the results are reproducible.

minor comments (5)

[Section III] In the overview sentence, '2D papnoptic scene graph generation' contains a typo; it should be 'panoptic'.
[Section IV] The word 'descibe' should be 'describe'.
[Section V-C] The phrase 'Data Distribution Serivce' should be 'Data Distribution Service'.
[Section III-B] The equation 'P r(G|I))' has an unbalanced parenthesis; the probability notation should be introduced more carefully.
[Section VI] The word 'fulfull' should be 'fulfill', and the opening sentence of the conclusion repeats the abstract nearly verbatim; consider tightening.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Graph2Nav's relations are validated against external labels and the navigation gain is an ablation of the same graph, not a fitted or self-cited prediction.

full rationale

Graph2Nav is a composed pipeline of external components (LIO-SAM [23], PSGFormer trained on the PSG dataset [20]), a novel 3D merge procedure, and an integration with SayNav [16]. The relation-accuracy claim in Table II is evaluated against manually labeled ground-truth relations defined in the external PSG label space, and the baseline is a single-image PSGFormer output; the comparison is not fitted to the test labels. The navigation claim in Table III is an ablation of the same Graph2Nav graph with and without object-relation edges, so the search-time outcome is an observed difference between two conditions rather than a quantity derived from a fitted parameter or from the cited SayNav paper by construction. No equation in the paper defines a predicted quantity in terms of the measured target, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from self-citations to constrain the design. The paper's self-citations to SayNav and LIO-SAM are prior-work citations, not load-bearing circular justification. The lack of reported trial-order randomization or map-reset details is an experimental-validity concern, not a circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system rests on four domain assumptions: SLAM pose accuracy, PSG training set transfer, single-frame relation validity, and the generality of the manually defined hierarchy. One hand-set free parameter class (voxel and clustering scales) affects object node quality. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Voxel resolution and Euclidean clustering distance = not reported
Section III-A uses voxelization and clustering to form object nodes; the chosen resolutions and thresholds are hand-set design choices not swept or justified.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The SLAM system (LIO-SAM) provides pose estimates accurate enough to merge multi-view object graphs without further refinement.
Section III-A: Graph2Nav relies on the pose graph; the accuracy of the 3D scene graph inherits the SLAM accuracy, which the paper explicitly states is out of scope.
domain assumption The PSGFormer network trained on the PSG dataset generalizes to the real indoor and outdoor scenes tested, for 133 classes and 56 relations.
Section III-B: 'the 2D panoptic scene graphs generated from our PSGFormer model share the same 133 object classes and 56 object relationships (as in PSG dataset) across both indoor and outdoor scenes.' No domain adaptation is performed.
ad hoc to paper Semantic relations predicted in a single 2D frame are valid when projected into the global 3D graph without geometric verification.
Section III-C: 'New nodes are added to G with the corresponding edges from Gi.' This trusts single-frame relation predictions.
domain assumption The manually defined layered hierarchy (regions, rooms, areas) generalizes to both indoor and outdoor scenes.
Section III-C: 'Same as [1]-[6], we manually define the layers.' The definition is not learned and is asserted to be general.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graph2Nav: 3D Object-Relation Graph Generation to Robot Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6BFV7AN

@misc{pith2026250416782,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graph2Nav: 3D Object-Relation Graph Generation to Robot Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6BFV7AN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16782}
}

read the original abstract

We propose Graph2Nav, a real-time 3D object-relation graph generation framework, for autonomous navigation in the real world. Our framework fully generates and exploits both 3D objects and a rich set of semantic relationships among objects in a 3D layered scene graph, which is applicable to both indoor and outdoor scenes. It learns to generate 3D semantic relations among objects, by leveraging and advancing state-of-the-art 2D panoptic scene graph works into the 3D world via 3D semantic mapping techniques. This approach avoids previous training data constraints in learning 3D scene graphs directly from 3D data. We conduct experiments to validate the accuracy in locating 3D objects and labeling object-relations in our 3D scene graphs. We also evaluate the impact of Graph2Nav via integration with SayNav, a state-of-the-art planner based on large language models, on an unmanned ground robot to object search tasks in real environments. Our results demonstrate that modeling object relations in our scene graphs improves search efficiency in these navigation tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16782 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The process flow diagram for Graph2Nav. A pose graph-based SLAM system is utilized to provide real-time pose estimations for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Same as [1]–[6], we manually define the layers in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Two examples of object-relations (”beside” and ”on” top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: An example of the impact from object-relations to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

3d scene graph: A structure for unified semantics, 3d space, and camera

I. Armeni, Z. He, J. Gwak, A. Zamir, M. Fischer, J. Malik, and S. Savarese, “3d scene graph: A structure for unified semantics, 3d space, and camera”, IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019

work page 2019
[2]

Kimera: From slam to spatial perception with 3d dynamic scene graphs

A. Rosinol, A. Violette, M. Abate, N. Hughes, Y . Chang, J. Shi, A. Gupta, and L. Carlone, “Kimera: From slam to spatial perception with 3d dynamic scene graphs”, The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 40, no. 12-14, pp. 1510-1546, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Hydra: A real-time spatial perception engine for 3d scene graph construction and optimization

N. Hughes, Y . Chang, and L. Carlone, “Hydra: A real-time spatial perception engine for 3d scene graph construction and optimization”, Robotics: Science and Systems , 2022

work page 2022
[4]

3D Dynamic Scene Graphs: Actionable Spatial Perception with Places, Objects, and Humans

A. Rosinol, A. Gupta, M. Abate, J. Shi, and L. Carlone, “3D Dynamic Scene Graphs: Actionable Spatial Perception with Places, Objects, and Humans”, Robotics: Science and Systems , 2020

work page 2020
[5]

S- Graphs+: Real-Time Localization and Mapping Leveraging Hierarchi- cal Representations

H. Bavle, J. Sanchez-Lopez, M. Shaheer, J. Civera, and H. V oos, “S- Graphs+: Real-Time Localization and Mapping Leveraging Hierarchi- cal Representations”, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, pp. 4927-4934, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Y . Deng, J. Wang, J. Zhao, X. Tian, G. Chen, Y . Yang, and Y . Yue, ”OpenGraph: Open-V ocabulary Hierarchical 3D Graph Representation in Large-Scale Outdoor Environments”, IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, vol. 9, pp. 8402-8409, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Strader, N

J. Strader, N. Hughes, W. Chen, A. Speranzon, and L. Carlone, ”Indoor and Outdoor 3D Scene Graph Generation via Language- Enabled Spatial Ontologies”, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, pp. 4886-4893, 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Hughes, Y

N. Hughes, Y . Chang, S. Hu, R. Talak, R. Abdulhai, J. Strader, and L. Carlone, ”Foundations of Spatial Perception for Robotics: Hierarchical Representations and Real-Time Systems”, The International Journal of Robotics Research , 2024

work page 2024

Show all 24 references

[9]

J. Wald, H. Dhamo, N. Navab, and F. Tombari, ”Learning 3D semantic scene graphs from 3D indoor reconstructions”, IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2020

2020
[10]

S. Wu, J. Wald, K. Tateno, N. Navab, F. Tombari, ”SceneGraphFusion: Incremental 3D scene graph prediction from RGB-D sequences”, IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion, 2021

2021
[11]

S. Wu, K. Tateno, N. Navab, F. Tombari, ”Incremental 3D Scemantic Scene Graph Prediction from RGB Sequences”, IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023

2023
[12]

Agia et al., ”Taskography: Evaluating robot task planning over large 3D scene graphs”, , Proceeding of the 5th Conference on Robot Learning, pp

C. Agia et al., ”Taskography: Evaluating robot task planning over large 3D scene graphs”, , Proceeding of the 5th Conference on Robot Learning, pp. 46-58, 2022

2022
[13]

Dhamo, A

H. Dhamo, A. Farshar, I. Laina, N. Navab, G. Hager, F. Tombari, and C. Rupprecht, ”Semantic Image Manipulation Using Scene Graphs”, IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020

2020
[14]

Dhamo, F

H. Dhamo, F. Manhardt, N. Navab, and F. Tombari, ”Graph-to-3d: End-to-end generation and manipulation of 3d scenes using scene graph”, IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pp. 16352-16361, 2021

2021
[15]

K. Rana, J. Haviland, S. Garg, J. Abou-Chakra, I. Reid, and N. Suenderhauf, ”Grounding Large Language Models using 3D Scene Graphs for Scalable Robot Task Planning”, Conference on Robot Learning, 2023

2023
[16]

Rajvanshi, K

A. Rajvanshi, K. Sikka, X. Lin, B. Lee, H. Chiu, and A. Velasquez, ”SayNav: Grounding Large Language Models for Dynamic Planning to Navigation in New Environments”, International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling , 2024

2024
[17]

Ravichandran, L

Z. Ravichandran, L. Peng, N. Hughes, J. Griffith, and L. Carlone, ”Hierarchical Representations and Explicit Memory: Learning Effec- tive Navigation Policies on 3D Scene Graphs using Graph Neural Networks”, International Conference on Robot Automation , 2022

2022
[18]

Seymour, N

Z. Seymour, N. Mithun, H. Chiu, S. Samarasekera, and R. Kumar, ”GraphMapper: Efficient Visual Navigation by Scene Graph Genera- tion”, International Conference on Pattern Recognition , 2022

2022
[19]

G. Zhu, L. Zhang, Y . Jiang, Y . Dang, H. Hou, P. Shen, M. Feng, X. Zhao, Q. Miao, S. Shah and M. Ben, ”Scene Graph Generation: A Comprehensive Survey”, Neurocomputing, vol. 566, 2024

2024
[20]

J. Yang, Y . Ang, Z. Guo, K. Zhou, W. Zhang, and Z. Liu, ”Panoptic Scene Graph Generalization”, European Conference on Computer Vision, 2022

2022
[21]

L. Li, W. Ji, Y . Wu, M. Li, Y . Qin, L. Wei, R. Zimmermann, ”Panoptic Scene Graph Generation with Semantics-Prototype Learning”, Annual AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2024

2024
[22]

Kirillov, K

A. Kirillov, K. He, R. Girshick, C. Rother, and P. Dollar, ”Panoptic Segmentation”, IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019

2019
[23]

T. Shan, B. Englot, D. Meyers, W. Wang, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, ”LIO- SAM: Tightly-coupled Lidar Inertial Odometry via Smoothing and Mapping”, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2020

2020
[24]

Macenski, F

S. Macenski, F. Mart ´ın, R. White, and J. Clavero, ”The Marathon 2: A Navigation System”, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2020

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

3d scene graph: A structure for unified semantics, 3d space, and camera

I. Armeni, Z. He, J. Gwak, A. Zamir, M. Fischer, J. Malik, and S. Savarese, “3d scene graph: A structure for unified semantics, 3d space, and camera”, IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Kimera: From slam to spatial perception with 3d dynamic scene graphs

A. Rosinol, A. Violette, M. Abate, N. Hughes, Y . Chang, J. Shi, A. Gupta, and L. Carlone, “Kimera: From slam to spatial perception with 3d dynamic scene graphs”, The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 40, no. 12-14, pp. 1510-1546, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Hydra: A real-time spatial perception engine for 3d scene graph construction and optimization

N. Hughes, Y . Chang, and L. Carlone, “Hydra: A real-time spatial perception engine for 3d scene graph construction and optimization”, Robotics: Science and Systems , 2022

work page 2022

[4] [4]

3D Dynamic Scene Graphs: Actionable Spatial Perception with Places, Objects, and Humans

A. Rosinol, A. Gupta, M. Abate, J. Shi, and L. Carlone, “3D Dynamic Scene Graphs: Actionable Spatial Perception with Places, Objects, and Humans”, Robotics: Science and Systems , 2020

work page 2020

[5] [5]

S- Graphs+: Real-Time Localization and Mapping Leveraging Hierarchi- cal Representations

H. Bavle, J. Sanchez-Lopez, M. Shaheer, J. Civera, and H. V oos, “S- Graphs+: Real-Time Localization and Mapping Leveraging Hierarchi- cal Representations”, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, pp. 4927-4934, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Y . Deng, J. Wang, J. Zhao, X. Tian, G. Chen, Y . Yang, and Y . Yue, ”OpenGraph: Open-V ocabulary Hierarchical 3D Graph Representation in Large-Scale Outdoor Environments”, IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, vol. 9, pp. 8402-8409, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Strader, N

J. Strader, N. Hughes, W. Chen, A. Speranzon, and L. Carlone, ”Indoor and Outdoor 3D Scene Graph Generation via Language- Enabled Spatial Ontologies”, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, pp. 4886-4893, 2024

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Hughes, Y

N. Hughes, Y . Chang, S. Hu, R. Talak, R. Abdulhai, J. Strader, and L. Carlone, ”Foundations of Spatial Perception for Robotics: Hierarchical Representations and Real-Time Systems”, The International Journal of Robotics Research , 2024

work page 2024