Moving Horizon Estimation for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping with Robust Estimation Error Bounds

Alexandre Didier; Jelena Trisovic; Melanie N. Zeilinger; Simon Muntwiler

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 31 references

Moving Horizon Estimation for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping with Robust Estimation Error Bounds

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 Decoupled MHE for SLAM yields provable landmark error bounds under intermittent visibility.

desk verdict The decoupled MHE-SLAM architecture is sensible and the simulations show a real speedup, but the main proof currently rests on a feasibility claim that is false as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13310 v1 pith:YCKUUQ4E submitted 2024-11-20 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY

Jelena Trisovic , Alexandre Didier , Simon Muntwiler , Melanie N. Zeilinger This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.ROcs.SY MSC 93B5393C5593E10

keywords movinghorizonestimationSLAMrobustincrementalinput/output-to-statestabilitylandmarkdetectabilityintermittentvisibilityrecursiveleastsquares

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 proposes a moving horizon estimation (MHE) scheme for simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) that splits the estimation problem into an ego-state update and separate landmark updates, and it aims to prove robust stability and bounded estimation errors even when landmarks are only intermittently visible. The central claim is that if the ego-state subsystem is detectable and the landmark measurement model is Lipschitz continuous, then the ego-state estimate is robustly globally exponentially stable and each landmark error bound decreases exponentially with the number of informative measurement horizons. The authors argue that this addresses the persistent-excitation requirement that plagues coupled SLAM estimators, and they support the claim with simulations on circular and corridor scenarios.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the decoupling of MHE into an ego-state estimator (NLP (6)) and per-landmark estimators (NLP (7)), gated by the landmark detectability condition (5) derived from the exponential i-IOSS decrease condition applied to a static landmark model. The informativity index $m_l^k$ counts how many disjoint informative horizons for landmark $l$ have occurred up to time $k$, and it is the quantity that controls the exponential decay in the landmark error bound (8).

What would settle it

Construct a simulation with a landmark that is visibly informative according to condition (5) but whose MHE update (7) produces an error that grows rather than decays across successive informative horizons, or run the scheme on a bearing-only SLAM setup without any anchoring measurement and observe that the ego-state error does not converge, contradicting Proposition 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes Proposition 1: under Assumptions 1 and 2, the decoupled MHE scheme in Algorithm 1 with NLPs (6) and (7) yields (1) an ego-state estimate that is robustly globally exponentially stable (RGES), and (2) for each landmark, an estimation error bound of the form (8) that decays exponentially with the informativity index $m_l^k$, i.e., with the number of informative horizons for that landmark. The proof works by applying the i-IOSS-based MHE stability theorem to the ego-state subsystem and then, for each landmark, chaining the landmark detectability condition (5) over successive informative horizons, with the landmark estimate held fixed when no informative horizon occurs. The authors also show that when landmarks are periodically detectable the informativity index grows linearly in time, and they provide a streamlined recursive least squares formulation for the range measurement model.

Load-bearing premise

The ego-state must be detectable from ego-sensors alone (Assumption 1); without an external position measurement or anchoring landmarks, even linear SLAM is unobservable, so the guarantee fails for many bearing-only or range-only setups.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the decoupled MHE scheme is correct, SLAM can be performed with provable robust error bounds even when landmarks enter and leave the field of view, without requiring persistent excitation of every landmark.
Landmark updates become parallelizable, since each landmark's NLP (7) is independent once the ego-state estimate is fixed, reducing per-step computation compared to a coupled augmented-state MHE.
The ego-state estimation error, being RGES, provides a bounded uncertainty that is propagated into the landmark error bound through the Lipschitz assumption, so the landmark guarantees hold as long as the ego-state detector is sufficiently informative.
For range-based sensors, the landmark update reduces to recursive least squares, giving the same stability properties with significantly lower computational cost than a full MHE update.
When each landmark is periodically detectable, the informativity index grows linearly with time, making the landmark estimate RGES as well rather than merely bounded.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct testable extension would be to report, in simulations, whether condition (5) was explicitly checked before each landmark update; the paper's simulations do not state that this check was performed, so the empirical validation of the gating mechanism remains indirect.
The bound (8) suggests a natural active-SLAM objective: plan trajectories that maximize the minimum informativity index across landmarks, turning the theoretical error bound into a planning cost and potentially improving worst-case mapping accuracy.
The decoupling could be applied to other joint state-and-parameter estimation problems beyond SLAM, wherever the parameters appear only in the measurement equation and the state subsystem is detectable on its own.
The authors' reliance on observability-based sufficient conditions for Assumption 1 hints that the scheme's practical reach depends on external anchoring measurements; a systematic way to verify i-IOSS for common SLAM models would broaden the class of systems covered.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Read this one for the architecture, not for the proof. The paper proposes a decoupled MHE scheme for SLAM where the ego-state is estimated from ego-sensors alone and each landmark is updated only when a detectability condition holds. That is a useful structure: it allows parallel landmark updates and gives a principled reason to skip uninformative measurements. The informativity-index dependent bound (8) is a nice conceptual target, and the simulation section does show a large computational advantage over the coupled MHE baseline. The discussion of assumptions in Section V is honest: they admit Assumption 1 fails for bearing-only or range-only SLAM without anchoring, and they point to literature for verifying it.

The problem is the proof of Proposition 1. After Eq. (10) they claim 'the true system trajectory is feasible in the MHE optimization problem' and use that to get J(opt) <= J(true). For the landmark NLP (7), the constraint predicts every measurement in the horizon using the single final ego-state estimate \hat{x}^s_k (and the current data association A_k). The true measurements are generated with the robot pose at each time j. Unless the robot is stationary over the horizon, the true trajectory does not satisfy (7), so the inequality and the recursive bound (11)/(8) do not go through. This is not cured by verifying Assumption 1 or checking condition (5); the landmark MHE itself would need to use per-time poses inside the horizon, or the proof needs a different argument that does not rely on feasibility.

The reader's concerns are also on point but secondary: Assumption 1 is load-bearing and not verified for the simulated system, condition (5) is not actually checked in the simulations, and the derivation of (8) defers to [13, Cor. 1]. None of those would be fatal if the feasibility claim were repaired, but as it stands the central stability result is unproven.

The honest assessment: this is a legitimate extension of MHE stability theory to a decoupled SLAM back-end, and the computational results are genuine, but the paper currently asks the reader to accept a theorem whose key step is false. The fix is identifiable—correct (7) to use \hat{x}^s_j in the horizon and re-derive, or prove a looser bound without feasibility. That is refereeable; I would not desk-reject it. I would send it to review and ask for a corrected proof or a clear statement of what the theorem actually requires.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a decoupled moving horizon estimation (MHE) scheme for SLAM. The robot pose is estimated from ego-sensors alone by solving the MHE problem (6), while each landmark position is updated by a separate, smaller MHE problem (7) only when a horizon-level informativity condition (5) is satisfied. Proposition 1 claims that, under an i-IOSS assumption on the ego-subsystem and a Lipschitz condition on the landmark measurement model, the pose estimator is robustly globally exponentially stable and each landmark error satisfies the bound (8), which decays with the number of informative landmark horizons. The paper also discusses how the assumptions relate to bearing-only and range sensors, proposes a recursive least squares simplification for range measurements, and reports simulations on two planar SLAM scenarios.

Significance. If the main result were correct, this would be a useful contribution: it would give robust MHE-style error bounds for SLAM under intermittent landmark visibility, with a naturally parallelizable landmark update structure and no fitted constants. The paper is also transparent about the restrictiveness of Assumption 1, explicitly noting in Section V-B that standard bearing-only or range-only SLAM without anchors is not observable and hence does not satisfy the assumption. However, the central proof currently breaks at a load-bearing feasibility step for the landmark MHE, so the claimed guarantees are not established as written. The simulation section does not verify the key informativity condition used by the algorithm, and the reported horizon and decay parameters are not reconciled with the sufficient condition of the cited stability theorem.

major comments (2)

[IV, Eq. (7) and proof of Proposition 1] The proof step 'Because of the feasibility of the true system trajectory in the MHE optimization problem' after Eq. (10) is not valid for the NLP in (7). The constraints in (7) require \hat y^{e,l}_{j|k} = a^{e,l}_k h^e(\hat x^s_k, \hat x^{e,l}_{k|k}, \hat \xi^{e,l}_{j|k}) for every j in the horizon, whereas the measurements are generated as y^{e,l}_j = a^{e,l}_j h^e(x^s_j, x^{e,l}, \xi^{e,l}_j). Unless the robot is stationary over the horizon, the true trajectory (x^{e,l}, \xi^{e,l}_j, y^{e,l}_j) does not satisfy the constraints, so the inequality J(optimal) ≤ J(true) does not follow. This inequality is exactly what produces the recursive bound (11) and hence the advertised bound (8), so Proposition 1(2) is not established as written. The landmark MHE should use per-time ego-state estimates \hat x^s_{j|k} inside the horizon, with the detectability condition (5) aligned to the same per-time poses, or else the proof must be replaced by an argument that does not rely on feasibility of the true trajectory.
[VI and Algorithm 1] The numerical validation does not verify the theoretical conditions under which Proposition 1 is stated. Algorithm 1 updates a landmark only when condition (5) holds, but the simulation section describes updates based on visibility and never reports that (5) was checked, so Figure 3 cannot be read as validating the theorem. In addition, Assumption 1 is only argued through observability in Section V-B; the paper does not exhibit an i-IOSS Lyapunov function or the matrices from Definition 1 for the simulated model. The reported parameters η = 0.99 and horizon length 20 are also difficult to reconcile with the sufficient condition 4 η^{N_s} λmax(\bar U, U) < 1 from Theorem 1, since Definition 1 implies \bar U ⪰ U and hence λmax(\bar U, U) ≥ 1, which would require a horizon much longer than 20 for this decay rate. Either the simulations should check and report all conditions of Proposition 1, or the claim that they validate the theory should be substantially softened.

minor comments (3)

[Definition 3, Eq. (5)] The visibility matrix inside the sum should be a^{e,l}_j, not a^{e,l}_k; as written, only the visibility at the current time multiplies the output terms from all past times in the horizon, which cannot be the intended condition.
[Algorithm 1 and Eq. (7)] The horizon parameter and the prior landmark estimate are inconsistent: Algorithm 1 line 11 passes N^{e,l} and \hat x^{e,l}_{k-N^s_k}, while the cost in (7) uses M and the proof uses \hat x^{e,l}_{k-M}. These quantities should be defined consistently.
[Section V-A, Eq. (14)] The displayed measurement model is ambiguous for the two sensor types: for the bearing-only case, the first block R(-θ_k)(x^{e,l}-p_k) has magnitude equal to the distance rather than a unit vector, contrary to Figure 1; for the range case, α = 1 makes the second block a constant rather than a range measurement. Please reconcile Eq. (14) with the text and Figure 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation applies an external MHE theorem and a stated detectability condition; the main proof gap is a feasibility issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is not circular in the sense of reducing a prediction to its own inputs. Property 1 of Proposition 1 applies Corollary 1 of [13] to the ego-subsystem (3a)-(3b) under Assumption 1; [13] is an external published theorem with stated assumptions and does not depend on the present paper's data or fitted values. The fact that two authors of [13] are also co-authors here does not make the cited theorem equivalent to the claim, and it is not used to forbid alternatives. Property 2 is derived from Definition 3, the landmark detectability inequality (5), which is a stated sufficient condition on the measurement model and noise. The algebra from (5) through (11) to (8) is a standard detectability-to-error-bound argument, not a restatement of the conclusion. No parameter is fitted to simulation data and then reported as a prediction; weight matrices and horizons are user-chosen. The augmented noise in (4), which contains the ego-state error, is an explicit modeling step justified by Assumption 2, and the final bound (8) includes the resulting dependence on ego-error and process noise. The only notable issue is a correctness concern in the proof after Eq. (10): the true system trajectory is claimed feasible for NLP (7), but (7) constrains every horizon output using a_k h^e(hat{x}^s_k, ...), i.e., the visibility mask and ego pose at the horizon end, whereas the data are generated with a_j h^e(x^s_j, ...). This affects the validity of the feasibility inequality, not the circularity of the argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two explicit assumptions (i-IOSS detectability of the ego-subsystem and Lipschitz landmark model), the formal condition (5) for landmark updates, standard SLAM assumptions (static environment, known data association), and a black-box use of the MHE stability theorem from [13]. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The design weights and horizons are hand-chosen inputs, not fitted constants.

free parameters (4)

ego-state i-IOSS decay rate eta_s = 0.99
Chosen by hand; must satisfy eta_s in [0,1) and the horizon condition 4 eta_s^{N_s} lambda_max(U_s, U^s) < 1. It is an input to the error bound, not fitted to data.
landmark i-IOSS decay rates eta_{e,l} = 0.99
Chosen by hand for each landmark; must satisfy 4 eta_{e,l}^{M} lambda_max(U^{e,l}, U_{e,l}) < 1. Not fitted to data.
weight matrices for ego and landmark costs = U_s=0.001I3, Q_s=I6, R_s=I3, U_e=0.01I2, Q_e=I2, R_e=0.1I2 in simulations
Hand-selected; they define the norm in the bounds and appear in the detectability conditions. The simulations do not report the upper Lyapunov matrix U^e.
horizon lengths N_s and M = 20
Chosen to satisfy the small-gain condition 4 eta^M lambda_max < 1; the constants that would verify this condition for the simulated system are not computed.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Assumption 1: System (3a)-(3b) admits an i-IOSS Lyapunov function (Definition 1).
Invoked in Section IV before Proposition 1; it restricts applicability to ego-detectable SLAM configurations, and the authors acknowledge in Section V-B that common range/bearing-only SLAM without anchors is not observable and hence not detectable.
domain assumption Assumption 2: The landmark measurement function h^e is Lipschitz continuous with respect to the ego-state.
Invoked in Section IV and verified for range and bearing-only models only under strictly positive min and max sensor range; it lets the ego-state error be treated as an additive noise in landmark updates.
domain assumption Landmark detectability condition (5) holds at every time a landmark is updated.
Algorithm 1 line 10 gates updates on this condition; the simulations do not report verifying it, so the simulated algorithm may run outside the theorem's premise.
domain assumption The front-end correctly associates measurements to landmarks and the environment is static with known L.
Section III states the back-end only is considered and data association errors are ignored; static landmarks are standard SLAM assumptions.
standard math Theorem 1 (Corollary 1 of [13]) applies to the ego-subsystem (3a)-(3b).
The ego-state RGES result is imported directly from [13]; this is a cited theorem, not re-derived.
domain assumption The planar robot with measurements (13) is observable, hence detectable, so Assumption 1 holds in the simulations.
Section V-B argues observability from the linear model and rank of the observability matrix, but does not display the matrix or a Lyapunov function.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Moving Horizon Estimation for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping with Robust Estimation Error Bounds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YCKUUQ4E

@misc{pith2026241113310,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Moving Horizon Estimation for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping with Robust Estimation Error Bounds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YCKUUQ4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13310}
}

read the original abstract

This paper presents a robust moving horizon estimation (MHE) approach with provable estimation error bounds for solving the simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) problem. We derive sufficient conditions to guarantee robust stability in ego-state estimates and bounded errors in landmark position estimates, even under limited landmark visibility which directly affects overall system detectability. This is achieved by decoupling the MHE updates for the ego-state and landmark positions, enabling individual landmark updates only when the required detectability conditions are met. The decoupled MHE structure also allows for parallelization of landmark updates, improving computational efficiency. We discuss the key assumptions, including ego-state detectability and Lipschitz continuity of the landmark measurement model, with respect to typical SLAM sensor configurations, and introduce a streamlined method for the range measurement model. Simulation results validate the considered method, highlighting its efficacy and robustness to noise.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13310 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Circular (left) and corridor (right) landmark placement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Ego-state (top) and average landmark error (bottom) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM): Part II,

T. Bailey and H. Durrant-Whyte, “Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM): Part II,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 108–117, 2006

work page 2006
[2]

Simultaneous localization and mapping: Part I,

H. Durrant-Whyte and T. Bailey, “Simultaneous localization and mapping: Part I,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 99–110, 2006

work page 2006
[3]

Visual SLAM: why filter?

H. Strasdat, J. M. Montiel, and A. J. Davison, “Visual SLAM: why filter?” Image and Vision Computing, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 65–77, 2012

work page 2012
[4]

A counter example to the theory of simultaneous localization and map building,

S. J. Julier and J. K. Uhlmann, “A counter example to the theory of simultaneous localization and map building,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , vol. 4. IEEE, 2001, pp. 4238–4243

work page 2001
[5]

Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm,

F. Kschischang, B. Frey, and H.-A. Loeliger, “Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 498–519, 2001

work page 2001
[6]

Orb-SLAM3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap SLAM,

C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodr ´ıguez, J. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard´os, “Orb-SLAM3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap SLAM,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1874–1890, 2021

work page 2021
[7]

OpenVSLAM: A ver- satile visual SLAM framework,

S. Sumikura, M. Shibuya, and K. Sakurada, “OpenVSLAM: A ver- satile visual SLAM framework,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2019, pp. 2292–2295

work page 2019
[8]

Rtab-map as an open-source lidar and visual simultaneous localization and mapping library for large-scale and long-term online operation,

M. Labb ´e and F. Michaud, “Rtab-map as an open-source lidar and visual simultaneous localization and mapping library for large-scale and long-term online operation,” Journal of field robotics , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 416–446, 2019

work page 2019

Show all 31 references

[9]

Si- multaneous localization and mapping: Through the lens of nonlinear optimization,

A. Saxena, C.-Y . Chiu, R. Shrivastava, J. Menke, and S. Sastry, “Si- multaneous localization and mapping: Through the lens of nonlinear optimization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7148–7155, 2022

2022
[10]

Factor graphs for robot perception,

F. Dellaert, M. Kaess et al. , “Factor graphs for robot perception,” Foundations and Trends® in Robotics , vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 1–139, 2017

2017
[11]

Distributed block coordinate moving horizon estimation for 2d visual-inertial-odometry SLAM,

E. Flayac and I. Shames, “Distributed block coordinate moving horizon estimation for 2d visual-inertial-odometry SLAM,” in 2023 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2178–2183

2023
[12]

J. B. Rawlings, D. Q. Mayne, M. Diehl et al., Model predictive control: theory, computation, and design . Nob Hill Publishing Madison, WI, 2017, vol. 2

2017
[13]

A lyapunov function for robust stability of moving horizon estimation,

J. D. Schiller, S. Muntwiler, J. K ¨ohler, M. N. Zeilinger, and M. A. M¨uller, “A lyapunov function for robust stability of moving horizon estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 7466–7481, 2023

2023
[14]

Robust stability of full information estimation,

D. A. Allan and J. B. Rawlings, “Robust stability of full information estimation,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 3472–3497, 2021

2021
[15]

Nonlinear moving horizon estimation for combined state and friction coefficient estimation in autonomous driving,

M. Zanon, J. V . Frasch, and M. Diehl, “Nonlinear moving horizon estimation for combined state and friction coefficient estimation in autonomous driving,” in 2013 European control conference (ECC) . IEEE, 2013, pp. 4130–4135

2013
[16]

A real- time algorithm for moving horizon state and parameter estimation,

P. K ¨uhl, M. Diehl, T. Kraus, J. P. Schl ¨oder, and H. G. Bock, “A real- time algorithm for moving horizon state and parameter estimation,” Computers & chemical engineering , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 71–83, 2011

2011
[17]

De- velopment of moving window state and parameter estimators under maximum likelihood and bayesian frameworks,

J. Valluru, P. Lakhmani, S. C. Patwardhan, and L. T. Biegler, “De- velopment of moving window state and parameter estimators under maximum likelihood and bayesian frameworks,” Journal of Process Control, vol. 60, pp. 48–67, 2017

2017
[18]

A moving horizon state and parameter estimation scheme with guaranteed robust convergence,

J. D. Schiller and M. A. M ¨uller, “A moving horizon state and parameter estimation scheme with guaranteed robust convergence,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 6759–6764, 2023

2023
[19]

Moving horizon observer with regu- larisation for detectable systems without persistence of excitation,

D. Sui and T. A. Johansen, “Moving horizon observer with regu- larisation for detectable systems without persistence of excitation,” International Journal of Control, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 1041–1054, 2011

2011
[20]

Mhe under parametric uncertainty–robust state estimation without informative data,

S. Muntwiler, J. K ¨ohler, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Mhe under parametric uncertainty–robust state estimation without informative data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.14049, 2023

2023
[21]

Nonlinear moving horizon es- timation for robust state and parameter estimation,

J. D. Schiller and M. A. M ¨uller, “Nonlinear moving horizon es- timation for robust state and parameter estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13175, 2023

2023
[22]

Nonlinear detectability and incremental input/output-to-state stability,

D. A. Allan, J. Rawlings, and A. R. Teel, “Nonlinear detectability and incremental input/output-to-state stability,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 3017–3039, 2021

2021
[23]

FastSLAM 2.0: An improved particle filtering algorithm for simultaneous local- ization and mapping that provably converges,

M. Montemerlo, S. Thrun, D. Koller, B. Wegbreit et al., “FastSLAM 2.0: An improved particle filtering algorithm for simultaneous local- ization and mapping that provably converges,” in IJCAI, vol. 3, no
[24]

Real-time loop closure in 2d lidar SLAM,

W. Hess, D. Kohler, H. Rapp, and D. Andor, “Real-time loop closure in 2d lidar SLAM,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2016, pp. 1271–1278

2016
[25]

Nonlinear functional estimation: Functional detectability and full information estimation,

S. Muntwiler, J. K ¨ohler, and M. N. Zeilinger, “Nonlinear functional estimation: Functional detectability and full information estimation,” Automatica, vol. 171, p. 111945, 2025

2025
[26]

The effects of partial observability in SLAM,

J. Andrade-Cetto and A. Sanfeliu, “The effects of partial observability in SLAM,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , vol. 1. IEEE, 2004, pp. 397–402

2004
[27]

Observability analysis for auv range-only localization and mapping measures of unobservability and experimen- tal results,

M. Bayat and A. P. Aguiar, “Observability analysis for auv range-only localization and mapping measures of unobservability and experimen- tal results,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 45, no. 27, pp. 325–330, 2012

2012
[28]

Observers for position estimation using bearing and biased velocity information,

F. Le Bras, T. Hamel, R. Mahony, and C. Samson, “Observers for position estimation using bearing and biased velocity information,” in Sensing and Control for Autonomous Vehicles: Applications to Land, Water and Air Vehicles. Springer, 2017, pp. 3–23

2017
[29]

On the observability and observability analysis of SLAM,

K. W. Lee, W. S. Wijesoma, and J. I. Guzman, “On the observability and observability analysis of SLAM,” in 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2006, pp. 3569– 3574

2006
[30]

Generalized recursive least squares: Stability, robustness, and excitation,

M. Bin, “Generalized recursive least squares: Stability, robustness, and excitation,” Systems & Control Letters , vol. 161, p. 105144, 2022

2022
[2003]

1151–1156

Citeseer, 2003, pp. 1151–1156

2003

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM): Part II,

T. Bailey and H. Durrant-Whyte, “Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM): Part II,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 108–117, 2006

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Simultaneous localization and mapping: Part I,

H. Durrant-Whyte and T. Bailey, “Simultaneous localization and mapping: Part I,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 99–110, 2006

work page 2006

[3] [3]

Visual SLAM: why filter?

H. Strasdat, J. M. Montiel, and A. J. Davison, “Visual SLAM: why filter?” Image and Vision Computing, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 65–77, 2012

work page 2012

[4] [4]

A counter example to the theory of simultaneous localization and map building,

S. J. Julier and J. K. Uhlmann, “A counter example to the theory of simultaneous localization and map building,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , vol. 4. IEEE, 2001, pp. 4238–4243

work page 2001

[5] [5]

Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm,

F. Kschischang, B. Frey, and H.-A. Loeliger, “Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 498–519, 2001

work page 2001

[6] [6]

Orb-SLAM3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap SLAM,

C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodr ´ıguez, J. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard´os, “Orb-SLAM3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap SLAM,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1874–1890, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [7]

OpenVSLAM: A ver- satile visual SLAM framework,

S. Sumikura, M. Shibuya, and K. Sakurada, “OpenVSLAM: A ver- satile visual SLAM framework,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2019, pp. 2292–2295

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Rtab-map as an open-source lidar and visual simultaneous localization and mapping library for large-scale and long-term online operation,

M. Labb ´e and F. Michaud, “Rtab-map as an open-source lidar and visual simultaneous localization and mapping library for large-scale and long-term online operation,” Journal of field robotics , vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 416–446, 2019

work page 2019