Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

InCrowd-VI: A Realistic Visual-Inertial Dataset for Evaluating SLAM in Indoor Pedestrian-Rich Spaces for Human Navigation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces a head-worn visual-inertial dataset of 58 indoor pedestrian-rich sequences and shows that two classical and two deep-learning localization systems all fail the combined accuracy, drift, and real-time requirements…

desk verdict A genuinely useful new dataset for crowded indoor SLAM evaluation, but the headline numbers rest on a ground-truth reference that is only locally validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14358 v2 pith:6KEB7WDG submitted 2024-11-21 cs.RO cs.CV

Marziyeh Bamdad , Hans-Peter Hutter , Alireza Darvishy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords visualSLAMvisual-inertialodometrydatasetvisuallyimpairednavigationcrowdedindoorenvironmentsbenchmarkdynamicscenesground-truthtrajectories
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

Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) is a candidate technology for guiding blind and visually impaired people, but it has rarely been tested in the crowded indoor spaces where those users actually walk. InCrowd-VI is a new dataset built for exactly that test: 58 head-worn recordings totaling about 5 km and 1.5 hours across airports, train stations, museums, malls, and university buildings, with RGB, stereo, IMU data, semi-dense 3D point clouds, and trajectory ground truth accurate to roughly 2 cm. The paper evaluates two classical and two deep-learning visual odometry and SLAM systems on it and finds that none meets the combined requirements of 0.5 meter localization accuracy, under 1% drift, high pose coverage, and real-time processing at walking speed. Classical systems drift up to 5-10% of trajectory length in crowds, changing light, and motion transitions, while deep-learning systems keep pose coverage above 90% but cannot process frames fast enough. The dataset is offered as a public benchmark to push SLAM research toward robust, real-time navigation for visually impaired users.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dataset itself, together with its ground-truth generation pipeline. The sensor rig is a head-worn stereo pair with wide field-of-view monocular cameras, a higher-resolution RGB camera, and dual IMUs; InCrowd-VI releases the stereo image pairs, RGB frames, IMU streams at 1000 and 800 Hz, semi-dense point clouds, and per-sequence trajectory ground truth. The ground truth is produced by an offline SLAM service that fuses all of the device's sensors with post-processing, conditions that are deliberately impractical for a real-time wearable, and the paper validates it by measuring distances between recognizable landmarks in the reconstructed point cloud and comparing them with physical measurements, reporting an average error of about 2 cm. The evaluation harness uses four metrics: absolute trajectory error as root mean square error, drift percentage defined as trajectory error divided by path length, pose estimation coverage as the fraction of frames with an estimated pose, and a real-time factor comparing the distance processed per second with the user's walking speed. These metrics are what carry the conclusion that every tested system fails at least one requirement.

What would settle it

Measure the full 5 km of trajectories against an independent survey-grade reference, for example a total station or fixed motion-capture system covering the long and crowded sequences, and compare; if the offline SLAM ground truth deviates by well over 2 cm in precisely the scenes where the tested systems fail, the benchmark's error numbers are biased and the failure conclusion would need to be re-tested.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that crowded indoor scenes are precisely where current visual-inertial SLAM breaks, and that the lack of a benchmark reflecting those conditions has been hiding the gap. InCrowd-VI supplies that benchmark: 58 sequences recorded from a walking person's head-mounted stereo camera pair, covering crowd densities from empty to more than ten pedestrians per frame, with occlusions, reflective and glass surfaces, flickering or dim light, stairs, escalators, and moving ramps. Ground-truth trajectories come from an offline, post-processed machine-perception SLAM service that uses the full sensor suite of the recording glasses and removes dynamic pedestrians from the map; manual comparisons of landmark distances in the reconstructed point cloud against real-world measurements give a mean deviation of about 2 cm. On the dataset, two classical and two deep-learning visual odometry and SLAM systems all miss the stated combined bar somewhere: the worst classical runs drift 21-50% of trajectory length, and the learning-based systems keep pose coverage above 90% but run several times slower than real time at walking pace. The paper concludes that no tested system is ready for reliable visually impaired navigation in complex indoor pedestrian-rich spaces.

Load-bearing premise

The ground-truth trajectories come from an offline localization service that is itself a SLAM system, and its claimed accuracy of about 2 cm was checked by manual measurements on only part of the data; if that service's errors grow in long or heavily crowded sequences, every reported error and failure verdict would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SLAM researchers get a public benchmark whose crowd densities, lighting changes, and motion transitions reproduce realistic indoor navigation rather than lab or vehicle settings.
  • Classical feature-based and semi-direct systems can no longer claim robustness on the basis of empty indoor or outdoor datasets, because on InCrowd-VI their drift frequently exceeds 5-10% of trajectory length.
  • Deep-learning systems, despite high pose coverage, must become substantially faster before they can serve as real-time navigation aids for walking users.
  • Application designers for visually impaired navigation should treat the 0.5 m, 1% drift, and real-time requirements as a concrete target, since no evaluated system meets them together on the hard sequences.
  • The dataset's lack of depth data and its indoor-only scope define natural next steps: depth-based SLAM and indoor-outdoor transitions cannot be tested with it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the reference trajectories are themselves produced by an offline SLAM service, InCrowd-VI is strongest for comparing systems against each other; absolute accuracy claims inherit whatever errors that service has in scenes where manual validation was not performed.
  • The 0.5 m and 1% thresholds are application choices; a different task, such as low-speed assistive navigation in familiar buildings, might tolerate larger errors, so the failure verdict should not be over-generalized.
  • A natural testable extension is per-frame failure annotation, such as occlusion fraction, motion blur, and textureness, which would turn the dataset from a pass-fail benchmark into a diagnostic tool for why tracking is lost.
  • The dataset's average walking speed of 0.75 m/s, below typical sighted walking speed, slightly relaxes the real-time requirement; a system that fails the real-time factor here could still be adequate for slower users.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces InCrowd-VI, a visual-inertial dataset for evaluating SLAM in indoor pedestrian-rich environments, recorded with Meta Aria glasses across 58 sequences totaling about 5 km and 1.5 hours. The dataset provides RGB, stereo, and IMU data, semi-dense point clouds, and ground-truth trajectories produced by the Meta Aria machine perception SLAM service, with reported accuracy of about 2 cm based on manual landmark-distance validation. The paper evaluates four SLAM/VO systems (ORB-SLAM3, SVO, DROID-SLAM, DPV-SLAM) on a subset of sequences using ATE, drift percentage, pose estimation coverage, and a real-time factor, concluding that current systems fail to meet the accuracy, robustness, and real-time requirements for visually impaired navigation.

Significance. If the ground-truth accuracy claim holds, InCrowd-VI would be a valuable community resource: it targets an underexplored regime (head-worn, pedestrian-rich indoor navigation), provides realistic human motion and crowd densities, and ships public data plus conversion tools. The evaluation is also useful as a stress test for current SLAM systems, and the introduced PEC and RTF metrics add practical evaluation dimensions beyond ATE alone. The main contributions are empirical and dataset-oriented rather than algorithmic, and the paper is transparent about the sensor setup and calibration. However, the benchmark's central claim depends on the reliability of the Aria SLAM service as ground truth, which is only locally validated, and on the representativeness of the evaluated sequence subset; both points need strengthening before the dataset can be adopted as a benchmark.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Figures 1–2] The ground-truth validation is not sufficient to support the claimed trajectory accuracy for all 58 sequences. The manual measurements compare distances between landmarks in the reconstructed point cloud with real-world tape-measure distances; this validates the local metric scale of the static map, not the global trajectory error that ATE and DP measure. A trajectory can reconstruct local geometry to within 2 cm while accumulating large drift over long loops or in sequences with tracking difficulty. Since the reference is itself produced by the Meta Aria machine perception SLAM service, any drift in that service (for example in Kiko_loop, G8_cafe, or Getoff_pharmacy) would be attributed to the evaluated systems. The validation was performed on selected crowded sequences and on a few failure sequences, not on most of the 58 sequences, and it checks inter-landmark distances rather than absolute pose error. The paper should either provide per-sequence trajectory uncertainty estimates, validate global consistency with an independent method (e.g., surveyed waypoints, loop-closure constraints, or a total station), or explicitly restrict the accuracy claim to the local metric scale and adjust the benchmark conclusions accordingly.
  2. [§4, Table 6] The evaluation is performed on 19 of the 58 sequences, but the selection protocol is not specified beyond stating that the sequences 'represent a range of difficulty levels from easy to hard.' The main conclusions—that state-of-the-art systems fail in this dataset and that drift reaches 5–10%—are extrapolated from this convenience subset. If the subset is biased toward the hardest sequences, the dataset-level failure rate is overstated; if it is biased toward easier sequences, the dataset's challenge level is understated. The authors should evaluate all sequences or clearly document the selection criteria and show that the selected subset has the same distribution of crowd density, trajectory length, and environmental challenges as the full dataset.
  3. [§4.1, Table 6] Several reported ATE values are associated with very low pose estimation coverage, yet they are presented without flags and are used in the aggregate analysis. For example, in TH_loop the SVO row reports ATE = 0.01 m with PEC = 0.9%, and in UZH_stairs SVO reports PEC = 37%; these are effectively failed runs, and their ATE values are computed on a tiny fraction of the trajectory. The paper itself states that a notably low PEC makes ATE unreliable, but Table 6 still lists these numbers as if they were comparable to high-coverage results. These low-coverage entries should be excluded from the summary statistics or clearly marked as failures, so that the reported drift and accuracy comparisons are not distorted.
  4. [§4, 'Experimental Evaluation'] The four systems are not compared under equivalent sensor configurations: ORB-SLAM3 is evaluated with the left camera plus IMU, while SVO, DROID-SLAM, and DPV-SLAM use only the left monocular camera. This confounds the comparison between classical and deep-learning approaches, since visual-inertial SLAM has access to scale and gyroscopic measurements that monocular systems lack. The conclusion that deep-learning methods are more robust than classical methods, or that classical methods drift more, is not a head-to-head comparison of the algorithms as typically used. The authors should either evaluate all systems in both monocular and visual-inertial modes (where supported) or clearly reframe the results as per-system capability assessments rather than comparative rankings.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.4] There is a typo: 'Meta-Ariana glasses' should read 'Meta Aria glasses.' Additionally, 'approximately 1T GB' should be corrected to a proper storage unit, such as 'approximately 1 TB.'
  2. [References] Reference [38] points to an 'edit.paperpal.com' URL, which appears to be an artifact of a writing tool rather than the actual TUM RGB-D benchmark tools page; the canonical URL for the TUM evaluation tools should be used instead.
  3. [Figure 8] The caption for Figure 8(a) contains a misspelling ('Midium' instead of 'Medium') and labels 'DROID-SLAM3' in the legend while the text and Table 5 refer to 'DROID-SLAM'; these should be made consistent.
  4. [§4.1] The definition of PEC as '(number of estimated poses/total number of frames) × 100' should clarify whether estimated poses are counted only for frames where tracking succeeded and how the denominator handles sequences with dropped or corrupted frames; this affects the interpretation of PEC values such as 0.9%.
  5. [Front matter] The manuscript is formatted with an MDPI template that still contains placeholder text ('Journal Not Specified 2024, 1, 0', a placeholder DOI, and empty Received/Accepted dates); these must be resolved for the final published version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ground-truth trajectories come from an external SLAM service, are manually validated, and the evaluated systems are distinct from the ground-truth generator.

full rationale

The paper's central evaluation claim is that state-of-the-art VO/SLAM systems fail on InCrowd-VI. The ground truth is produced by the Meta Aria machine perception SLAM service, which is an external system cited from the Project Aria paper, not from the present authors' prior work. The evaluated systems (ORB-SLAM3, SVO, DROID-SLAM, DPV-SLAM) are all different from that service, and none of their outputs are fed back into the ground-truth generation. The authors also provide independent manual landmark-distance measurements in Section 3.3, reporting an average error of about 2 cm, which supports the reference trajectories without relying on the evaluated algorithms. The fact that the ground truth is itself produced by a SLAM/VIO system is a legitimate limitation regarding the independence of the reference, and the validation covers only selected sequences and local distances, but this is a question of ground-truth quality and benchmark validity, not circular reasoning. No equation reduces a prediction to an input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a result, and no load-bearing self-citation is present. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted parameters. The central claims depend on external ground-truth generation (Meta Aria SLAM service), the validity and coverage of manual validation, and the representativeness of the evaluated subset. These are domain assumptions about the reliability of the provided ground truth and the evaluation methodology.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Meta Aria machine perception SLAM service produces ground-truth trajectories with typical global RMSE translation error of no more than 1.5 cm in room-scale scenarios.
    Section 3.3, Ground-Truth. The dataset's ground truth rests on this external service. The paper validates it with manual measurements on selected sequences, but not on all 58 sequences, so the assumed accuracy is not fully established for every sequence.
  • domain assumption Manual landmark distance measurements confirm the ground-truth accuracy to approximately 2 cm.
    Section 3.3 and Figure 2 report a mean error of 2.14 cm, but this validation covers only selected sequences and the manual process itself has measurement error. The claim of 2 cm accuracy for all trajectories is therefore an extrapolation.
  • domain assumption The subset of sequences chosen for the SLAM evaluation is representative of the dataset's challenges.
    Section 4 states 'a selection of sequences representing a range of difficulty levels from easy to hard' was used, but the exact selection criteria and the full list of evaluated sequences are not specified. This assumption affects the generality of the evaluation conclusions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of InCrowd-VI: A Realistic Visual-Inertial Dataset for Evaluating SLAM in Indoor Pedestrian-Rich Spaces for Human Navigation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6KEB7WDG

@misc{pith2026241114358,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: InCrowd-VI: A Realistic Visual-Inertial Dataset for Evaluating SLAM in Indoor Pedestrian-Rich Spaces for Human Navigation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6KEB7WDG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14358}
}
read the original abstract

Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) techniques can be used to navigate the visually impaired, but the development of robust SLAM solutions for crowded spaces is limited by the lack of realistic datasets. To address this, we introduce InCrowd-VI, a novel visual-inertial dataset specifically designed for human navigation in indoor pedestrian-rich environments. Recorded using Meta Aria Project glasses, it captures realistic scenarios without environmental control. InCrowd-VI features 58 sequences totaling a 5 km trajectory length and 1.5 hours of recording time, including RGB, stereo images, and IMU measurements. The dataset captures important challenges such as pedestrian occlusions, varying crowd densities, complex layouts, and lighting changes. Ground-truth trajectories, accurate to approximately 2 cm, are provided in the dataset, originating from the Meta Aria project machine perception SLAM service. In addition, a semi-dense 3D point cloud of scenes is provided for each sequence. The evaluation of state-of-the-art visual odometry (VO) and SLAM algorithms on InCrowd-VI revealed severe performance limitations in these realistic scenarios. Under challenging conditions, systems exceeded the required localization accuracy of 0.5 meters and the 1\% drift threshold, with classical methods showing drift up to 5-10\%. While deep learning-based approaches maintained high pose estimation coverage (>90\%), they failed to achieve real-time processing speeds necessary for walking pace navigation. These results demonstrate the need and value of a new dataset to advance SLAM research for visually impaired navigation in complex indoor environments. The dataset and associated tools are publicly available at https://incrowd-vi.cloudlab.zhaw.ch/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14358 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sample of manual measurement process for ground-truth validation. Left: Real-world scene with a landmark floor tile highlighted by pink rectangle. Middle: Full 3D point cloud map of the scene with four adjacent floor tiles marked in blue. Right: Zoomed view of the marked corner of the tiles in the point cloud used for measurement. Initially, manual measurements were conducted on selected crowded sequences. Fol￾lowin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Correlation between real-world measurements and point-cloud-derived distances in chal￾lenging sequences, where state-of-the-art SLAM systems exhibited failure or suboptimal performance. The scatter plot demonstrates a strong linear relationship between real-world and measured distances (in centimeters), with an average error of 2.14 cm, standard deviation of 1.46 cm, and median error of 2.0 cm. It is important to no… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. illustrates the capability of the Meta Aria machine perception SLAM service to handle dynamic objects by showcasing a scenario where a pedestrian initially appears static relative to the camera while on an escalator but subsequently becomes dynamic. The image presents the refined 3D reconstruction produced by the SLAM service, which successfully identifies and removes dynamic pedestrians from the final point cloud, … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of image data and corresponding 3D map from a dataset sequence: The top-left image shows the RGB frame, and the top-middle and top-right images represent the left and right images of a stereo pair. The bottom image shows the 3D map of the scene. The dataset seq…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of challenges across sequences in the InCrowd-VI dataset, categorized by crowd density levels (High: >10 pedestrians per frame, Medium: 4-10 pedestrians, Low: 1-3 pedestrians, None: no pedestrians). The x-axis represents the different types of challenges, …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Histogram of trajectory length It is important to note that the walking speeds in our dataset reflect the typical navigation patterns of visually impaired individuals. Studies have shown that people with visual impairment tend to walk slower and have reduced stride len…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example scenes from the InCrowd-VI dataset demonstrating various challenges: (a) high pedestrian density, (b) varying lighting conditions, (c) texture-poor surfaces, (d) reflective surfaces, (e) narrow aisles, (f) stairs. 4. Experimental Evaluation To assess the accura…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ATE comparison of evaluated SLAM systems under challenging conditions, with the x-axis depicting sequences categorized by crowd density: high, medium, low, and none. In summary, our evaluation revealed three key findings: (1) deep-learning-based methods demonstrate sup…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Simultaneous localization and mapping: part I

    Durrant-Whyte, H.; Bailey, T. Simultaneous localization and mapping: part I. IEEE robotics & automation magazine 2006, 13, 99–110

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Past, present, and future of simultaneous localization and mapping: Toward the robust-perception age

    Cadena, C.; Carlone, L.; Carrillo, H.; Latif, Y.; Scaramuzza, D.; Neira, J.; Reid, I.; Leonard, J.J. Past, present, and future of simultaneous localization and mapping: Toward the robust-perception age. IEEE Transactions on robotics2016, 32, 1309–1332

    work page

  3. [3]

    Deep Visual Odometry with Events and Frames

    Pellerito, R.; Cannici, M.; Gehrig, D.; Belhadj, J.; Dubois-Matra, O.; Casasco, M.; Scaramuzza, D. Deep Visual Odometry with Events and Frames. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Simultaneous localization and mapping: A survey of current trends in autonomous driving

    Bresson, G.; Alsayed, Z.; Yu, L.; Glaser, S. Simultaneous localization and mapping: A survey of current trends in autonomous driving. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles2017, 2, 194–220

    work page

  5. [5]

    Autonomous drone racing: A survey

    Hanover, D.; Loquercio, A.; Bauersfeld, L.; Romero, A.; Penicka, R.; Song, Y.; Cioffi, G.; Kaufmann, E.; Scaramuzza, D. Autonomous drone racing: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 2024. Journal Not Specified 2024, 1, 0 23 of 24

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Structure-Invariant Range-Visual-Inertial Odometry

    Alberico, I.; Delaune, J.; Cioffi, G.; Scaramuzza, D. Structure-Invariant Range-Visual-Inertial Odometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04633 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Project Aria: A new tool for egocentric multi-modal AI research

    Somasundaram, K.; Dong, J.; Tang, H.; Straub, J.; Yan, M.; Goesele, M.; Engel, J.J.; De Nardi, R.; Newcombe, R. Project Aria: A new tool for egocentric multi-modal AI research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13561 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Hilti-oxford dataset: A millimeter- accurate benchmark for simultaneous localization and mapping

    Zhang, L.; Helmberger, M.; Fu, L.F.T.; Wisth, D.; Camurri, M.; Scaramuzza, D.; Fallon, M. Hilti-oxford dataset: A millimeter- accurate benchmark for simultaneous localization and mapping. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2022, 8, 408–415

    work page 2022

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite

    Geiger, A.; Lenz, P .; Urtasun, R. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. IEEE, 2012, pp. 3354–3361

    2012

  2. [10]

    The EuRoC micro aerial vehicle datasets

    Burri, M.; Nikolic, J.; Gohl, P .; Schneider, T.; Rehder, J.; Omari, S.; Achtelik, M.W.; Siegwart, R. The EuRoC micro aerial vehicle datasets. The International Journal of Robotics Research 2016, 35, 1157–1163

    2016

  3. [11]

    Penncosyvio: A challenging visual inertial odometry benchmark

    Pfrommer, B.; Sanket, N.; Daniilidis, K.; Cleveland, J. Penncosyvio: A challenging visual inertial odometry benchmark. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2017, pp. 3847–3854

    2017

  4. [12]

    The Zurich urban micro aerial vehicle dataset

    Majdik, A.L.; Till, C.; Scaramuzza, D. The Zurich urban micro aerial vehicle dataset. The International Journal of Robotics Research 2017, 36, 269–273

    2017

  5. [13]

    Interiornet: Mega-scale multi-sensor photo-realistic indoor scenes dataset

    Li, W.; Saeedi, S.; McCormac, J.; Clark, R.; Tzoumanikas, D.; Ye, Q.; Huang, Y.; Tang, R.; Leutenegger, S. Interiornet: Mega-scale multi-sensor photo-realistic indoor scenes dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.00716 2018

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The TUM VI benchmark for evaluating visual-inertial odometry

    Schubert, D.; Goll, T.; Demmel, N.; Usenko, V .; Stückler, J.; Cremers, D. The TUM VI benchmark for evaluating visual-inertial odometry. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1680–1687

    2018

  7. [15]

    Are we ready for autonomous drone racing? the UZH-FPV drone racing dataset

    Delmerico, J.; Cieslewski, T.; Rebecq, H.; Faessler, M.; Scaramuzza, D. Are we ready for autonomous drone racing? the UZH-FPV drone racing dataset. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2019, pp. 6713–6719

    2019

  8. [16]

    The newer college dataset: Handheld lidar, inertial and vision with ground truth

    Ramezani, M.; Wang, Y.; Camurri, M.; Wisth, D.; Mattamala, M.; Fallon, M. The newer college dataset: Handheld lidar, inertial and vision with ground truth. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 4353–4360

    2020

  9. [17]

    Viode: A simulated dataset to address the challenges of visual-inertial odometry in dynamic environments

    Minoda, K.; Schilling, F.; Wüest, V .; Floreano, D.; Yairi, T. Viode: A simulated dataset to address the challenges of visual-inertial odometry in dynamic environments. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 2021, 6, 1343–1350

    2021

  10. [18]

    Large-scale localization datasets in crowded indoor spaces

    Lee, D.; Ryu, S.; Yeon, S.; Lee, Y.; Kim, D.; Han, C.; Cabon, Y.; Weinzaepfel, P .; Guérin, N.; Csurka, G.; et al. Large-scale localization datasets in crowded indoor spaces. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Self-improving SLAM in dynamic environments: learning when to mask

    Bojko, A.; Dupont, R.; Tamaazousti, M.; Borgne, H.L. Self-improving SLAM in dynamic environments: learning when to mask. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08350 2022

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    CID-SIMS: Complex indoor dataset with semantic information and multi-sensor data from a ground wheeled robot viewpoint

    Zhang, Y.; An, N.; Shi, C.; Wang, S.; Wei, H.; Zhang, P .; Meng, X.; Sun, Z.; Wang, J.; Liang, W.; et al. CID-SIMS: Complex indoor dataset with semantic information and multi-sensor data from a ground wheeled robot viewpoint. The International Journal of Robotics Research 2023...

    2023

  13. [21]

    A dataset for human localization and mapping with wearable sensors

    Recchiuto, C.T.; Scalmato, A.; Sgorbissa, A. A dataset for human localization and mapping with wearable sensors. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 2017, 97, 136–143

    2017

  14. [22]

    ADVIO: An authentic dataset for visual-inertial odometry

    Cortés, S.; Solin, A.; Rahtu, E.; Kannala, J. ADVIO: An authentic dataset for visual-inertial odometry. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 419–434

    2018

  15. [23]

    Benchmarking Pedestrian Odometry: The Brown Pedestrian Odometry Dataset (BPOD)

    Charatan, D.; Fan, H.; Kimia, B. Benchmarking Pedestrian Odometry: The Brown Pedestrian Odometry Dataset (BPOD). In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–11

    2022

  16. [24]

    Simultaneous localization and mapping related datasets: A comprehensive survey

    Liu, Y.; Fu, Y.; Chen, F.; Goossens, B.; Tao, W.; Zhao, H. Simultaneous localization and mapping related datasets: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04036 2021

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    How NeRFs and 3D Gaussian Splatting are Reshaping SLAM: a Survey

    Tosi, F.; Zhang, Y.; Gong, Z.; Sandström, E.; Mattoccia, S.; Oswald, M.R.; Poggi, M. How NeRFs and 3D Gaussian Splatting are Reshaping SLAM: a Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13255 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Project Aria Hardware Specifications: https://facebookresearch.github.io/projectaria_tools/docs/tech_spec/ hardware_spec, 2024

    Meta AI Research. Project Aria Hardware Specifications: https://facebookresearch.github.io/projectaria_tools/docs/tech_spec/ hardware_spec, 2024. [Online; accessed 2024-09-04]

    2024

  19. [27]

    Camera Intrinsic Models for Project Aria devices: https://facebookresearch.github.io/projectaria_tools/docs/ tech_insights/camera_intrinsic_models

    Meta AI Research. Camera Intrinsic Models for Project Aria devices: https://facebookresearch.github.io/projectaria_tools/docs/ tech_insights/camera_intrinsic_models. [Online; accessed 2024-09-04]

    2024

  20. [28]

    Camera Intrinsic Models for Project Aria devices: https://facebookresearch.github.io/projectaria_tools/docs/ tech_insights/sensor_measurement_model

    Meta AI Research. Camera Intrinsic Models for Project Aria devices: https://facebookresearch.github.io/projectaria_tools/docs/ tech_insights/sensor_measurement_model. [Online; accessed 2024-09-04]

    2024

  21. [29]

    Meta AI Research. 3D Coordinate Frame Conventions for Project Aria Glasses: https://facebookresearch.github.io/projectaria_ tools/docs/data_formats/coordinate_convention/3d_coordinate_frame_convention. [Online; accessed 2024-09-04]

    2024

  22. [30]

    Bad slam: Bundle adjusted direct rgb-d slam

    Schops, T.; Sattler, T.; Pollefeys, M. Bad slam: Bundle adjusted direct rgb-d slam. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019, pp. 134–144

    2019

  23. [31]

    Walking biomechanics and energetics of individuals with a visual impairment: a preliminary report

    Bennett, H.J.; Valenzuela, K.A.; Fleenor, K.; Morrison, S.; Haegele, J.A. Walking biomechanics and energetics of individuals with a visual impairment: a preliminary report. Human Movement 2019, 20, 8–18

    2019

  24. [32]

    Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras

    Teed, Z.; Deng, J. Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras. Advances in neural information processing systems 2021, 34, 16558–16569. Journal Not Specified 2024, 1, 0 24 of 24

    2021

  25. [33]

    Deep Patch Visual SLAM

    Lipson, L.; Teed, Z.; Deng, J. Deep Patch Visual SLAM. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01654 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam

    Campos, C.; Elvira, R.; Rodríguez, J.J.G.; Montiel, J.M.; Tardós, J.D. Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 2021, 37, 1874–1890

    2021

  27. [35]

    SVO: Semidirect visual odometry for monocular and multicamera systems

    Forster, C.; Zhang, Z.; Gassner, M.; Werlberger, M.; Scaramuzza, D. SVO: Semidirect visual odometry for monocular and multicamera systems. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 2016, 33, 249–265

    2016

  28. [36]

    Deep patch visual odometry

    Teed, Z.; Lipson, L.; Deng, J. Deep patch visual odometry. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2024, 36

    2024

  29. [37]

    A benchmark for the evaluation of RGB-D SLAM systems

    Sturm, J.; Engelhard, N.; Endres, F.; Burgard, W.; Cremers, D. A benchmark for the evaluation of RGB-D SLAM systems. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, 2012, pp. 573–580

    2012

  30. [38]

    Useful tools for the RGB-D benchmark

    Computer Vision Group TUM School of Computation, I.; of Munich, T.T.U. Useful tools for the RGB-D benchmark. https: //edit.paperpal.com/documents/a108dfc5-1231-4f54-a402-15d7c7b5f556

  31. [39]

    A tutorial on quantitative trajectory evaluation for visual (-inertial) odometry

    Zhang, Z.; Scaramuzza, D. A tutorial on quantitative trajectory evaluation for visual (-inertial) odometry. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 7244–7251

    2018

  32. [40]

    evo: Python package for the evaluation of odometry and SLAM

    Grupp, M. evo: Python package for the evaluation of odometry and SLAM. https://github.com/MichaelGrupp/evo, 2017. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and no...

    2017

Pith tools

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