Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

An indoor DSO-based ceiling-vision odometry system for indoor industrial environments

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Direct Sparse Odometry, run on an upward-facing camera, can track a mobile robot's trajectory from the ceiling alone, with no assumptions about ceiling shapes or landmarks, and that the resulting relative errors are…

desk verdict A credible but incremental ceiling-DSO parameter study; the evaluation is thin and the unvalidated photometric calibration assumption is a real soft spot, but the core idea is sound enough to referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02950 v1 pith:OD3K6AJJ submitted 2024-12-04 cs.RO cs.CV

Abdelhak Bougouffa , Emmanuel Seignez , Samir Bouaziz , Florian Gardes This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV MSC 68T4068T4568U10
keywords CeilingvisionDirectSparseOdometryVisualMobilerobotlocalizationIndoorindustrialenvironmentsUpward-facingcameraPhotometricmodel
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

Ceiling-DSO repurposes Direct Sparse Odometry (DSO) for ceiling vision: a camera pointed upward feeds raw images into DSO's photometric optimization, so the robot tracks its motion from ceiling texture without detecting lamps, corners, doors, or artificial markers. The payoff for indoor industrial robots is localization that ignores crowded, dynamic floor scenes and works on whatever the ceiling happens to look like. The paper validates this with a custom real-world dataset and a LiDAR-based ground truth, and it identifies parameter settings that keep the system real-time. If the claim holds, an ordinary upward camera plus a direct odometry algorithm becomes a generic, low-infrastructure indoor localization solution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is DSO's photometric error, the weighted sum of Huber-norm residuals comparing raw pixel intensities of a sparse set of high-gradient points across keyframes, minimized by Gauss-Newton on the Lie algebra se(3) within a bounded optimization window. The paper deliberately simplifies the photometric image formation model by assuming a linear camera response and no vignetting (G(x)=x and V(x)=1 everywhere), so the brightness transfer is modeled only as an affine exposure correction. This direct, intensity-based optimization is what removes the need to detect or classify ceiling features, and it is also the component whose accuracy depends on the camera obeying the simplified photometric model.

What would settle it

Record a ceiling sequence with a camera known to have strong vignetting or a highly nonlinear response curve, run Ceiling-DSO exactly as described (without photometric calibration), and check whether the relative trajectory error stays in the low-centimeter range reported in the paper; if the error grows substantially or tracking fails, the claim that the simplified photometric model suffices for arbitrary ceilings is falsified. A second check is a nearly textureless white ceiling, which would test whether DSO's sparse high-gradient point selection really needs no landmarks at all.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that DSO's direct photometric formulation transfers to ceiling imagery essentially as-is: minimizing the weighted Huber-norm photometric residuals over a sliding window of keyframes is sufficient to estimate ego-motion from a ceiling, even though the scene is far above the camera and contains no engineered landmarks. The paper shows this empirically on two real trajectories in a 21 m by 15 m space with an inclined ceiling between 4 and 6 meters high, reporting relative errors that stay in the low-centimeter range for most parameter combinations and remain within acceptable bounds even below the optimal settings. It also reports that frame rate is the dominant accuracy-relevant parameter, that downscaling the image resolution does not hurt accuracy, and that a maximum optimization window of 7 keyframes offers the best accuracy-to-runtime tradeoff.

Load-bearing premise

The implementation assumes the camera's brightness response is linear and the lens has no vignetting, but the Intel RealSense cameras used have a nonlinear response and vignetting, so the photometric model that DSO optimizes is systematically wrong and the reported error rates may not transfer to other cameras or ceilings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Indoor mobile robots can localize by looking up, avoiding the need to filter out moving people, robots, and forklifts from the camera image.
  • Deploying ceiling-vision odometry in new buildings does not require placing markers, measuring ceiling landmarks, or assuming a particular ceiling type.
  • The parameter study gives concrete operating guidance: run at about 15 frames per second with a window of 7 keyframes, and consider reducing image resolution to 424 x 240 to save compute without losing accuracy.
  • The real-time speed factors reported in the paper indicate that the system can run online on an embedded industrial PC for most parameter choices, with the 30 fps / window-15 combination being the main exception.
  • Future fusion with wheel encoders could supply the metric scale that monocular DSO lacks, turning Ceiling-DSO into a complete, drift-bound localization system.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the system already works with a deliberately simplified photometric model (linear response, no vignetting), applying true photometric calibration to the RealSense cameras would likely reduce the reported errors further; the paper does not test this direction.
  • The finding that low frame rates hurt accuracy mainly during curved motion suggests an adaptive frame-rate policy (low on straightaways, high in turns) as a natural extension, building on the paper's own observation.
  • Once the authors release their custom dataset, it could become a shared benchmark for ceiling-vision odometry, filling the gap the paper identifies of having no public dataset for this task.
  • Ceiling scenes are static geometrically but not photometrically (windows, lamps, shadows), so a direct test of robustness to changing illumination would be a quick way to probe how far the no-assumption claim extends.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Ceiling-DSO, an adaptation of Direct Sparse Odometry (DSO) to an upward-facing monocular camera for indoor industrial robot localization. It claims that DSO's photometric tracking works on ceilings without assumptions about landmarks or shapes, and reports 'acceptable error rates' compared to LiDAR-SLAM ground truth. The authors created a custom dataset with an industrial robot, systematically varied image size, frame rate, and optimization window size, and provide qualitative trajectory plots, relative-error plots, box plots, and runtime tables for two sequences.

Significance. If the claims hold, Ceiling-DSO would be a useful, assumption-free ceiling-vision odometry candidate for dynamic industrial environments, avoiding moving-object interference. The paper builds on a mature algorithm (DSO), so the core mechanism is plausible; its main contribution is an empirical demonstration and parameter analysis. Strengths include the real-world dataset, systematic evaluation across 24 parameter combinations per sequence, and explicit runtime and speed-factor analysis. However, the evidence base is narrow (two sequences, one building, no error bars), the photometric model is simplified without validation, no code or data are released, and the evaluation methodology leaves several load-bearing questions open. The contribution is incremental relative to the authors' ICARCV 2022 paper [1].

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (12)] The implementation assumes a linear camera response and no vignetting (G(x)=x, V(x)=1), yet the experiments use Intel RealSense D435i/D455 cameras, whose nonlinear response and lens vignetting are not calibrated or compensated. The affine brightness parameters (a_i,b_i) in Eq. (4) cannot model spatially varying vignetting, so the photometric residuals are systematically biased if the assumption is false. Since the central claim is 'acceptable error rates', the paper must either provide photometric calibration of the cameras or include an ablation demonstrating that the reported errors are insensitive to this mismatch.
  2. [Section 4, Figs. 8-10] The quantitative evaluation relies entirely on qualitative trajectory plots, relative-error plots, and box plots; no overall numerical metrics (e.g., RMSE, mean/median relative error, maximum error) are reported in the text or tables. As a result, the abstract's claim of 'acceptable error rates' is not quantitatively defined or reproducible. Please report standard trajectory-error metrics for each parameter combination and sequence.
  3. [Section 3.3] The ground truth trajectory is produced by LaMa SLAM [30] from the safety LiDAR, but the accuracy of this SLAM solution is not quantified, and no loop-closure or map-quality assessment is provided. If LaMa's own drift is comparable to the reported relative errors, the comparison is inconclusive. The authors should report the LiDAR-SLAM trajectory accuracy (e.g., against known ground-truth geometry or a second SLAM method) or at least discuss its expected drift.
  4. [Section 4] The recommended parameters (15 fps, window size 7) are selected by inspecting the same two sequences used for the reported performance, without a held-out validation set; this introduces a selection bias and overstates generalizability. Additionally, the monocular scale lambda is fitted during trajectory alignment in Eq. (14), so trajectory scale error is not evaluated; the paper should report how sensitive the error rates are to the scale estimate and validate parameters on unseen sequences.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous language errors (e.g., 'an ceiling-vision', 'On one hand', 'This used this embedded computer') that should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2] The text first states that direct methods use information from all pixels, then later describes DSO as sparse; this taxonomy should be clarified to avoid confusion.
  3. [Eq. (13)] The synchronization definitions of G' and P' are notationally confusing between sets and ordered sequences; please make the matching explicit.
  4. [Section 4] The text refers to 'plot 10' instead of 'Figure 10', and several trajectory figures lack legends within some panels; please standardize figure captions and legends.
  5. [Tables 1-2] The column heading 'Win.' should be expanded to 'Window size' for clarity, and the tables would benefit from a note that timings are averages over the tested sequences.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The reported 'acceptable error rates' are produced by the same two sequences used to tune frame rate and window size, making the headline validation partly in-sample; the underlying DSO derivation is externally established and not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 3.3 Methodology; Section 4 Results and discussion]
    "By adjusting DSO parameters, we identified the optimal fit for online pose estimation, resulting in acceptable error rates compared to ground truth. ... For this paper, we have chosen to showcase two specific sequences. ... we conducted a systematic evaluation by testing a total of 24 trajectories per sequence. These trajectories were generated by iterating over all possible combinations of tested parameters."

    Frame rate, image size, and window size are selected by comparing all 24 parameter combinations on the same two sequences that later furnish the reported relative-error numbers. The 'optimal fit' is therefore a minimum (or near-minimum) of the error surface measured with the ground truth of those exact sequences. Reporting these errors as the system's validation is not an independent test of the ceiling-vision claim; it is an in-sample report of the tuning objective. The non-circular part is DSO's external formulation, but the paper's new empirical claim is not independently evaluated.

full rationale

The photometric derivation is not circular: Eq. (12) explicitly states the simplifying assumptions G(x)=x and V(x)=1, and the affine brightness model of Eq. (4) is inherited from DSO's published formulation. No self-citation is load-bearing: the cited prior ICARCV paper is the predecessor of this work and the SmartTrolley citation concerns the platform, not the odometry claim; DSO [12] and LaMa [30] are external sources. The principal circularity concern is empirical: the paper tunes its three operating parameters on the same two sequences used to report 'acceptable error rates,' so those rates are in-sample fits rather than predictions on unseen data. This does not void the central idea—applying DSO to an upward-facing ceiling camera—but it means the quantitative validation cannot be taken as an independent estimate of generalization. If a held-out sequence or fixed a-priori parameters had been used, the circularity score would be near zero.

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

The central claim rests on standard DSO assumptions plus two unvalidated simplifications: a linear photometric model and a 2D ground truth from LiDAR SLAM. The fitted scale lambda and the data-driven parameter choices (15 fps, window 7) are additional degrees of freedom that the reported error rates depend on.

free parameters (3)
  • Scale factor lambda (trajectory alignment) = fitted per trajectory via Eq. (14)
    Monocular DSO has no metric scale; the evaluation fits lambda, so scale error is not measured and the reported errors are scale-corrected.
  • Frame rate recommendation (15 fps) = 15 fps
    Chosen based on the same two sequences used for evaluation; no held-out validation is described.
  • Optimization window size recommendation (7) = 7
    Selected as a tradeoff between accuracy and runtime from the same test sequences; no independent validation set.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pinhole camera model and standard DSO photometric model
    Section 2 adopts DSO's projection and photometric error formulation; the method's accuracy depends on these models holding approximately.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear response and no vignetting (G(x)=x, V(x)=1)
    Eq. (12) in Section 2 assumes away photometric calibration; this is likely violated by the RealSense cameras used.
  • domain assumption Planar robot motion for trajectory alignment
    Section 3.3 aligns the 3D DSO trajectory to a 2D LiDAR ground truth, assuming the robot moves only on a plane.
  • domain assumption LiDAR SLAM (LaMa) trajectory is accurate ground truth
    Section 3.3 uses LaMa SLAM results as reference without quantifying the SLAM drift, so reported errors include this unmodeled error.
  • domain assumption The ceiling has sufficient photometric gradient for DSO point selection
    DSO selects high-contrast points (Section 2); unaided tracking on uniform or texture-poor ceilings is not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An indoor DSO-based ceiling-vision odometry system for indoor industrial environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OD3K6AJJ

@misc{pith2026241202950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An indoor DSO-based ceiling-vision odometry system for indoor industrial environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OD3K6AJJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02950}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous Mobile Robots operating in indoor industrial environments require a localization system that is reliable and robust. While Visual Odometry (VO) can offer a reasonable estimation of the robot's state, traditional VO methods encounter challenges when confronted with dynamic objects in the scene. Alternatively, an upward-facing camera can be utilized to track the robot's movement relative to the ceiling, which represents a static and consistent space. We introduce in this paper Ceiling-DSO, a ceiling-vision system based on Direct Sparse Odometry (DSO). Unlike other ceiling-vision systems, Ceiling-DSO takes advantage of the versatile formulation of DSO, avoiding assumptions about observable shapes or landmarks on the ceiling. This approach ensures the method's applicability to various ceiling types. Since no publicly available dataset for ceiling-vision exists, we created a custom dataset in a real-world scenario and employed it to evaluate our approach. By adjusting DSO parameters, we identified the optimal fit for online pose estimation, resulting in acceptable error rates compared to ground truth. We provide in this paper a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the obtained results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02950 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The SWD Starter Kit The robot is equipped with a pair of incremental wheels encoders, two cameras, the first is an Intel® RealSense™ D435i facing forward, while the second is an Intel® RealSense™ 455 facing upward. Furthermore, the robot integrates an IDEC S2L safety LiDAR, covering a maximal range of 30m. The platform is equipped with a powerful embedded industrial computer, specifically the Neousys Nuvo-7002LP, fe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sample images obtained from the up-facing camera offer a visual appearance of the test environment’s ceiling. 3.3. Methodology To assess the performance of the Ceiling-DSO, we conducted an evaluation using a series of sequences from our collected dataset. Our analysis focused on investigating the impact of different factors, namely the size of input images, the frame rate, and the maximum size of the optimization wi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The test environment’s map is limited to 2D. Given that the robot’s movement occurs only on a planar surface, we can effectively align and compare the two trajectories. In order to align the estimated trajectories for subsequent comparison, we adopt a method similar to the approach proposed by Zhang and Scaramuzza [31]. Initially, we synchronize the two trajectories using the global clock provided by ROS. Denoting G… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trajectories for various image sizes and frame rates at a fixed maximum window size of 7 (sequence 1). 0 2 4 6 8 10 X [m] 0 2 4 6 8 10 Y [m] Sequence 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Trajectories for various image sizes and frame rates at a fixed maximum window size of 7 (sequence 2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trajectories for various image sizes and maximum window sizes at a fixed frame rate of 30 (sequence 1). 0 2 4 6 8 10 X [m] 0 2 4 6 8 10 Y [m] Sequence 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Trajectories for various image sizes and maximum window sizes at a fixed frame rate of 30 (sequence 2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The relative error of the DSO trajectory compared to the ground truth for various frame rates, image sizes, and maximum optimization window sizes (Seq1). 0 20 40 Relative error [cm] Sequence 2 Image size 424x240 848x480 0 20 40 Relative error [cm] Frame rate 3 6 15 30 …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The relative error of the DSO trajectory compared to the ground truth for various frame rates, image sizes, and maximum optimization window sizes (Seq2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Box plots of relative errors and calculation time for each parameter combination (I: image size, F: frame rate, W: optimization window size). The boxes represent the first and third quartiles, with the orange line indicating the median. Whiskers depict the variability…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: illustrates the speed factor for various combinations of the tested parame￾ters. As indicated in the table 1, there is no apparent correlation between image size and execution time, so the bar plot in the figure marginalizes the influence of image size. The results de…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Evaluation of a Novel DSO-based Indoor Ceiling-Vision Odometry System

    Bougouffa, A.; Seignez, E.; Bouaziz, S.; Gardes, F. Evaluation of a Novel DSO-based Indoor Ceiling-Vision Odometry System. In Proceedings of the 2022 17th International Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision (ICARCV), pp. 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICARCV57592.2022.10004272

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [30]

    Fast Grid SLAM Based on Particle Filter with Scan Matching and Multithreading

    Pedrosa, E.; Pereira, A.; Lau, N. Fast Grid SLAM Based on Particle Filter with Scan Matching and Multithreading. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC). IEEE, pp. 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICARSC49921.2020.9096191

    arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    Application of AGV in Intelligent Logistics System

    Qi, B.; Yang, Q.; Zhou, Y.Y. Application of AGV in Intelligent Logistics System. In Proceedings of the Fifth Asia International Symposium on Mechatronics (AISM 2015), pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2015.1527

    work page arXiv 2015

  4. [3]

    The OmniMate: A Guidewire- and Beacon-Free AGV for Highly Reconfigurable Applications

    Borenstein, J. The OmniMate: A Guidewire- and Beacon-Free AGV for Highly Reconfigurable Applications. 38, 1993–2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075400188456

    work page doi:10.1080/002075400188456 1993

  5. [4]

    System and Design of a Compact and Heavy-Payload AGV System for Flexible Production Line

    Han, L.; Qian, H.; Chung, W.K.; Hou, K.W.; Lee, K.H.; Chen, X.; Zhang, G.; Xu, Y. System and Design of a Compact and Heavy-Payload AGV System for Flexible Production Line. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), pp. 2482–2488. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBIO.2013.6739844

    work page arXiv 2013

  6. [5]

    Introduction to Autonomous Mobile Robots, 2 ed.; The MIT Press

    Siegwart, R.; Nourbakhsh, I.R.; Scaramuzza, D. Introduction to Autonomous Mobile Robots, 2 ed.; The MIT Press

    work page

  7. [6]

    Visual Odometry [Tutorial]

    Scaramuzza, D.; Fraundorfer, F. Visual Odometry [Tutorial]. 18, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2011.943233

    arXiv 2011

  8. [7]

    Visual Odometry

    Nister, D.; Naroditsky, O.; Bergen, J. Visual Odometry. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2004. CVPR 2004., Vol. 1, pp. I–I. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2004 .1315094

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.2004 2004

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    ORB-SLAM2: An Open-Source SLAM System for Monocular, Stereo, and RGB-D Cameras

    Mur-Artal, R.; Tardós, J.D. ORB-SLAM2: An Open-Source SLAM System for Monocular, Stereo, and RGB-D Cameras. 33, 1255–

  2. [9]

    Swift Path Planning: Vehicle Localization by Visual Odometry Trajectory Tracking and Mapping

    Awang Salleh, D.N.S.D.; Seignez, E. Swift Path Planning: Vehicle Localization by Visual Odometry Trajectory Tracking and Mapping. 06, 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2301385018500085

    doi

  3. [10]

    MonoSLAM: Real-Time Single Camera SLAM

    Davison, A.J.; Reid, I.D.; Molton, N.D.; Stasse, O. MonoSLAM: Real-Time Single Camera SLAM. 29, 1052–1067. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2007.1049

    2007

  4. [11]

    Longitudinal Error Improvement by Visual Odometry Trajectory Trail and Road Segment Matching

    Awang Salleh, D.N.S.D.; Seignez, E. Longitudinal Error Improvement by Visual Odometry Trajectory Trail and Road Segment Matching. 13, 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2018.5272

    2018

  5. [12]

    Direct Sparse Odometry

    Engel, J.; Koltun, V .; Cremers, D. Direct Sparse Odometry. 40, 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2017.2658577

    2017

  6. [13]

    SVO: Fast Semi-Direct Monocular Visual Odometry

    Forster, C.; Pizzoli, M.; Scaramuzza, D. SVO: Fast Semi-Direct Monocular Visual Odometry. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2014.6906584

    2014

  7. [14]

    StereoScan: Dense 3d Reconstruction in Real-Time

    Geiger, A.; Ziegler, J.; Stiller, C. StereoScan: Dense 3d Reconstruction in Real-Time. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pp. 963–968. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2011.5940405

    2011

  8. [15]

    LSD-SLAM: Large-Scale Direct Monocular SLAM

    Engel, J.; Schöps, T.; Cremers, D. LSD-SLAM: Large-Scale Direct Monocular SLAM. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision – ECCV 2014; Fleet, D.; Pajdla, T.; Schiele, B.; Tuytelaars, T., Eds. Springer International Publishing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 834–849. https:...

    2014 doi

  9. [16]

    Dynamic-DSO: Direct Sparse Odometry Using Objects Semantic Information for Dynamic Environments

    Sheng, C.; Pan, S.; Gao, W.; Tan, Y.; Zhao, T. Dynamic-DSO: Direct Sparse Odometry Using Objects Semantic Information for Dynamic Environments. 10, 1467. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10041467

    doi

  10. [17]

    Effective Background Model-Based RGB-D Dense Visual Odometry in a Dynamic Environment

    Kim, D.H.; Kim, J.H. Effective Background Model-Based RGB-D Dense Visual Odometry in a Dynamic Environment. 32, 1565–

  11. [18]

    CV-SLAM: A New Ceiling Vision-Based SLAM Technique

    WooYeon, J.; Kyoung, M.L. CV-SLAM: A New Ceiling Vision-Based SLAM Technique. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 3195–3200. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2005.1545443

    2005

  12. [19]

    A New cvSLAM Exploiting a Partially Known Landmark Association

    Kim, D.Y.; Choi, H.; Lee, H.; Kim, E. A New cvSLAM Exploiting a Partially Known Landmark Association. 27, 1073–1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2013.805470

    2013

  13. [20]

    Monocular Vision-Based SLAM in Indoor Environment Using Corner, Lamp, and Door Features From Upward-Looking Camera

    Hwang, S.; Song, J. Monocular Vision-Based SLAM in Indoor Environment Using Corner, Lamp, and Door Features From Upward-Looking Camera. 58, 4804–4812. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2011.2109333

    2011

  14. [21]

    Efficient Simultaneous Localization and Mapping Based on Ceiling-View: Ceiling Boundary Feature Map Approach

    Choi, H.; Kim, D.Y.; Hwang, J.P .; Park, C.W.; Kim, E. Efficient Simultaneous Localization and Mapping Based on Ceiling-View: Ceiling Boundary Feature Map Approach. 26, 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1163/156855311X617542

    doi

  15. [22]

    An Efficient Ceiling-view SLAM Using Relational Constraints Between Landmarks:

    Choi, H.; Kim, R.; Kim, E. An Efficient Ceiling-view SLAM Using Relational Constraints Between Landmarks:. https: //doi.org/10.5772/57225

    doi

  16. [23]

    Vision-Based Global Localization Using Ceiling Space Density

    Ribacki, A.; Jorge, V .A.M.; Mantelli, M.; Maffei, R.; Prestes, E. Vision-Based Global Localization Using Ceiling Space Density. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3502–3507. https://doi.org/10.1 109/ICRA.2018.8460515

    2018

  17. [24]

    An Improved Graph-Based Visual Localization System for Indoor Mobile Robot Using Newly Designed Markers

    Li, Y.; Zhu, S.; Yu, Y.; Wang, Z. An Improved Graph-Based Visual Localization System for Indoor Mobile Robot Using Newly Designed Markers. 15, 1729881418769191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1729881418769191

    doi

  18. [25]

    Direct Sparse Odometry with Rolling Shutter

    Schubert, D.; Demmel, N.; Usenko, V .; Stückler, J.; Cremers, D. Direct Sparse Odometry with Rolling Shutter. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision – ECCV 2018; Ferrari, V .; Hebert, M.; Sminchisescu, C.; Weiss, Y., Eds. Springer International Publishing, Lecture Notes in Comp...

    2018 doi

  19. [26]

    A Photometrically Calibrated Benchmark For Monocular Visual Odometry, [1607.02555]

    Engel, J.; Usenko, V .; Cremers, D. A Photometrically Calibrated Benchmark For Monocular Visual Odometry, [1607.02555]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1607.02555

    doi arXiv

  20. [27]

    Robust Estimation of a Location Parameter

    Huber, P .J. Robust Estimation of a Location Parameter. 35, 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177703732

  21. [28]

    A Micro Lie Theory for State Estimation in Robotics, [1812.01537]

    Solà, J.; Deray, J.; Atchuthan, D. A Micro Lie Theory for State Estimation in Robotics, [1812.01537]. https://doi.org/10.48550 /arXiv.1812.01537. Pre-print, version of December 5, 2024 17 of 17

    2024 doi arXiv

  22. [29]

    SmartTrolley: An Experimental Mobile Platform for Indoor Localization in Warehouses

    Bougouffa, A.; Seignez, E.; Bouaziz, S.; Gardes, F. SmartTrolley: An Experimental Mobile Platform for Indoor Localization in Warehouses. In Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference on Robotics, Control and Automation Engineering (RCAE), pp. 108–115. https://doi.org...

    2020

  23. [31]

    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), pp. 7244–7251. https://doi.org/10.1109/ IROS.2018.8593941

    2018

  24. [1262]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2017.2705103

    2017

  25. [1573]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2016.2609395

    2016

Pith tools

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