Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

RoMeO: Robust Metric Visual Odometry

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

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

Pith's one-line read Depth priors cut monocular visual odometry error by more than half.

desk verdict A well-engineered depth-prior VO system with strong ablations, but the 'consistent' robustness claim breaks on 4Seasons and the average RTE gain is KITTI-driven; worth reviewing, not yet fully credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11530 v3 pith:VOJ32X27 submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CV

Junda Cheng , Zhipeng Cai , Zhaoxing Zhang , Wei Yin , Matthias Muller , Michael Paulitsch , Xin Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords visualodometrymonoculardepthpriormetricscalerecoverybundleadjustmentmulti-viewstereonoise-augmentedtrainingzero-shotgeneralizationSLAM
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

RoMeO's central claim is that a monocular RGB visual odometry system can recover metric-scale trajectories without any IMU or 3D sensor by feeding pre-trained monocular and multi-view depth predictions into bundle adjustment, provided the noisy priors are filtered and the flow network is fine-tuned with noise. The paper argues this fixes the two known failures of learning-based VO: poor generalization to unseen outdoor scenes and inability to recover scale without aligning to ground truth. Across six zero-shot datasets covering indoor and outdoor scenes, it reports that RoMeO reduces relative and absolute trajectory errors by more than 50% on average compared to the previous state of the art, DPVO, with especially large gains on KITTI. The same gains transfer to a full SLAM pipeline with global bundle adjustment and loop closure. If the claim holds, camera-only navigation systems would gain metric scale and outdoor robustness without extra hardware.

What carries the argument

The central object is the depth-guided bundle adjustment objective of Eq. 1: minimize over poses $G$ and depth $d$ the reprojection-flow consistency term plus a depth regularization term $\lambda \|d_i - d^*_i\|^2_{\Sigma_{ij}}$, gated per frame by a binary condition weight $C_i$. The gate is set by Eq. 2, a photometric error computed from the initial monocular depth and the first bundle-adjustment iteration; regularization is enabled only when this error is below a constant $\alpha$ times the reference error of the initial frame graph. The multi-view stereo prior is admitted only when the sum of the two most recent relative translations exceeds $0.1\,\mathrm{m}$ and the angle between them lies in $[10^\circ, 30^\circ]$, and pixels with the lowest 20% of the stereo confidence map are ignored. These mechanisms carry the argument by converting static depth predictions into optimization constraints that preserve metric scale while keeping bad depth out of the optimization.

What would settle it

Run RoMeO on a sequence where the initial depth is deliberately accurate but the first optimization pass is forced to use a wrong pose; if the photometric gate then disables depth regularization, the claim that the gate tracks depth quality rather than pose quality is falsified. A simpler check is to plot gate decisions against per-pixel ground-truth depth error across the six datasets and look for many high-error depth maps that still pass the gate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

RoMeO's core discovery is that depth priors help VO only when they are used opportunistically rather than unconditionally. Monocular metric depth initializes each keyframe and supplies scale, a multi-view stereo estimator refines intermediate depth when recent camera motion has enough translation and a suitable angle between motion directions, and differentiable bundle adjustment is regularized by a term that pulls optimized depth toward the predicted depth. A condition weight in the objective enables that regularization only when a photometric consistency check, computed with the initial depth and the first optimization pass, indicates the depth is trustworthy. The paper reports that this gating, together with noise-augmented fine-tuning of the flow network, yields average relative and absolute trajectory error reductions of 55.2% and 77.8% versus DPVO across the six datasets, and trajectories that align with ground truth without any scale alignment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the color mismatch measured right after initialization reliably tells whether the predicted depth is good; if that measure is wrong, the system will either throw away useful depth or trust bad depth, and the claimed robustness breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If RoMeO's claim holds, monocular RGB video alone is enough for metric-scale visual odometry on unseen indoor and outdoor scenes, removing the need for IMUs or depth sensors in drone and robot navigation.
  • The reported error reductions imply that depth priors, when gated by photometric consistency, are a reliable source of scale and geometry rather than a source of noise that ruins generalization.
  • The transfer of gains to a full SLAM pipeline indicates the improvement is not limited to the sliding-window VO front end but also benefits global optimization with loop closure.
  • The compatibility experiment with a different monocular depth model suggests RoMeO's benefits are not tied to one depth network and should grow as lightweight metric-depth models improve.
  • The fast variant, which keeps most of the accuracy gain while running faster than the depth-free baseline, indicates the robustness is available at a practical runtime cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that their photometric gate is a general safety check: any learned depth prior inside geometric optimization could be trusted only when it explains the observed colors, which may transfer to structure-from-motion and dense mapping beyond VO.
  • A testable extension they do not explore is replacing the hand-set thresholds ($\alpha$, translation sum, angle interval) with per-sequence adaptive or learned values, since their own ablations suggest the gate, not the depth model, is the main determinant of robustness.
  • The method's reliance on pre-trained depth implies a forward path: as single-image metric depth gets cheaper and better, RoMeO's accuracy should improve without retraining the VO network, as long as the gating thresholds remain appropriate.
  • Because the noise-augmented fine-tuning is done on a synthetic outdoor dataset with scale-shift alignment for large errors, an open question is how the system behaves on depth distributions far from that training data; the paper's separate indoor hyperparameters acknowledge this gap partially.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes RoMeO, a monocular RGB visual odometry system that exploits pre-trained metric depth priors. The method initializes each frame with DPT-Hybrid monocular metric depth, uses MaGNet multi-view stereo depth to replace intermediate BA depth when motion and overlap conditions (Eq. 3) are met, and adds a depth regularization term to the bundle adjustment objective (Eq. 1). The regularization is gated per frame by a photometric-error condition Ci (Eq. 2), with the threshold αηinit computed from the initial frame graph. A RAFT-style flow network is fine-tuned with depth-enhanced inputs and deliberately retained depth noise (noise augmented training). On six zero-shot datasets, RoMeO reports averaged RTE/ATE reductions versus DPVO of 55.2% and 77.8%, and the improvements transfer to a full SLAM variant with global BA. The evaluation includes per-sequence tables for all datasets and an ablation study of each component.

Significance. If the reported results are taken at face value, RoMeO is a strong engineering contribution: it demonstrates that monocular metric depth and MVS priors can be integrated into differentiable BA without the catastrophic generalization failures that naive depth injection causes. The ablation study in Table 4 is informative and mostly clean: always-on depth regularization degrades 4Seasons RTE from 19.59 m to 117.95 m, while removing regularization degrades KITTI ATE from 3.81 m to 47.91 m, precisely motivating the adaptive gate; the comparison with DROID-Metric3d shows the benefit of the full system over simply plugging a depth model into DROID. The appendix's per-sequence results are a useful transparency feature. The main caveat is that the metric-scale capability is inherited from pre-trained external depth models by design, so the ATE improvements are system-level predictions rather than independent discoveries of a new physical quantity, and the headline average hides an important RTE regression on 4Seasons. The paper would be strengthened by a more precise robustness claim, by reporting the operating characteristics of the gate, and by a reproducible evaluation protocol.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Table 2] The statement that RoMeO 'consistently' improves trajectory shape is contradicted by the RTE column of Table 2. On 4Seasons, RoMeO's RTE is 19.59 m versus DPVO's 9.95 m, a roughly 2x regression, and on EuRoC RoMeO is slightly worse (0.098 m vs 0.101 m). Summing RTE over the six datasets, DPVO totals 72.29 m and RoMeO 32.45 m; excluding KITTI, DPVO totals 26.25 m and RoMeO 29.74 m, i.e., RoMeO is 13% worse outside KITTI. The claimed 55.2% average RTE reduction is therefore driven by KITTI, where the absolute improvement is 43.33 m against a total improvement of 39.84 m. Because the robustness claim rests on avoiding regressions on challenging outdoor data, please add a per-sequence analysis of the 4Seasons regression, report the gate statistics for that dataset, and either qualify the 'consistent' wording to 'average over six datasets' or provide evidence that the regression is not caused by the adaptive filter.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (2)] The adaptive noise filter is the load-bearing component for robustness, but its core premise is not validated. The gate assumes that the photometric error η' computed with the initial monocular depth and the first BA iteration is a reliable indicator of depth-prior quality. Photometric error is also affected by weather, illumination changes, and dynamic objects, so a high η' does not necessarily mean the depth prior is noisy, and a low η' does not guarantee accuracy. The manuscript does not report how often Ci is 0 or 1 on each dataset, nor does it provide a sensitivity analysis for α (1.75 for outdoor, 1.5 for indoor), and the MVS trigger thresholds in Eq. (3) and the 20% confidence-mask percentile are likewise fixed without evidence. Given that Table 4 shows that the gate is essential (always-on regularization increases 4Seasons RTE to 117.95 m), please add gate statistics, an α sensitivity study, and at least one diagnostic experiment showing that the gate preserves accurate depth priors while rejecting noisy ones, or discuss why these are not necessary.
  3. [Section 4, Data; Appendix A] The evaluation protocol is not fully reproducible. The paper states that for 4Seasons and ETH3D 'we randomly select 1 training sequence of each scene for evaluation, see Appendix A for details,' but Appendix A reports only aggregated numbers and sequence scene labels, not the exact sequence identifiers or the split used. No error bars or multiple random selections are reported, and code is not available. Since the central claim is zero-shot robustness and the dataset selection can change the averages, please fix and publish the exact evaluation sequences, report variance over at least three runs or justify its negligibility, and make the code and evaluation scripts available.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2] There is a typo in the ablation discussion: '4Seasnos' should be '4Seasons'.
  2. [Table 9] The SLAM result header for EuRoC incorrectly lists Cambridge scene names ('GreatCourt KingsCollege OldHospital ShopFacade StMarysChurch Street'); it should list the EuRoC sequence names V101, V102, V103, V201, V202, V203.
  3. [Table 8] In the RoMeO-VO row for OldHospital, the entry '1.14//8.56' contains a double slash; this appears to be a typographical error.
  4. [Section 3.1, Eq. (2)] The text calls η(i) the 'average photometric error,' but Eq. (2) is a sum over connected frames without normalization; please either divide by the number of terms or call it a total photometric error.
  5. [Table 4] The 'no depth prior' row removes both the depth initialization and the depth regularization term simultaneously, so it does not isolate the contribution of depth initialization; the text's description of this row as 'removes depth initialization from no NAT & no MVS' is imprecise and should be clarified or supplemented with an isolated ablation.
  6. [Table 2 caption] The caption says 'Avg error' but the columns are averages over the three datasets in each block; please state the averaging procedure explicitly in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: RoMeO's results are empirical and self-contained against external benchmarks; no equation reduces to a fitted parameter or self-citation chain.

full rationale

This is an empirical system paper, not a derivation. The central objective (Eq. 1) is a standard bundle-adjustment loss plus a depth-regularization term; the gate in Eq. 2 is a heuristic based on photometric error, not a quantity fitted to the evaluation targets. The metric-scale trajectory is inherited from pre-trained external depth models (DPT-Hybrid, MaGNet) by explicit design rather than by hidden fitting, so the ATE improvements are not predictions derived from the method's own fitted parameters. The paper evaluates against six zero-shot datasets and reports ablations; the ablation table shows each component contributes, which is consistent with an empirical system rather than a circular construction. Self-citations in the related-work section (Refs. 7-10, 13, 39, 40) are background and not load-bearing for the main claims. The robustness of the Eq. 2 gate on weather-degraded data (e.g., 4Seasons RTE 19.59 m vs DPVO 9.95 m) is a legitimate experimental concern but is a correctness/robustness issue, not circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the external depth priors and the hand-chosen gating thresholds; these are treated as given. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • α (photometric error gate threshold) = 1.75 outdoor, 1.5 indoor
    Used in the condition Ci=1 if η' < αηinit (Eq. 2); chosen per domain to balance regularization strength and noise rejection.
  • λ (depth regularization weight) = 0.05
    Weight of the depth regularization term in Eq. 1; set by hand and used for all experiments.
  • MVS motion trigger thresholds = translation sum > 0.1 m, angle in [10°, 30°]
    Eq. 3 decides when intermediate poses/overlap are sufficient for MVS depth prediction; hand-chosen.
  • MVS confidence mask percentile = lowest 20% discarded
    Pixels with the lowest 20% MVS confidence are ignored in flow generation and BA; hand-chosen.
  • Depth-correction error threshold in fine-tuning = 20% relative error
    During noise-augmented training, predicted depth is aligned to GT scale/shift only when relative error exceeds 20%; hand-chosen.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained monocular metric depth models (DPT-Hybrid) provide reasonably accurate metric-scale depth on zero-shot indoor and outdoor data.
    Section 3.2 and Table 1 assume the depth prior supplies metric scale; if the prior is not metric on a test domain, the ATE improvement and metric-scale claim fail.
  • domain assumption MaGNet MVS produces accurate depth when the motion/overlap conditions in Eq. 3 are satisfied and the top 80% confidence mask is used.
    Section 3.3 relies on MVS depth being better than the current BA depth under those conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper The photometric error η' is a reliable indicator of depth-prior quality, so the gate Ci=1 iff η' < αηinit is sound.
    Section 3.1 introduces this heuristic without a formal justification; it is the load-bearing robustness mechanism.
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning the flow network on TartanAir with scale/shift-corrected depth when error >20% transfers to real-world zero-shot data.
    Section 3.4 assumes the synthetic-to-real gap is handled by this correction strategy.
  • standard math The DROID differentiable bundle adjustment framework (Teed and Deng 2021) is a standard, correct optimization backbone.
    RoMeO builds directly on the DROID codebase and BA layer without modifying its mathematical core.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RoMeO: Robust Metric Visual Odometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOJ32X27

@misc{pith2026241211530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RoMeO: Robust Metric Visual Odometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOJ32X27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11530}
}
read the original abstract

Visual odometry (VO) aims to estimate camera poses from visual inputs -- a fundamental building block for many applications such as VR/AR and robotics. This work focuses on monocular RGB VO where the input is a monocular RGB video without IMU or 3D sensors. Existing approaches lack robustness under this challenging scenario and fail to generalize to unseen data (especially outdoors); they also cannot recover metric-scale poses. We propose Robust Metric Visual Odometry (RoMeO), a novel method that resolves these issues leveraging priors from pre-trained depth models. RoMeO incorporates both monocular metric depth and multi-view stereo (MVS) models to recover metric-scale, simplify correspondence search, provide better initialization and regularize optimization. Effective strategies are proposed to inject noise during training and adaptively filter noisy depth priors, which ensure the robustness of RoMeO on in-the-wild data. As shown in Fig.1, RoMeO advances the state-of-the-art (SOTA) by a large margin across 6 diverse datasets covering both indoor and outdoor scenes. Compared to the current SOTA DPVO, RoMeO reduces the relative (align the trajectory scale with GT) and absolute trajectory errors both by >50%. The performance gain also transfers to the full SLAM pipeline (with global BA & loop closure). Code will be released upon acceptance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Teaser.(a) RoMeO vs SOTA methods across 6 diverse datasets covering 3 indoor and 3 outdoor scenes, RoMeO outper￾forms SOTA methods by a large margin both in terms of the tra￾jectory shape (relative trajectory error (RTE)) and scale (absolute trajectory error (ATE)). (b) RoMeO trajectories closely align with the ground truth, even without scale alignment. Classical methods rely on hand-crafted features and explicit g… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview. RoMeO initializes each frame using monocular metric depth models. MVS models are used to further refine interme￾diate BA depth. Besides replacing the initial/intermediate depth, monocular and MVS depth priors are also added into the regularization terms of BA, with adaptive conditions to filter noisy depth priors and enable effective MVS prediction. Noise augmented training is used to adapt the flow networ… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Residual flow magnitudes in different BA iterations. For the second issue, an interesting observation is that, given effective monocular depth guidance, BA can return reasonably accurate intermediate poses within a small num￾ber of iterations. This is evident from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Trajectory. For each scene, the two rows show respectively the trajectory with and without scale alignment. RoMeO aligns much better with GT both with and without scale alignment. obtained by pose-depth based reprojection would be more accurate. Empirically we can trai…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Point cloud visualization. First two columns: results on KITTI Odometry. Last three columns: results on TUM-RGBD. RoMeO provides dense and more accurate 3D reconstructions. ric3D) with the Droid-Metric3D baseline in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Leveraging Consistent Spatio-Temporal Correspondence for Robust Visual Odometry

    cs.CV 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    STVO improves visual odometry by combining temporal motion propagation and depth-based spatial attention to make multi-frame optical flow matching more consistent, setting state-of-the-art ATE on TUM-RGBD, EuRoC, ETH3...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dpt default scale and shift. 6

    work page

  2. [2]

    Multi- view depth estimation by fusing single-view depth prob- ability with multi-view geometry

    Gwangbin Bae, Ignas Budvytis, and Roberto Cipolla. Multi- view depth estimation by fusing single-view depth prob- ability with multi-view geometry. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2842–2851, 2022. 2, 4, 6

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Zoedepth: Zero-shot trans- fer by combining relative and metric depth

    Shariq Farooq Bhat, Reiner Birkl, Diana Wofk, Peter Wonka, and Matthias M ¨uller. Zoedepth: Zero-shot trans- fer by combining relative and metric depth. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12288, 2023. 2

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets

    Michael Burri, Janosch Nikolic, Pascal Gohl, Thomas Schneider, Joern Rehder, Sammy Omari, Markus W Achte- lik, and Roland Siegwart. The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets. The International Journal of Robotics Research ,

    work page

  5. [5]

    Orb-slam3: An accu- rate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and mul- timap slam

    Carlos Campos, Richard Elvira, Juan J G ´omez Rodr´ıguez, Jos´e MM Montiel, and Juan D Tard´os. Orb-slam3: An accu- rate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and mul- timap slam. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 37(6):1874– 1890, 2021. 6

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Mvsformer: Multi-view stereo by learning robust image features and temperature-based depth

    Chenjie Cao, Xinlin Ren, and Yanwei Fu. Mvsformer: Multi-view stereo by learning robust image features and temperature-based depth. Transactions on Machine Learn- ing Research, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Re- gion separable stereo matching

    Junda Cheng, Xin Yang, Yuechuan Pu, and Peng Guo. Re- gion separable stereo matching. IEEE Transactions on Mul- timedia, 25:4880–4893, 2022. 2

    2022

  8. [8]

    Coa- trsnet: Fully exploiting convolution and attention for stereo matching by region separation

    Junda Cheng, Gangwei Xu, Peng Guo, and Xin Yang. Coa- trsnet: Fully exploiting convolution and attention for stereo matching by region separation. International Journal of Computer Vision, 132(1):56–73, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Adaptive fusion of single-view and multi-view depth for autonomous driving

    Junda Cheng, Wei Yin, Kaixuan Wang, Xiaozhi Chen, Shijie Wang, and Xin Yang. Adaptive fusion of single-view and multi-view depth for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10138–10147, 2024. 2

    2024

  2. [10]

    Monster: Marry monodepth to stereo unleashes power

    Junda Cheng, Longliang Liu, Gangwei Xu, Xianqi Wang, Zhaoxing Zhang, Yong Deng, Jinliang Zang, Yurui Chen, Zhipeng Cai, and Xin Yang. Monster: Marry monodepth to stereo unleashes power. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08643 ,

  3. [11]

    Lsd- slam: Large-scale direct monocular slam

    Jakob Engel, Thomas Sch ¨ops, and Daniel Cremers. Lsd- slam: Large-scale direct monocular slam. In European con- ference on computer vision, pages 834–849. Springer, 2014. 1, 2

    2014

  4. [12]

    Direct sparse odometry

    Jakob Engel, Vladlen Koltun, and Daniel Cremers. Direct sparse odometry. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(3):611–625, 2017. 1, 2

    2017

  5. [13]

    Mc-stereo: Multi-peak lookup and cascade search range for stereo matching

    Miaojie Feng, Junda Cheng, Hao Jia, Longliang Liu, Gang- wei Xu, and Xin Yang. Mc-stereo: Multi-peak lookup and cascade search range for stereo matching. In 2024 Inter- national Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) , pages 344–353. IEEE, 2024. 2

    2024

  6. [14]

    Imu preintegration on manifold for efficient visual-inertial maximum-a-posteriori estimation

    Christian Forster, Luca Carlone, Frank Dellaert, and Davide Scaramuzza. Imu preintegration on manifold for efficient visual-inertial maximum-a-posteriori estimation. Technical report, 2015. 2

    2015

  7. [15]

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

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, and Raquel Urtasun. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR), 2012. 4, 6, 12

    2012

  8. [16]

    A benchmark for rgb-d visual odometry, 3d reconstruction and slam

    Ankur Handa, Thomas Whelan, John McDonald, and An- drew J Davison. A benchmark for rgb-d visual odometry, 3d reconstruction and slam. In 2014 IEEE international confer- ence on Robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 1524–1531. IEEE, 2014. 2

    2014

  9. [17]

    Metric3d v2: A versatile monocular geomet- ric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation

    Mu Hu, Wei Yin, Chi Zhang, Zhipeng Cai, Xiaoxiao Long, Hao Chen, Kaixuan Wang, Gang Yu, Chunhua Shen, and Shaojie Shen. Metric3d v2: A versatile monocular geomet- ric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15506, 2024. 4

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Posenet: A convolutional network for real-time 6-dof cam- era relocalization

    Alex Kendall, Matthew Grimes, and Roberto Cipolla. Posenet: A convolutional network for real-time 6-dof cam- era relocalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2938–2946, 2015. 6, 12

    2015

  11. [19]

    Orb-slam: a versatile and accurate monocular slam system

    Raul Mur-Artal, Jose Maria Martinez Montiel, and Juan D Tardos. Orb-slam: a versatile and accurate monocular slam system. IEEE transactions on robotics , 31(5):1147–1163,

  12. [20]

    Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross-dataset transfer

    Ren ´e Ranftl, Katrin Lasinger, David Hafner, Konrad Schindler, and Vladlen Koltun. Towards robust monocular depth estimation: Mixing datasets for zero-shot cross-dataset transfer. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44(3):1623–1637, 2020. 2

    2020

  13. [21]

    Vi- sion transformers for dense prediction

    Ren ´e Ranftl, Alexey Bochkovskiy, and Vladlen Koltun. Vi- sion transformers for dense prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 12179–12188, 2021. 2, 4

    2021

  14. [22]

    Kimera: an open-source library for real-time metric- semantic localization and mapping

    Antoni Rosinol, Marcus Abate, Yun Chang, and Luca Car- lone. Kimera: an open-source library for real-time metric- semantic localization and mapping. In 2020 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 1689–1696. IEEE, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  15. [23]

    Bad slam: Bundle adjusted direct rgb-d slam

    Thomas Schops, Torsten Sattler, and Marc Pollefeys. Bad slam: Bundle adjusted direct rgb-d slam. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 134–144, 2019. 6, 13

    2019

  16. [24]

    A benchmark for the evalua- tion of rgb-d slam systems

    J ¨urgen Sturm, Nikolas Engelhard, Felix Endres, Wolfram Burgard, and Daniel Cremers. A benchmark for the evalua- tion of rgb-d slam systems. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pages 573–580. IEEE, 2012. 6, 13

    2012

  17. [25]

    Cnn-slam: Real-time dense monocular slam with learned depth prediction

    Keisuke Tateno, Federico Tombari, Iro Laina, and Nassir Navab. Cnn-slam: Real-time dense monocular slam with learned depth prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 6243–6252, 2017. 2

    2017

  18. [26]

    Deepv2d: Video to depth with differentiable structure from motion

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Deepv2d: Video to depth with differentiable structure from motion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04605, 2018. 2

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23– 28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 16, pages 402–419. Springer,

    2020

  20. [28]

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

    Zachary Teed and Jia Deng. Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras. Advances in neu- ral information processing systems, 34:16558–16569, 2021. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

    2021

  21. [29]

    Deep patch vi- sual odometry

    Zachary Teed, Lahav Lipson, and Jia Deng. Deep patch vi- sual odometry. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2024

  22. [30]

    Stereo dso: Large-scale direct sparse visual odometry with stereo cameras

    Rui Wang, Martin Schworer, and Daniel Cremers. Stereo dso: Large-scale direct sparse visual odometry with stereo cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 3903–3911, 2017. 2

    2017

  23. [31]

    Tartanair: A dataset to push the limits of visual slam

    Wenshan Wang, Delong Zhu, Xiangwei Wang, Yaoyu Hu, Yuheng Qiu, Chen Wang, Yafei Hu, Ashish Kapoor, and Se- bastian Scherer. Tartanair: A dataset to push the limits of visual slam. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 4909–49...

    2020

  24. [32]

    Tartanvo: A generalizable learning-based vo

    Wenshan Wang, Yaoyu Hu, and Sebastian Scherer. Tartanvo: A generalizable learning-based vo. In Conference on Robot Learning, pages 1761–1772. PMLR, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  25. [33]

    4seasons: A cross-season dataset for multi-weather slam in autonomous driving

    Patrick Wenzel, Rui Wang, Nan Yang, Qing Cheng, Qadeer Khan, Lukas von Stumberg, Niclas Zeller, and Daniel Cre- mers. 4seasons: A cross-season dataset for multi-weather slam in autonomous driving. In Pattern Recognition: 42nd DAGM German Conference, DAGM GCPR 2020, T¨ubingen, ...

    2020

  26. [34]

    Robust real-time visual odometry for dense rgb-d mapping

    Thomas Whelan, Hordur Johannsson, Michael Kaess, John J Leonard, and John McDonald. Robust real-time visual odometry for dense rgb-d mapping. In 2013 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 5724–

    2013

  27. [35]

    Depth anything: Unleash- ing the power of large-scale unlabeled data

    Lihe Yang, Bingyi Kang, Zilong Huang, Xiaogang Xu, Ji- ashi Feng, and Hengshuang Zhao. Depth anything: Unleash- ing the power of large-scale unlabeled data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10891, 2024. 2, 4

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    D3vo: Deep depth, deep pose and deep uncer- tainty for monocular visual odometry

    Nan Yang, Lukas von Stumberg, Rui Wang, and Daniel Cremers. D3vo: Deep depth, deep pose and deep uncer- tainty for monocular visual odometry. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1281–1292, 2020. 2

    2020

  29. [37]

    Mvsnet: Depth inference for unstructured multi-view stereo

    Yao Yao, Zixin Luo, Shiwei Li, Tian Fang, and Long Quan. Mvsnet: Depth inference for unstructured multi-view stereo. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vi- sion (ECCV), pages 767–783, 2018. 2

    2018

  30. [38]

    Metric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a single image

    Wei Yin, Chi Zhang, Hao Chen, Zhipeng Cai, Gang Yu, Kaixuan Wang, Xiaozhi Chen, and Chunhua Shen. Metric3d: Towards zero-shot metric 3d prediction from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9043–9053, 2023. 2, 6, 7

    2023

  31. [39]

    Leveraging consistent spatio-temporal correspondence for robust visual odometry

    Zhaoxing Zhang, Junda Cheng, Gangwei Xu, Xiaoxiang Wang, Can Zhang, and Xin Yang. Leveraging consistent spatio-temporal correspondence for robust visual odometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.16923, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Svdc: Con- sistent direct time-of-flight video depth completion with fre- quency selective fusion

    Xuan Zhu, Jijun Xiang, Xianqi Wang, Longliang Liu, Yu Wang, Hong Zhang, Fei Guo, and Xin Yang. Svdc: Con- sistent direct time-of-flight video depth completion with fre- quency selective fusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.01257 ,

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Direct sparse mapping

    Jon Zubizarreta, Iker Aguinaga, and Jose Maria Martinez Montiel. Direct sparse mapping. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 36(4):1363–1370, 2020. 1, 2 A. Appendix As shown in Tables 6 to 10, RoMeO outperforms the base- lines on most individual sequences of each dataset. Un- like p...

    2020

Pith tools

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