Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

UA-MPC: Uncertainty-Aware Model Predictive Control for Motorized LiDAR Odometry

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 Adaptive motor speeds cut LiDAR odometry error by over 60 percent in the paper's tests.

desk verdict A sound control idea and a useful simulator, undermined by headline numbers that the paper's own Table I contradicts. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13873 v1 pith:YNLP2TB2 submitted 2024-12-18 cs.RO

Jianping Li , Xinhang Xu , Jinxin Liu , Kun Cao , Shenghai Yuan , Lihua Xie This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords modelpredictivecontrolmotorizedLiDARodometryuncertaintypredictionraytracingobservabilityscanningefficiencyactivesensing
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

The paper claims that a motorized LiDAR spinning at a scene-dependent speed, rather than a constant speed, can significantly improve the accuracy of LiDAR odometry without sacrificing scanning coverage. The proposed controller predicts how observable the environment will be from each motor angle by ray tracing through the current local map, then adjusts the motor speed through a model-predictive loop to dwell on feature-rich directions while keeping an efficiency penalty close to zero. Across three simulated campus sites and two real handheld scans, the authors report over a 60% reduction in absolute positioning error compared with constant-speed rotation, with less than a 2% drop in the number of scanned voxels. If this holds, adaptive motor control becomes a low-cost, hardware-free way to make lightweight motorized scanners reliable in feature-sparse or complex scenes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the uncertainty function $U(\theta_i)$, the A-optimal trace of the inverse information matrix for the LiDAR odometry's point-to-plane residuals at motor angle $\theta_i$. The paper renders a single panoramic depth image from the current local map, samples the LiDAR beams at discrete motor angles by ray tracing, computes the residual Jacobians, and sums their outer products to form the information matrix. A piecewise linear surrogate function is fit to samples of $U$ and used inside a model-predictive controller whose objective trades odometry uncertainty against deviation from the preset speed, so the optimization remains solvable on an edge computer.

What would settle it

Run the controller in a scene where a large unvisited or occluded region lies within the prediction horizon, and compare the controller's predicted uncertainty ranking at each orientation with the actual ATE contribution of scans taken at those orientations; a near-zero or negative correlation between predicted uncertainty and realized error would show the proxy is not faithful and that speed adaptation is not the cause of the reported gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the quality of LiDAR odometry from a motorized scanner is not fixed by the scanner geometry; it can be actively steered by choosing how long the motor dwells at each orientation. The authors define an observability score for an orientation as the trace of the inverse information matrix built from simulated point-to-plane residuals at that angle, then solve a short-horizon model-predictive control problem that minimizes this score together with deviation from a preset speed. In the reported experiments, this reduces absolute trajectory error from 45.03 m to 9.01 m on a challenging simulated campus route and from 1.51 m to 0.80 m on a real 300-meter corridor, while the fraction of scanned space stays within 2% of the constant-speed baseline. The paper treats this as evidence that uncertainty-aware control, rather than faster spinning or additional sensors, is the effective lever for accurate motorized 3D sensing.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest premise is that one static render of the current local map correctly predicts how well the future LiDAR scan at each motor angle will constrain the odometry estimate; if the map is incomplete, stale, or the sensor moves during the horizon, the predicted uncertainty can rank orientations incorrectly and the speed choices can hurt accuracy instead of helping.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Motorized LiDAR odometry accuracy can be improved by software-only motor-speed adaptation, without adding sensors or changing the scanner geometry.
  • The controller runs in real time on an edge processor, so the approach is deployable on lightweight handheld and aerial platforms.
  • The simulation setup, built from existing ground-truth maps, allows any motor-control policy to be benchmarked before hardware deployment.
  • The reported trade-off implies that constant-speed rotation underuses the motorized scanner's potential accuracy in feature-rich environments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the uncertainty function is defined from geometric residuals only, the same surrogate could be attached to other estimation backends, not just the specific odometry used in the paper, provided their residual Jacobians are available.
  • The static single-render assumption is the most likely failure point at higher vehicle speed or with moving objects; a motion-compensated multi-render variant is a natural testable extension.
  • The largest simulation improvements occur on the most degenerate route, suggesting the benefit may concentrate in feature-sparse scenes while feature-rich scenes gain little; this pattern can guide where to deploy the method.
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 proposes UA-MPC, an uncertainty-aware model predictive controller that adjusts the rotation speed of a motorized LiDAR to improve LiDAR odometry accuracy while preserving scanning efficiency. The uncertainty of future scans is predicted by ray tracing the current local map, computing an A-optimal trace of the inverse information matrix, and then a piecewise-linear surrogate model is used to solve the MPC problem. The authors also contribute a ROS-based motorized LiDAR simulation environment built on MARSIM and evaluate UA-MPC against constant-speed and zero-speed control on the MCD dataset and on two real-world handheld scanning routes. The central claim, stated in the abstract and Section IV.C, is that UA-MPC achieves over 60% reduction in positioning error with less than 2% decrease in efficiency compared to constant-speed control.

Significance. If the claims are supported, the paper would make a useful contribution: adaptive motor-speed control for motorized LiDAR is a practical and underexplored direction, the proposed uncertainty predictor based on rendered observability is principled, and the open-sourced simulation environment is a valuable resource for the community. The real-world deployment on an embedded platform (Orin-NX) and the use of the MCD dataset are also positive aspects. However, the paper's headline quantitative claims are not supported by the reported experiments, and the predictive mechanism is not directly validated. The core idea is promising, but the evidence as presented is not yet sufficient for the strength of the claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV.C] The headline claim of 'over a 60% reduction in positioning error with less than 2% decrease in efficiency' is not supported by Table I. Per-site ATE improvements are 8.3% for NTU (4.96 to 4.55 m), 80.0% for KTH (45.03 to 9.01 m), and 28.9% for TUHH (13.21 to 9.39 m); the aggregate improvement of about 63.7% is dominated by the KTH constant-speed drift. The efficiency claim is also contradicted by the table: NTU CMPLT drops by 10.35% (69,237 to 62,068 voxels) and the total simulated CMPLT drops by 5.5% (140,345 to 132,670). The real-world Spine result is a 47% reduction (1.51 to 0.80 m), not over 60%. The abstract and Section IV.C should be corrected to report per-site results and to avoid the aggregate claim, or the experiments need to be extended to support it.
  2. [Section IV.C and Section IV.D] All comparisons are based on a single simulation run per site and a single real-world pass per route, with no repeated trials, standard deviations, or confidence intervals. Because the aggregate improvement depends heavily on one large drift in the KTH constant-speed run (45.03 m), it is unclear whether this is a stable property of the environment or a single failure realization. I request repeated runs (or, for the real-world experiments, at least a few passes) with reported spread, and an analysis of how the KTH result varies with initialization and noise.
  3. [Section II.C] The proposed mechanism rests on U(θ_i) in Eq. (8) being a faithful predictor of future LO accuracy, but no evidence is provided that the predicted uncertainty correlates with actual ATE. Since U is computed by ray tracing the local map produced by the same LO that is being evaluated, an incomplete or drifting local map can bias the prediction, and Remark 2's static-body rendering may mis-rank orientations during fast motion. I suggest adding a validation experiment that compares predicted U against actual per-orientation odometry error in the simulator (where ground truth is available), and an ablation that replaces U with a constant or a map-independent heuristic to isolate the benefit of the uncertainty prediction.
  4. [Section II.D and Section IV.A] Several parameters needed to reproduce the MPC are not specified: the control horizon M in Eq. (4), the sampling interval Δθ in Eq. (9), the solver used, and the optimization termination criteria. The weights α and β are set to balance magnitudes (α=1000, β=1) rather than derived; a sensitivity study over α/β and M would clarify how robust the reported improvement is. Please add these details and, if possible, a sensitivity table.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.C] The text says 'the ATE is improved by 60% using UA-PMC'; this should read 'UA-MPC'.
  2. [Fig. 8] The caption lists subfigures (a), (b), (d), and (e), but the text refers to 'Fig. 8(c)' for the NTU Spine point cloud; either add subfigure (c) or renumber the subfigures.
  3. [Section IV.D] The sentence 'The evaluations of the UA-MAP are shown in Fig. 9(e) and (f)' should read 'UA-MPC'.
  4. [Eq. (9)-(10)] The interpolation formula in Eq. (10) does not specify how the indices behave when θ approaches 2π; please state whether U is periodic and how the wrap-around is handled.
  5. [Section II.D] The text states that 2π/Δθ samples are collected, which assumes Δθ divides 2π; please state the chosen Δθ value (apparently 5 degrees from Fig. 3, but not stated in the text).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity; minor self-citation/coupling involving the I2EKF-LO backend and the local-map-sourced uncertainty proxy, but the reported ATE is measured, not derived from U.

full rationale

UA-MPC's uncertainty U(theta_i) is computed from the current LO local map by ray tracing and A-optimality (Eqs. 5-8), and the same LiDAR odometry backend (I2EKF-LO, ref. [32]) supplies both that local map and the ATE used for evaluation. This is a coupling, but it is not a reduction: U is a predicted proxy over rendered point-to-plane residuals, while ATE and CMPLT are closed-loop measured outcomes on replayed GT maps (simulation) or Leica-MS60-aligned trajectories (real world). The MPC weights alpha=1000 and beta=1 are set by hand from observed magnitude scaling, not fitted to ATE, and no equation forces the measured ATE to equal or follow U. Reference [32] is a self-citation by the same NTU group, but it is used as an implementation component rather than as evidence for the claimed 60% improvement; the paper's own Table I and real-world experiments carry that claim. The internal tension in the '>60%' headline (KTH is an outlier, and the NTU site shows a 10.3% CMPLT drop) is a reporting/evidence concern, not a circularity. I therefore find no step where an output is equivalent by construction to its input.

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

The central claim rests on the uncertainty prediction pipeline, which introduces the proxy U, its static-body rendering, and hand-set weights alpha and beta. No new physical entities are postulated. The load-bearing assumptions are modeling choices about how faithfully U predicts actual odometry error.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha = 1000
    Weight on the uncertainty term in the MPC objective (Eq. 4a), chosen by empirical magnitude balancing with beta, not optimized against ATE.
  • beta = 1
    Weight on the speed-efficiency penalty in the objective (Eq. 4a).
  • omega_pre = 3.6 rad/s
    Reference motor speed used in the efficiency penalty and as the constant-speed baseline, set from empirical observations (Sec IV.A).
  • delta_theta
    Angular sampling interval for the surrogate function (Eq. 9). The paper does not state its value, yet it controls surrogate fidelity and optimization cost.
  • control_horizon_M
    Horizon length in Eq. (4a) is not specified. It determines how far ahead the MPC looks and affects closed-loop behavior.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math A-optimal design criterion, trace of the inverse information matrix, is a valid measure of LO uncertainty.
    Section II.C, Eq. (8), uses Trace(Λ^-1) following optimal design theory [33]. This is a standard modeling choice but not directly validated against actual LO error.
  • domain assumption Point-to-plane residuals with Jacobian Jk (Eq. 7) accurately describe the LO least-squares cost.
    Section II.C assumes the odometry solver minimizes point-to-plane residuals, which matches I2EKF-LO but is not validated for all scene types.
  • domain assumption The body frame can be treated as static while rendering the panoramic depth map for the whole control horizon.
    Remark 2 states the depth image is rendered only once assuming a static body to save computation. This limits prediction accuracy under motion.
  • domain assumption LiDAR measurements can be approximated by uniform 5-degree sampling in the uncertainty prediction.
    Section II.C says the simplification ignores non-repetitive scanning modes. Real solid-state LiDAR patterns differ from the uniform pattern assumed.
  • domain assumption The local map from LO is complete and accurate enough for ray tracing future scans.
    The entire U function depends on the local map (Fig. 3a). In feature-sparse or exploratory regions, the map may not represent future viewpoints.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UA-MPC: Uncertainty-Aware Model Predictive Control for Motorized LiDAR Odometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YNLP2TB2

@misc{pith2026241213873,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UA-MPC: Uncertainty-Aware Model Predictive Control for Motorized LiDAR Odometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YNLP2TB2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13873}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate and comprehensive 3D sensing using LiDAR systems is crucial for various applications in photogrammetry and robotics, including facility inspection, Building Information Modeling (BIM), and robot navigation. Motorized LiDAR systems can expand the Field of View (FoV) without adding multiple scanners, but existing motorized LiDAR systems often rely on constant-speed motor control, leading to suboptimal performance in complex environments. To address this, we propose UA-MPC, an uncertainty-aware motor control strategy that balances scanning accuracy and efficiency. By predicting discrete observabilities of LiDAR Odometry (LO) through ray tracing and modeling their distribution with a surrogate function, UA-MPC efficiently optimizes motor speed control according to different scenes. Additionally, we develop a ROS-based realistic simulation environment for motorized LiDAR systems, enabling the evaluation of control strategies across diverse scenarios. Extensive experiments, conducted on both simulated and real-world scenarios, demonstrate that our method significantly improves odometry accuracy while preserving the scanning efficiency of motorized LiDAR systems. Specifically, it achieves over a 60\% reduction in positioning error with less than a 2\% decrease in efficiency compared to constant-speed control, offering a smarter and more effective solution for active 3D sensing tasks. The simulation environment for control motorized LiDAR is open-sourced at: \url{https://github.com/kafeiyin00/UA-MPC.git}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13873 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Coordinates and mechanical design of the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Workflow of Uncertainty-Aware Model Predictive Control (UA-MPC). method, namely, the LiDAR frame F L, the motor frame F Mt at time t, the base frame F Bt at time t, and the world frame F W . We denote a point observed by the LiDAR in the sensor frame as r L p ∈ R 3 , which is represented as rW p ∈ R 3 in the world frame. The transformation between the r L p and rW p is written as follow: r W p = RW B (t) [PITH_FULL… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Surrogate function U ′ , a piecewise linear function, is used for approximating the raw uncertainty function U. where Rˆ W Bi and ˆrW Bi are the initial guess for the pose of the base frame, which needs to be optimized in the least square estimation in LO. The Jacobian of the residual with respect to pose can be calculated using Eq. (7): Jk = [(∂ϵk/∂Rˆ W Bi ) ⊤,(∂ϵk/∂ˆr W Bi ) ⊤] ⊤ = [[(Rˆ W Bi pk]×nk) ⊤, n ⊤ k ] ⊤.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulation environment for motorized LiDAR system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Simulation experiments using the proposed UA-MPC on different scenes in the MCD dataset. (a) NTU Campus; (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Absolute Translation Error (ATE) of different meth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Experiments on in-house handheld motorized LiDAR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Audio Array-Based 3D UAV Trajectory Estimation with LiDAR Pseudo-Labeling

    cs.RO 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An audio-only neural network predicts 3D UAV trajectories with 0.48 m average position error on MMAUD, trained with unsupervised LiDAR trajectory estimates as pseudo-labels.

  2. Swept Volume-Aware Trajectory Planning and MPC Tracking for Multi-Axle Swerve-Drive AMRs

    cs.RO 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A planning and control framework for multi-axle swerve-drive robots that reduces swept area during turns by aligning vehicle heading with the path tangent and tracking the resulting trajectory with MPC.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Whu- helmet: A helmet-based multi-sensor slam dataset for the evaluation of real-time 3d mapping in large-scale gnss-denied environments,

    J. Li, W. Wu, B. Yang, X. Zou, Y . Yang, X. Zhao, and Z. Dong, “Whu- helmet: A helmet-based multi-sensor slam dataset for the evaluation of real-time 3d mapping in large-scale gnss-denied environments,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Hcto: Optimality-aware lidar inertial odometry with hybrid continuous time optimization for compact wearable mapping system,

    J. Li, S. Yuan, M. Cao, T.-M. Nguyen, K. Cao, and L. Xie, “Hcto: Optimality-aware lidar inertial odometry with hybrid continuous time optimization for compact wearable mapping system,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. 211, pp. 228–243, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Se-calib: Semantic edges based lidar-camera boresight online calibration in urban scenes,

    Y . Liao, J. Li, S. Kang, Q. Li, G. Zhu, S. Yuan, Z. Dong, and B. Yang, “Se-calib: Semantic edges based lidar-camera boresight online calibration in urban scenes,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry,

    W. Xu, Y . Cai, D. He, J. Lin, and F. Zhang, “Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2053–2073, 2022

    2022

  5. [5]

    Distributed multi-robot sweep coverage for a region with unknown workload distribution,

    M. Cao, K. Cao, X. Li, S. Yuan, Y . Lyu, T.-M. Nguyen, and L. Xie, “Distributed multi-robot sweep coverage for a region with unknown workload distribution,” Autonomous Intelligent Systems , vol. 1, no. 1, p. 13, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Development of bim- integrated construction robot task planning and simulation system,

    S. Kim, M. Peavy, P.-C. Huang, and K. Kim, “Development of bim- integrated construction robot task planning and simulation system,” Automation in Construction , vol. 127, p. 103720, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Patchaugnet: Patch feature augmentation-based heteroge- neous point cloud place recognition in large-scale street scenes,

    X. Zou, J. Li, Y . Wang, F. Liang, W. Wu, H. Wang, B. Yang, and Z. Dong, “Patchaugnet: Patch feature augmentation-based heteroge- neous point cloud place recognition in large-scale street scenes,”ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 206, pp. 273– 292, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Robotic online path planning on point cloud,

    M. Liu, “Robotic online path planning on point cloud,” IEEE trans- actions on cybernetics , vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 1217–1228, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Learning dynamic weight adjustment for spatial- temporal trajectory planning in crowd navigation,

    M. Cao, X. Xu, Y . Yang, J. Li, T. Jin, P. Wang, T.-Y . Hung, G. Lin, and L. Xie, “Learning dynamic weight adjustment for spatial- temporal trajectory planning in crowd navigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00555, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Robust odometry and mapping for multi-lidar systems with online extrinsic calibration,

    J. Jiao, H. Ye, Y . Zhu, and M. Liu, “Robust odometry and mapping for multi-lidar systems with online extrinsic calibration,” IEEE Trans- actions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 351–371, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Hovermap series - autonomous lidar mapping,

    Emesent, “Hovermap series - autonomous lidar mapping,” 2024. Accessed: 2024-12-10

    2024

  4. [12]

    A hierarchical approach for refining point cloud quality of a low cost uav lidar system in the urban environment,

    B. Yang and J. Li, “A hierarchical approach for refining point cloud quality of a low cost uav lidar system in the urban environment,”ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 183, pp. 403– 421, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Low-cost calibration of matching error between lidar and motor for a rotating 2d lidar,

    C. Yuan, S. Bi, J. Cheng, D. Yang, and W. Wang, “Low-cost calibration of matching error between lidar and motor for a rotating 2d lidar,” Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 913, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Robust localization and localiz- ability estimation with a rotating laser scanner,

    W. Zhen, S. Zeng, and S. Soberer, “Robust localization and localiz- ability estimation with a rotating laser scanner,” in 2017 IEEE interna- tional conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , pp. 6240–6245, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Or-lim: Observability-aware robust lidar-inertial- mapping under high dynamic sensor motion,

    Y . Cong, C. Chen, B. Yang, R. Zhong, S. Sun, Y . Xu, Z. Yan, X. Zou, and Z. Tu, “Or-lim: Observability-aware robust lidar-inertial- mapping under high dynamic sensor motion,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 218, pp. 610–627, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Loam: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time.,

    J. Zhang and S. Singh, “Loam: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time.,” in Robotics: Science and systems , vol. 2, pp. 1–9, Berkeley, CA, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    Full-dof calibration of a rotating 2-d lidar with a simple plane measurement,

    J. Kang and N. L. Doh, “Full-dof calibration of a rotating 2-d lidar with a simple plane measurement,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1245–1263, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Automatic calibration of spinning actuated lidar internal parameters,

    H. Alismail and B. Browning, “Automatic calibration of spinning actuated lidar internal parameters,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 723–747, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    Wildcat: Online continuous- time 3d lidar-inertial slam,

    M. Ramezani, K. Khosoussi, G. Catt, P. Moghadam, J. Williams, P. Borges, F. Pauling, and N. Kottege, “Wildcat: Online continuous- time 3d lidar-inertial slam,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12595 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Elasticity meets continuous-time: Map-centric dense 3d lidar slam,

    C. Park, P. Moghadam, J. L. Williams, S. Kim, S. Sridharan, and C. Fookes, “Elasticity meets continuous-time: Map-centric dense 3d lidar slam,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 978– 997, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Elastic lidar fusion: Dense map-centric continuous-time slam,

    C. Park, P. Moghadam, S. Kim, A. Elfes, C. Fookes, and S. Sridharan, “Elastic lidar fusion: Dense map-centric continuous-time slam,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1206–1213, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Lola-slam: low-latency lidar slam using continuous scan slicing,

    M. Karimi, M. Oelsch, O. Stengel, E. Babaians, and E. Steinbach, “Lola-slam: low-latency lidar slam using continuous scan slicing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2248–2255, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Graph-based slam-aware exploration with prior topo-metric information,

    R. Bai, H. Guo, W.-Y . Yau, and L. Xie, “Graph-based slam-aware exploration with prior topo-metric information,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Lidar-based end-to-end active slam using deep reinforcement learning in large- scale environments,

    J. Chen, K. Wu, M. Hu, P. N. Suganthan, and A. Makur, “Lidar-based end-to-end active slam using deep reinforcement learning in large- scale environments,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Active slam for mobile robots with area coverage and obstacle avoidance,

    Y . Chen, S. Huang, and R. Fitch, “Active slam for mobile robots with area coverage and obstacle avoidance,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1182–1192, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    αlidar: An adaptive high-resolution panoramic lidar system,

    J. Cui, Y . He, J. Niu, Z. Ouyang, and G. Xing, “ αlidar: An adaptive high-resolution panoramic lidar system,” in Proceedings of the 30th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Network- ing, pp. 1515–1529, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Relative localization estimation for multiple robots via the rotating ultra-wideband tag,

    J. Liu and G. Hu, “Relative localization estimation for multiple robots via the rotating ultra-wideband tag,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 4187–4194, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator,

    N. Koenig and A. Howard, “Design and use paradigms for gazebo, an open-source multi-robot simulator,” in 2004 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS)(IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37566), vol. 3, pp. 2149–2154, Ieee, 2004

    2004

  21. [29]

    Airsim: High-fidelity visual and physical simulation for autonomous vehicles,

    S. Shah, D. Dey, C. Lovett, and A. Kapoor, “Airsim: High-fidelity visual and physical simulation for autonomous vehicles,” in Field and Service Robotics: Results of the 11th International Conference , pp. 621–635, Springer, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Nvidia isaac sim,

    N. Corporation, “Nvidia isaac sim,” 2024. Accessed: 2024-12-11

    2024

  23. [31]

    Marsim: A light-weight point-realistic simulator for lidar- based uavs,

    F. Kong, X. Liu, B. Tang, J. Lin, Y . Ren, Y . Cai, F. Zhu, N. Chen, and F. Zhang, “Marsim: A light-weight point-realistic simulator for lidar- based uavs,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2954–2961, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    I2ekf-lo: A dual-iteration extended kalman filter based lidar odometry,

    W. Yu, J. Xu, C. Zhao, L. Zhao, T.-M. Nguyen, S. Yuan, M. Bai, and L. Xie, “I2ekf-lo: A dual-iteration extended kalman filter based lidar odometry,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02190 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pukelsheim, Optimal design of experiments

    F. Pukelsheim, Optimal design of experiments . SIAM, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    Mcd: Diverse large-scale multi-campus dataset for robot perception,

    T.-M. Nguyen, S. Yuan, T. H. Nguyen, P. Yin, H. Cao, L. Xie, M. Wozniak, P. Jensfelt, M. Thiel, J. Ziegenbein, et al. , “Mcd: Diverse large-scale multi-campus dataset for robot perception,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p...

    2024

Pith tools

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