Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Leveraging Consistent Spatio-Temporal Correspondence for Robust Visual Odometry

T0 review · 3 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 Spatio-temporal consistency in multi-frame optical flow, enforced by a temporal propagation module and a depth-guided spatial activation module, is what lets STVO cut trajectory error by 77.8% on ETH3D and 38.9% on KITTI Odometry.

desk verdict Plausible DROID-VO extension with good ablations, but the universal SOTA claim rests on a shaky DPVO mean-vs-median comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16923 v4 pith:RTXXEY2G submitted 2024-12-22 cs.CV

Zhaoxing Zhang , Junda Cheng , Gangwei Xu , Xiaoxiang Wang , Can Zhang , Xin Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords visualodometryopticalflowbundleadjustmenttemporalconsistencyspatialattentionmulti-framematchingtrajectorydriftdepthpriors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the residual errors in learning-based visual odometry come largely from noisy, inconsistent optical-flow matches, and that a VO system can reduce drift by enforcing two consistency constraints while it estimates flow: temporal (adjacent frames should agree on motion) and spatial (pixels on the same surface should move together). To test this, the authors build STVO, a hybrid network that adds a Temporal Propagation Module and a Spatial Activation Module to a differentiable bundle-adjustment loop, and they report that it outperforms prior work on TUM-RGBD, EuRoC MAV, ETH3D, and KITTI Odometry. The headline numbers are a 77.8% lower average trajectory error on ETH3D and a 38.9% lower error on KITTI Odometry compared with the previous best methods. The paper's central thesis is that consistent multi-frame flow, not stronger per-frame matching, is what makes the geometric backend work better.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pair of consistency modules inserted into the recurrent update operator of a DROID-VO-style network. The Temporal Propagation Module maintains a per-source-frame motion state $m^k_t$ and warps it with the predicted optical flow $f^k_{m\to n}$; the warped state, the source state, and the target state are concatenated and encoded, and the resulting local motion states are averaged back to the source frame. The Spatial Activation Module builds a Spatial Attention Matrix $\mathrm{SAM} = \sigma(q_m k_m^\top)$ from a depth-derived query and key projection, then adds the attention-weighted feature to the temporal motion feature and context feature through learned scalars $\alpha_f$ and $\alpha_c$, suppressing noise and incorrect matches. Together they make the features fed to the gated recurrent unit both temporally coherent and spatially grouped, which the paper argues is what lets the differentiable bundle adjustment converge to more accurate poses and depths.

What would settle it

Run STVO and DPVO on all TUM-RGBD sequences, scoring DPVO by its original median-of-five-runs protocol; if the median DPVO ATE falls below STVO's reported 0.080 m average on the same sequences, the claimed state-of-the-art status on that benchmark fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that multi-frame consistency, rather than more powerful per-frame matching, is what limits current hybrid visual odometry. STVO therefore re-uses the local sliding window that bundle adjustment already maintains: the Temporal Propagation Module stores a latent motion state for each source frame and warps it along predicted optical flow into each target frame, then averages the propagated states back to update the source state, so that flow revisions are constrained to be temporally coherent. The Spatial Activation Module builds a Spatial Attention Matrix from a depth map (either the output of the depth network Depth Anything v2 or the BA depth itself) and uses it to aggregate correlation and context features over pixels likely to belong to the same surface, suppressing spurious matches. These two modules feed a gated recurrent unit that revises optical flow, which is passed to the differentiable bundle adjustment layer to update poses and depths, closing a feedback loop. The paper reports that this design achieves the best average ATE on TUM-RGBD, EuRoC MAV, ETH3D, and KITTI Odometry, with the largest relative gains on the harder benchmarks.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that STVO beats the previous best methods on every benchmark depends on the choice to report the DPVO comparison as an average over five runs rather than the median reported in the DPVO paper, since the median would lower DPVO's TUM-RGBD error and narrow STVO's measured advantage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the ETH3D benchmark, STVO's reported average trajectory error is 0.042 m versus 0.190 m for the best prior result, a 77.8% reduction, which the paper attributes to stable matching under low light, motion blur, and repeated texture.
  • On KITTI Odometry, STVO reports a 38.9% lower average ATE than the next best method, dropping from 22.20 m to 13.56 m without fine-tuning on KITTI, which the paper reads as evidence that spatio-temporal consistency suppresses long-sequence drift.
  • Ablation results on TUM-RGBD show that either module alone improves the baseline's average ATE, by 9.2% for the Spatial Activation Module and by 13.3% for the Temporal Propagation Module, and their combination is better than either alone.
  • Replacing the Depth Anything v2 depth prior with the bundle-adjustment depth still improves the baseline, reaching an average ATE of 0.082 m versus 0.098 m, indicating the spatial-consistency mechanism itself, not the external depth model, is what helps.
  • The two modules add modest memory and compute: full STVO runs at 7.3 FPS with 6.0 GB GPU memory versus 9.8 FPS with 4.2 GB for the baseline in the reported setup.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to apply the same depth-guided spatial attention to any correspondence source inside a bundle adjustment loop, including classical feature matches; if the attention mechanism is the active ingredient, it should reduce outlier ratio even when the flow network is frozen.
  • The Temporal Propagation Module is effectively learning a latent motion-state field; one testable prediction is that this state can be used to initialize the flow revision for newly arriving keyframes, cutting the number of update iterations needed to reach the same accuracy.
  • The paper's reported gains on TUM-RGBD depend on averaging DPVO over five runs instead of using the median reported in the DPVO paper; an independent re-run under the original DPVO protocol would clarify how much of the universal state-of-the-art claim survives on that benchmark.
  • Because the Spatial Attention Matrix is computed from estimated depth, on scenes with large non-rigid or independently moving objects the depth prior itself is wrong exactly where temporal propagation is needed most; testing by intentionally corrupting the depth prior would reveal whether the two modules reinforce or fight each other.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes STVO, a deep visual odometry system built on the DROID-VO front end, with two new components: a Temporal Propagation Module that maintains and warps a per-frame motion state across frame-graph edges to enforce temporal consistency, and a Spatial Activation Module that uses depth maps (from Depth Anything v2 or from the bundle adjustment output) to build a spatial attention matrix that reweights context and correlation features. The system is trained on TartanAir and evaluated on TUM-RGBD, EuRoC MAV, ETH3D, and KITTI Odometry, reporting state-of-the-art average ATE on all four benchmarks, with particularly large relative gains on ETH3D and KITTI. The paper also provides ablations on TUM-RGBD showing that each module contributes a reduction in average ATE, along with qualitative trajectory and flow comparisons.

Significance. If the quantitative results are reproducible, the proposed modules are a useful and well-motivated extension to DROID-VO-style patch-based or dense BA systems, and the reported ETH3D and KITTI margins would be a substantial practical advance. The design is clearly described, the ablation study is internally consistent, and the option to use BA depth instead of an external depth prior is an honest attempt to separate the spatial-attention mechanism from the external depth model. The main caveats are that the SOTA claim on TUM-RGBD and EuRoC depends on an asymmetric DPVO evaluation statistic, and that all numerical claims lack run-to-run variability information. The paper does not provide code, which further limits verification of the tables.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experiments: Quantitative Comparison (Tables 1 and 4)] The state-of-the-art claim on TUM-RGBD and EuRoC rests on an asymmetric evaluation statistic. The paper states that DPVO results are reported as the average of five runs rather than the median of five runs reported in Teed et al. (2024), but no multi-run statistic is given for STVO. Since the mean is more sensitive to high outliers than the median, this protocol choice can inflate DPVO's ATE and shrink STVO's margin. Please report STVO's mean and median over at least five runs (or per-run values) and compare against both the original DPVO medians and the recomputed means. Without this, the claim that STVO is state-of-the-art on TUM-RGBD and EuRoC is not established; the ETH3D and KITTI comparisons are less affected by this issue and should be presented separately.
  2. [Tables 1–5] All reported ATE values, including the ablation results, are single numbers with no indication of run-to-run variability. In Table 5, the improvements over the DROID-VO baseline are 0.009 m for SAM, 0.013 m for TPM, and 0.018 m for the full model; these differences may be within the noise of stochastic training, patch sampling, and evaluation. Please provide means and standard deviations (or medians with ranges) over multiple runs for both the main benchmark tables and the ablations, so the reader can judge whether the module contributions and the SOTA margins are statistically meaningful.
  3. [Spatial Activation Module and Experiments] The main benchmark comparisons appear to use depth maps from Depth Anything v2, an external monocular depth estimator, whereas DROID-VO and DPVO use no such external depth prior at inference. This makes the comparison unequal and leaves open the possibility that part of the reported gain comes from injected depth information rather than from the proposed architecture itself. The ablation 'DepAny → BA depth' in Table 5 addresses this concern only on TUM-RGBD. Please report all four benchmark results with the BA-depth-only variant, or clearly justify why using an external depth model at inference is a fair comparison to methods that do not use one.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 4] The label 'Sourse Frame' contains a typo and should read 'Source Frame'.
  2. [Method: Temporal Propagation Module, Eq. (2)] The sentence beginning 'The we concatenate' contains a typo and should read 'Then we concatenate'.
  3. [Experiments: EuRoC MAV] The sentence 'we process every other frame, effectively doubling the system's frame rate to 40 FPS' is unclear; processing every other frame typically reduces the number of processed frames, so the relationship to a 40 FPS effective rate should be explained.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption states that both depth input options 'have demonstrated significant effectiveness,' but the quantitative support in Table 5 is limited to TUM-RGBD; please state this limitation or provide evidence on additional benchmarks.
  5. [Introduction and Conclusion] The claim of being 'the first to highlight the significance of spatial and temporal consistency for matching in Visual Odometry' is a strong historical claim; prior multi-frame optical flow and VO works have exploited temporal consistency in related forms, so a more cautious wording would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the paper is an empirical architecture paper validated on external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that its Temporal Propagation Module and Spatial Activation Module improve multi-frame optical flow consistency, leading to better bundle adjustment and lower trajectory error on TUM-RGBD, EuRoC MAV, ETH3D, and KITTI Odometry. This is an empirical architecture contribution, not a derivation chain: the modules are trained on TartanAir and evaluated on held-out real-world benchmarks against published baselines. No predicted quantity is defined in terms of the target metric, and no parameter is fitted to benchmark error and then reported as a prediction. The differentiable bundle adjustment feedback loop, where refined depth feeds the spatial attention module, is iterative self-improvement within the network and is distinct from circular reasoning because the ablation study shows that using either external Depth Anything V2 depth or BA depth improves over the DROID-VO baseline, providing independent evidence for the module's effect. The change of DPVO's reported statistic from median-of-five-runs to average-of-five-runs is an evaluation-protocol concern that could affect the universality of the state-of-the-art claim on TUM-RGBD and EuRoC, but it is not a circularity step: STVO's outputs are not derived from DPVO's numbers, and the paper quotes the protocol explicitly. Self-citations such as RoMeO are present but are not load-bearing for the central claim. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on learned modules rather than a closed-form derivation. Explicit free parameters are network weights trained on TartanAir; no benchmark-specific fitted constants are disclosed. The main external dependencies are DROID-VO and Depth Anything v2 as priors.

free parameters (3)
  • Learned spatial attention scales alpha_c and alpha_f = not reported
    Eq. 5; learned scalars governing SAM contribution, trained on TartanAir, not benchmark-specific.
  • Depth projection matrices W_q and W_k = not reported
    Eq. 4; learned projections used to build the Spatial Attention Matrix from depth.
  • TemporalEncoder weights = not reported
    Eq. 3; cascaded two-layer 2D convolutions that encode temporal motion features, trained on TartanAir.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption DROID-VO's update operator and differentiable bundle adjustment provide a reliable pose and depth optimizer.
    STVO is built on DROID-VO and inherits its BA layer and GRU update loop; the paper does not re-derive these.
  • domain assumption Warping a learned motion state by the currently predicted optical flow transfers temporal information across adjacent frames.
    Eq. 2 defines M^k_{m->n} = Warp(m^k_m; f^k_{m->n}); if the predicted flow is noisy, the propagated state may be corrupted.
  • domain assumption Adjacent frames in the local window share similar motion trends and are constrained by flow consistency.
    Motivation in Figure 2 and the Temporal Propagation Module; an empirical assumption about scene motion.
  • domain assumption Points on the same object move uniformly, and depth maps expose this spatial grouping.
    Basis for the Spatial Attention Matrix in Eq. 4 and Eq. 5.
  • domain assumption Depth maps from Depth Anything v2 or the BA output are sufficiently accurate geometric priors.
    Both are evaluated in Table 5; the method relies on depth quality.
  • domain assumption Training on synthetic TartanAir transfers to real indoor and outdoor benchmarks.
    Standard practice for DROID-VO; the paper reports no fine-tuning on KITTI or ETH3D.
invented entities (2)
  • Temporal motion state m^k_t
    purpose: Stores per-source-frame motion history and is warped and propagated to enforce temporal consistency.
    Internal latent state; support comes only from the paper's ablations, not from an external falsifiable handle.
  • Spatial Attention Matrix (SAM)
    purpose: Encodes depth-based spatial relationships and is used to filter matching features and suppress noise.
    Internal attention structure; evaluated only in this paper's ablations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Leveraging Consistent Spatio-Temporal Correspondence for Robust Visual Odometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTXXEY2G

@misc{pith2026241216923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Leveraging Consistent Spatio-Temporal Correspondence for Robust Visual Odometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTXXEY2G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16923}
}
read the original abstract

Recent approaches to VO have significantly improved performance by using deep networks to predict optical flow between video frames. However, existing methods still suffer from noisy and inconsistent flow matching, making it difficult to handle challenging scenarios and long-sequence estimation. To overcome these challenges, we introduce Spatio-Temporal Visual Odometry (STVO), a novel deep network architecture that effectively leverages inherent spatio-temporal cues to enhance the accuracy and consistency of multi-frame flow matching. With more accurate and consistent flow matching, STVO can achieve better pose estimation through the bundle adjustment (BA). Specifically, STVO introduces two innovative components: 1) the Temporal Propagation Module that utilizes multi-frame information to extract and propagate temporal cues across adjacent frames, maintaining temporal consistency; 2) the Spatial Activation Module that utilizes geometric priors from the depth maps to enhance spatial consistency while filtering out excessive noise and incorrect matches. Our STVO achieves state-of-the-art performance on TUM-RGBD, EuRoc MAV, ETH3D and KITTI Odometry benchmarks. Notably, it improves accuracy by 77.8% on ETH3D benchmark and 38.9% on KITTI Odometry benchmark over the previous best methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of STVO with other influential vi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram of Temporal Consistency and Spatial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of STVO. The architecture consists of three key modules: 1) Temporal Propagation Module, which enhances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagram of Temporal Propagation Module. the sequence of their source frames. For simplicity, we de￾note the set of edges in the frame-graph that originate from the same source frame t as the Source Edge Set Et in the following text, where Et = {(t, j) | t ∈ V and (t, j…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Diagram of Spatial Activation Module Spatial Activation Module Spatial Attention Matrix. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual comparison of optical flow in challenging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization comparison of trajectory. Trajectory Comparison. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.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. RoMeO: Robust Metric Visual Odometry

    cs.CV 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RoMeO combines robust depth-prior gating, MVS refinement, and noise-augmented training to achieve metric-scale monocular visual odometry with substantially lower trajectory error across six zero-shot datasets.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    W.; and Siegwart, R

    Burri, M.; Nikolic, J.; Gohl, P.; Schneider, T.; Rehder, J.; Omari, S.; Achtelik, M. W.; and Siegwart, R. 2016. The EuRoC micro aerial vehicle datasets. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 35(10): 1157--1163

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Campos, C.; Elvira, R.; Rodr \' guez, J. J. G.; Montiel, J. M.; and Tard \'o s, J. D. 2021. Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual--inertial, and multimap slam. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 37(6): 1874--1890

    2021

  3. [3]

    Chen, S.; Liu, K.; Wang, C.; Yuan, S.; Yang, J.; and Xie, L. 2024. Salient Sparse Visual Odometry With Pose-Only Supervision. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Cheng, J.; Cai, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Yin, W.; Muller, M.; Paulitsch, M.; and Yang, X. 2024 a . RoMeO: Robust Metric Visual Odometry. arXiv:2412.11530

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Cheng, J.; Xu, G.; Guo, P.; and Yang, X. 2024 b . Coatrsnet: Fully exploiting convolution and attention for stereo matching by region separation. International Journal of Computer Vision, 132(1): 56--73

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Cheng, J.; Yin, W.; Wang, K.; Chen, X.; Wang, S.; and Yang, X. 2024 c . 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, 10138--10147

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    DeTone, D.; Malisiewicz, T.; and Rabinovich, A. 2018. Superpoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops, 224--236

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Engel, J.; Koltun, V.; and Cremers, D. 2017. Direct sparse odometry. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 40(3): 611--625

    work page 2017

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Engel, J.; Sch \"o ps, T.; and Cremers, D. 2014. LSD-SLAM: Large-scale direct monocular SLAM. In European conference on computer vision, 834--849. Springer

    2014

  2. [10]

    Forster, C.; Pizzoli, M.; and Scaramuzza, D. 2014. SVO: Fast semi-direct monocular visual odometry. In 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 15--22. IEEE

    2014

  3. [11]

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

    2012

  4. [12]

    Grupp, M. 2017. evo: Python package for the evaluation of odometry and SLAM. https://github.com/MichaelGrupp/evo

    2017

  5. [13]

    Gurumurthy, S.; Ram, K.; Chen, B.; Manchester, Z.; and Kolter, Z. 2024. From Variance to Veracity: Unbundling and Mitigating Gradient Variance in Differentiable Bundle Adjustment Layers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 27507--27516

    2024

  6. [14]

    Jiang, S.; Campbell, D.; Lu, Y.; Li, H.; and Hartley, R. 2021. Learning to estimate hidden motions with global motion aggregation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 9772--9781

    2021

  7. [15]

    Klenk, S.; Motzet, M.; Koestler, L.; and Cremers, D. 2024. Deep event visual odometry. In 2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), 739--749. IEEE

    2024

  8. [16]

    Luo, A.; Yang, F.; Li, X.; and Liu, S. 2022. Learning Optical Flow With Kernel Patch Attention. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8906--8915

    2022

  9. [17]

    Mur-Artal, R.; Montiel, J. M. M.; and Tardos, J. D. 2015. ORB-SLAM: a versatile and accurate monocular SLAM system. IEEE transactions on robotics, 31(5): 1147--1163

    2015

  10. [18]

    Mur-Artal, R.; and Tard \'o s, J. D. 2017. Orb-slam2: An open-source slam system for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras. IEEE transactions on robotics, 33(5): 1255--1262

    2017

  11. [19]

    Ono, Y.; Trulls, E.; Fua, P.; and Yi, K. M. 2018. LF-Net: Learning local features from images. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31

    2018

  12. [20]

    Paszke, A.; Gross, S.; Massa, F.; Lerer, A.; Bradbury, J.; Chanan, G.; Killeen, T.; Lin, Z.; Gimelshein, N.; Antiga, L.; et al. 2019. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ranjan, A.; and Black, M. J. 2017. Optical flow estimation using a spatial pyramid network. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 4161--4170

    2017

  14. [22]

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

    2019

  15. [23]

    C.; See, S.; Qin, H.; Dai, J.; and Li, H

    Shi, X.; Huang, Z.; Bian, W.; Li, D.; Zhang, M.; Cheung, K. C.; See, S.; Qin, H.; Dai, J.; and Li, H. 2023. Videoflow: Exploiting temporal cues for multi-frame optical flow estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 12469--12480

    2023

  16. [24]

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

    2012

  17. [25]

    Sun, D.; Yang, X.; Liu, M.-Y.; and Kautz, J. 2018. Pwc-net: Cnns for optical flow using pyramid, warping, and cost volume. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 8934--8943

    2018

  18. [26]

    Tang, C.; and Tan, P. 2018. Ba-net: Dense bundle adjustment network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.04807

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Teed, Z.; and Deng, J. 2018. Deepv2d: Video to depth with differentiable structure from motion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04605

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Teed, Z.; and Deng, J. 2020. 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, 402--419. Springer

    2020

  21. [29]

    Teed, Z.; and Deng, J. 2021. Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 16558--16569

    2021

  22. [30]

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

    2024

  23. [31]

    Wang, S.; Clark, R.; Wen, H.; and Trigoni, N. 2017. Deepvo: Towards end-to-end visual odometry with deep recurrent convolutional neural networks. In 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 2043--2050. IEEE

    2017

  24. [32]

    Wang, W.; Hu, Y.; and Scherer, S. 2021. Tartanvo: A generalizable learning-based vo. In Conference on Robot Learning, 1761--1772. PMLR

    2021

  25. [33]

    Wang, W.; Zhu, D.; Wang, X.; Hu, Y.; Qiu, Y.; Wang, C.; Hu, Y.; Kapoor, A.; and Scherer, S. 2020. Tartanair: A dataset to push the limits of visual slam. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 4909--4916. IEEE

    2020

  26. [34]

    Wang, X.; Liu, J.; Feng, M.; Zhang, Z.; and Yang, X. 2024. 3D Multi-Object Tracking with Semi-Supervised GRU-Kalman Filter. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08433

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Xu, G.; Cheng, J.; Guo, P.; and Yang, X. 2022. Attention concatenation volume for accurate and efficient stereo matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 12981--12990

    2022

  28. [36]

    Xu, G.; Wang, X.; Ding, X.; and Yang, X. 2023 a . Iterative geometry encoding volume for stereo matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 21919--21928

    2023

  29. [37]

    Xu, G.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Cheng, J.; Liao, C.; and Yang, X. 2024. Igev++: Iterative multi-range geometry encoding volumes for stereo matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00638

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Xu, G.; Wang, Y.; Cheng, J.; Tang, J.; and Yang, X. 2023 b . Accurate and efficient stereo matching via attention concatenation volume. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

    2023

  31. [39]

    Yuan, Z.; Deng, J.; Ming, R.; Lang, F.; and Yang, X. 2024. SR-LIVO: LiDAR-Inertial-Visual Odometry and Mapping With Sweep Reconstruction. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    2024

  32. [40]

    Yuan, Z.; Lang, F.; Xu, T.; and Yang, X. 2022. Sr-lio: Lidar-inertial odometry with sweep reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10424

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Yuan, Z.; Wang, Q.; Cheng, K.; Hao, T.; and Yang, X. 2023. SDV-LOAM: semi-direct visual--LiDAR Odometry and mapping. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(9): 11203--11220

    2023

  34. [42]

    S.; Bian, J.-W.; Garg, R.; and Reid, I

    Zhan, H.; Weerasekera, C. S.; Bian, J.-W.; Garg, R.; and Reid, I. 2021. DF-VO: What should be learnt for visual odometry? arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.00933

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zhang, D.; Zhang, H.; Tang, J.; Hua, X.-S.; and Sun, Q. 2020 a . Causal intervention for weakly-supervised semantic segmentation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 655--666

    2020

  36. [44]

    Zhang, D.; Zhang, H.; Tang, J.; Wang, M.; Hua, X.; and Sun, Q. 2020 b . Feature pyramid transformer. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXVIII 16, 323--339. Springer

    2020

  37. [45]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  38. [46]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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