Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 47 references

BRIGHT-VO: Brightness-Guided Hybrid Transformer for Visual Odometry with Multi-modality Refinement Module

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read BrightVO claims a 20% average pose-error reduction outdoors and 25% in low-light conditions by combining a brightness-guided Vision Transformer with IMU-based pose-graph refinement.

desk verdict The KITTI SOTA claim is an artifact of testing on training sequences; the paper's own table shows ORB-SLAM2 winning on 5 of 7 held-out sequences, but the new synthetic low-light dataset is a genuine contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08659 v4 pith:IK2YNDKB submitted 2025-01-15 cs.CV

Dongzhihan Wang , Yang Yang , Liang Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords visualodometrylow-lightdrivingTransformerbrightnessestimationIMUfusionposegraphoptimizationsyntheticdatasetCARLA
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 proposes BrightVO, a visual odometry model aimed at low-light conditions. It uses a Vision Transformer whose self-attention is guided by a brightness estimator, plus a back-end pose graph optimization that fuses IMU data to refine trajectories. The authors argue this combination yields state-of-the-art pose accuracy on the KITTI benchmark (about 20% average reduction in absolute trajectory error) and on a new synthetic low-light dataset called KiC4R (about 25% reduction in relative pose error). They also introduce KiC4R, a CARLA-simulated dataset with dusk, night, midnight, and extreme-weather sequences, to enable low-light VO training and evaluation.

What carries the argument

BrightVO has two main components. The front-end is a ViT-based encoder where a brightness estimator computes a per-pixel illumination prior, and self-attention is computed as $\operatorname{Atten}(Q,K,V,V) = (V \odot V)\operatorname{softmax}(K^\top Q / \alpha)$, with the brightness features folded into the values so the model can attend to illumination structure. The back-end is a pose graph optimization (PGO) solved with Levenberg–Marquardt using the PyPose library, which fuses the VO motion with pre-integrated IMU measurements (and GNSS position when available) through a weighted error term, iteratively refining the poses. The brightness estimator is an adaptation of Retinexformer's illumination module, simplified for the VO task.

What would settle it

Evaluate the released BrightVO model on a real-world nighttime driving sequence with ground-truth poses and compare its ATE/RPE against the same baselines used in the paper; if the roughly 20-25% error reduction does not appear, the synthetic-to-real assumption fails. A second check is to ablate the brightness estimator on KiC4R and see whether relative pose error changes at all.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that jointly learning brightness features inside a Vision Transformer and then refining VO estimates with an IMU-driven pose-graph optimizer produces consistently lower pose error than existing geometry-based, learning-based, and Transformer-based VO systems, in both normal outdoor and low-light driving scenes. The evidence is the ATE/RPE tables on KITTI and KiC4R, where BrightVO reports an average ATE of 2.18 m on KITTI sequences versus 2.75 m for ORB-SLAM2, and smaller relative errors on all four KiC4R low-light test sequences. The authors attribute the gains to the brightness-guided self-attention for feature extraction and the iterative multi-modality refinement that corrects drift, especially on long sequences.

Load-bearing premise

The synthetic KiC4R dataset is assumed to faithfully represent real low-light driving, so the measured 25% low-light improvement would carry over to real nighttime operation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single BrightVO model can serve both normal and low-light driving scenes without switching between algorithms, since the same brightness-guided front-end and refinement back-end handle both conditions.
  • The KiC4R dataset provides a KITTI-format benchmark with dusk, night, midnight, and extreme-weather sequences, enabling direct comparison of VO methods under low-light conditions.
  • The combination of a learned front-end and a classical graph-optimization back-end shows a reusable pattern: deep pose proposals refined by inertial constraints reduce drift on long sequences.
  • Removing the refinement module causes significant drift in both normal and low-light conditions, while short sequences remain accurate, so the IMU back-end matters most for long trajectories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the synthetic-to-real gap for low-light scenes is small, the same brightness-guided attention design could transfer to other nighttime perception tasks, such as place recognition or object detection, though the paper does not test those settings.
  • Because the refinement error term includes GNSS positions when available, the KITTI results may partly reflect GNSS-informed corrections; how much of the gain comes from GNSS rather than IMU is not isolated by an ablation.
  • A real-world nighttime evaluation would be the decisive test of the 25% low-light improvement, since KiC4R is synthetic and the paper reports no real low-light validation.
  • The value-side brightness injection is a minimal architectural change that could be lifted into other Transformer vision models for illumination-degraded inputs; the paper does not explore that transfer.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BrightVO, a monocular visual odometry system combining a brightness-guided Vision Transformer front-end with a pose-graph-optimization back-end that fuses IMU (and, in the stated formulation, GNSS) measurements. The authors also introduce KiC4R, a synthetic CARLA-based dataset with dusk, night, midnight, and extreme-weather sequences. They report evaluations on KITTI and KiC4R and claim state-of-the-art performance, including a 20% average improvement over ORB-SLAM2 in normal outdoor scenes and a 25% improvement in low-light conditions, with code released publicly.

Significance. If the empirical claims were valid, BrightVO would be a useful contribution: combining a low-light-aware transformer front-end with a classical pose-graph refinement backend is a sensible design, and the release of code and a synthetic low-light dataset is a tangible asset for the community. The paper also evaluates with standard metrics (ATE, RPE) and includes an ablation of the refinement module. However, the central performance claims are not supported by the evidence as presented: the KITTI evaluation includes training sequences in the test set, the comparison with ORB-SLAM2 reverses on held-out sequences, baseline numbers are not credible without further protocol details, and the low-light claim is validated only on synthetic data from the same simulator used for training. These issues undermine both the normal-light and low-light state-of-the-art conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2 / Section 4.3 / Table 2] The KITTI evaluation is contaminated by training/test overlap. Section 4.2 states that the model was trained on KITTI sequences 01, 03, 07, and 08, and Table 2 then reports ATE on all ten sequences, including training sequences 01, 07, and 08. The claimed 20% average improvement over ORB-SLAM2 is an artifact of this overlap. On the seven held-out sequences (00, 02, 04, 05, 06, 09, 10), ORB-SLAM2 has lower ATE than BrightVO on five sequences (00: 1.3 vs 2.12; 04: 0.2 vs 0.44; 05: 0.8 vs 2.31; 06: 0.8 vs 2.7; 10: 1.0 vs 2.11). Removing the training sequences flips the comparison: the average ATE over the held-out sequences is about 1.86 m for ORB-SLAM2 versus about 2.07 m for BrightVO. The statement in Section 4.3 that BrightVO "consistently outperforms" ORB-SLAM2 is directly contradicted by the paper's own table.
  2. [Table 2 / Section 4.3] The baseline numbers are implausible as reported and no evaluation protocol is given. DPVO is listed with ATE values of 111.97 m on sequence 00, 123.40 m on sequence 02, and 115.90 m on sequence 08, which are far outside published DPVO results under standard KITTI evaluation protocols. DeepVO's 95.92 m on sequence 00 is similarly not contextualized. The paper does not state how scale alignment was performed for each baseline, whether the same trajectory alignment (e.g., evo with Sim(3)) was applied consistently, or which exact sensor data each baseline received. Without this information, the comparison is not reproducible. In addition, no repeated runs or error bars are reported for the learning-based methods, so the claimed margins cannot be assessed for statistical significance.
  3. [Section 4.3 / Table 4] The low-light state-of-the-art claim is supported only by experiments on the synthetic KiC4R dataset. The test sequences (00-03) are CARLA-generated scenes from the same simulator and follow the same collection pipeline as the training sequences (04-06), and no real-world low-light dataset is used for validation. The paper's abstract and conclusion generalize to "low-light conditions" broadly, but the evidence only covers synthetic dusk, night, midnight, and extreme-weather scenes. This external-validity gap is load-bearing for the paper's central low-light claim, especially given that the method is intended for real-world autonomous driving and robotics.
  4. [Section 3.2 / Eq. (10) / Section 4.4] The use of GNSS in the refinement module is underspecified. Equation (10) defines the backend objective with a GNSS-based IMU pose term, but Section 4.4 states that KiC4R does not include GNSS data. The paper never states whether GNSS corrections are active for the KITTI experiments, how the weighting parameter λ is chosen, or how the IMU integration (Eqs. (7)-(9)) handles bias and noise. Since the multi-modality refinement module is a central claimed contribution, the absence of this information makes the contribution difficult to evaluate and reproduce.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] There is an inconsistency in the claimed low-light improvement: the abstract in the paper header says "259%" while the abstract body, the introduction, and the contributions list say "25%". This needs to be corrected.
  2. [Table 2] TartanVO is listed in Section 4.2 as a comparison method but has no row in Table 2; it appears only in Tables 3 and 4 for selected sequences, with no explanation of why it is absent from the full KITTI ATE table.
  3. [Eq. (12) / Section 4.2] The RPE formula is ambiguous: T and \hat{T} are described as translation vectors but are written as transformation matrices, and the metric mixes rotational and translational components without a clear definition. The selection of sequences 06, 07, 09, 10 for the KITTI RPE comparison in Table 3 is also not justified.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The attention formulation in Eq. (4) uses V both for image-derived values and for the reshaped brightness feature Fbr, and the notation Atten(Q, K, V, V) with (V ⊙ V) makes the roles of the two V terms unclear. The learnable scaling α should at least be described in terms of initialization and dimension (e.g., relation to 1/sqrt(d_k)).
  5. [Section 4.1 / References] The paper cites [Keimel et al., 2012] for the TUM dataset, but that reference is the TUM high-definition video dataset, not the TUM RGB-D dataset commonly used for VO/SLAM evaluation; the correct reference should be provided. The Light-SLAM discussion also cites Sarlin et al. for LightGlue, but LightGlue is a different work and should be cited correctly.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors and unclear captions, including "Sence" in Table 3, "adpoted" in Section 4.2, "optimizor" in Section 4.2, and the Figure 6 caption stating "(d)-(f) represent sequence 00-03" while showing three plots for four sequences.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The KITTI state-of-the-art claim is not independent: the 20% average improvement is computed over training sequences, and the back-end injects GNSS positions into the refined poses before ATE is reported.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2 (Experiment setup), Section 4.3 (Experiment results), Table 2]
    "Specifically, we used sequences 01, 03, 07, and 08 from the KITTI dataset and sequences 04-06 from the KiC4R dataset as the training set. ... we evaluated the model across all sequences ... While ORB-SLAM2 achieves minimal ATE in certain sequences (e.g., 04-07), BrightVO consistently outperforms it, achieving a 20% improvement in average ATE over all 10 sequences."

    The paper trains on KITTI sequences 01, 03, 07, and 08, then reports Table 2 on 'all sequences' and claims a 20% average ATE improvement over ORB-SLAM2. The average includes 01, 07, and 08, i.e., the exact trajectories the network was fitted to, so their low errors are memory, not generalization. Excluding the training sequences, Table 2's own numbers show ORB-SLAM2 is better on 00, 04, 05, 06, and 10, and its average is lower than BrightVO's. The claimed 'consistent outperformance' therefore reduces to evaluating on the fitted subset.

  2. other [Section 3.2 (Back-end refinement module), Eq. (10); Section 4.3 (KITTI evaluation)]
    "The last term, we also use GNSS data at each time step as correction. This correction ensures the position stays globally aligned with the real-world coordinates. Therefore, the final error of the VO motions Tij and IMU poses pIM Ucan be defined as the weighted summation of the two constraints: L = Σ_{(i,j)∈E} ∥pij − Tij∥²Σ + λ Σ_{(i,j)∈E} ∥pij − pIM U∥²Σ"

    The pose p_ij is the optimized parameter in Eq. (10); the loss explicitly minimizes ∥p_ij − p_IMU∥, and p_IMU is obtained from IMU/GNSS integration with 'GNSS data at each time step as correction'. Since KITTI ground truth is itself derived from the GPS/IMU/oxTS signal, the optimized trajectory is pulled toward the same absolute positions against which ATE is later measured. Reporting ATE on top of this correction measures how much ground-truth-like information was injected into the loss, not how well the learned visual front-end predicts poses. The comparison with ORB-SLAM2, which has no such correction, therefore conflates sensor injection with model accuracy.

full rationale

BrightVO's architectural contribution is not circular in the derivation sense: the brightness-guided ViT, the pose estimation head, and the PGO formulation are all described explicitly and no load-bearing claim is justified by a self-citation chain. However, the paper's central normal-light claim, a 20% average improvement over state-of-the-art on KITTI, is supported by two evaluation loops. First, the model is trained on KITTI sequences 01, 07, and 08 and then the reported average ATE includes those same training sequences, so part of the 'improvement' is memorization rather than prediction. Second, the back-end refinement module corrects the optimized poses with GNSS data at every time step, and the evaluation metric is ATE against the same real-world coordinate frame; this injects target-like absolute position information into the estimates before comparing them with ground truth and with baselines that do not receive GNSS. Once the training sequences are removed from Table 2, ORB-SLAM2 wins on five of the seven held-out sequences, so the headline SOTA claim collapses. The low-light claim on KiC4R uses held-out synthetic sequences and is at least internally consistent, but the lack of real-world low-light validation is an external-validity weakness, not a circularity. Overall, the derivation itself is self-contained, but the central empirical 'prediction' is partly forced by the evaluation protocol, giving a circularity score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's central contributions depend on two fitted scalars (lambda and alpha), a domain assumption about simulator realism, a transfer assumption about pretrained ViT features, and a mathematically questionable attention mechanism. These are the main inputs the reader must accept without independent evidence.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda (λ) in Eq. (10) = not stated
    Weight balancing VO and IMU constraints in the pose graph optimization loss. The paper does not report its value or how it was chosen, and the final pose accuracy depends on it.
  • alpha (α) in Eq. (4) = learnable
    Learnable scaling parameter in the modified self-attention. It is trained on data rather than derived from first principles.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption CARLA-generated low-light images and IMU data are representative enough of real low-light conditions
    The low-light experiments are conducted only on the synthetic KiC4R dataset; no real-world low-light data is used.
  • domain assumption Pretrained ViT-base-patch16-224 features transfer to visual odometry
    The encoder is initialized with ImageNet-pretrained ViT weights, assuming this aids pose estimation.
  • standard math The PGO loss in Eq. (10) with independent Gaussian noise on VO and IMU is a valid objective
    Standard pose graph optimization assumption; the paper uses the PyPose LM solver without deriving the objective from sensor noise models.
  • ad hoc to paper The self-attention formulation in Eq. (4) is mathematically meaningful
    The equation's dimensions are inconsistent, and the multiplication of the value matrix with softmax scores is not standard. The modeling choice is asserted without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BRIGHT-VO: Brightness-Guided Hybrid Transformer for Visual Odometry with Multi-modality Refinement Module." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IK2YNDKB

@misc{pith2026250108659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BRIGHT-VO: Brightness-Guided Hybrid Transformer for Visual Odometry with Multi-modality Refinement Module},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IK2YNDKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08659}
}
read the original abstract

Visual odometry (VO) plays a crucial role in autonomous driving, robotic navigation, and other related tasks by estimating the position and orientation of a camera based on visual input. Significant progress has been made in data-driven VO methods, particularly those leveraging deep learning techniques to extract image features and estimate camera poses. However, these methods often struggle in low-light conditions because of the reduced visibility of features and the increased difficulty of matching keypoints. To address this limitation, we introduce BrightVO, a novel VO model based on Transformer architecture, which not only performs front-end visual feature extraction, but also incorporates a multi-modality refinement module in the back-end that integrates Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) data. Using pose graph optimization, this module iteratively refines pose estimates to reduce errors and improve both accuracy and robustness. Furthermore, we create a synthetic low-light dataset, KiC4R, which includes a variety of lighting conditions to facilitate the training and evaluation of VO frameworks in challenging environments. Experimental results demonstrate that BrightVO achieves state-of-the-art performance on both the KiC4R dataset and the KITTI benchmarks. Specifically, it provides an average improvement of 20% in pose estimation accuracy in normal outdoor environments and 259% in low-light conditions, outperforming existing methods. For widespread use and further development, the research work is fully open-source at https://github.com/Anastasiawd/BrightVO.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08659 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. BrightVO estimates the motion of a camera using visual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of BrightVO, which begins with the input of consecutive image frames along with other modality information. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The overview pf Transformer Layer in the VO Encoder. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The overview of 4 light conditions in KiC4R. (a) Dusk. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The overview of trajectory plots with/without IMU measurements. (a)-(c) represent sequence 02, 05, 07 on KITTI dataset. (d)-(f) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The illustration of ATE on KITTI sequences with/without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A practical survey on visual odometry for autonomous driving in challenging scenarios and conditions

    Lucas R Agostinho, Nuno M Ricardo, Maria I Pereira, Antoine Hiolle, and Andry M Pinto. A practical survey on visual odometry for autonomous driving in challenging scenarios and conditions. IEEE Access , 10:72182--72205, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Direct visual odometry in low light using binary descriptors

    Hatem Alismail, Michael Kaess, Brett Browning, and Simon Lucey. Direct visual odometry in low light using binary descriptors. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2(2):444--451, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Review of visual odometry: types, approaches, challenges, and applications

    Mohammad OA Aqel, Mohammad H Marhaban, M Iqbal Saripan, and Napsiah Bt Ismail. Review of visual odometry: types, approaches, challenges, and applications. SpringerPlus , 5:1--26, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? In ICML , volume 2, page 4, 2021

    Gedas Bertasius, Heng Wang, and Lorenzo Torresani. Is space-time attention all you need for video understanding? In ICML , volume 2, page 4, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets

    Michael Burri, Janosch Nikolic, Pascal Gohl, Thomas Schneider, Joern Rehder, Sammy Omari, Markus W Achtelik, and Roland Siegwart. The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 35(10):1157--1163, 2016

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Virtual kitti 2

    Yohann Cabon, Naila Murray, and Martin Humenberger. Virtual kitti 2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.10773 , 2020

    arXiv 2001

  7. [7]

    Mobile robot localization using gps, imu and visual odometry

    Guo-Sheng Cai, Huei-Yung Lin, and Shih-Fen Kao. Mobile robot localization using gps, imu and visual odometry. In 2019 International Automatic Control Conference (CACS) , pages 1--6. IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Retinexformer: One-stage retinex-based transformer for low-light image enhancement

    Yuanhao Cai, Hao Bian, Jing Lin, Haoqian Wang, Radu Timofte, and Yulun Zhang. Retinexformer: One-stage retinex-based transformer for low-light image enhancement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 12504--12513, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

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

    Carlos Campos, Richard Elvira, Juan J G \'o mez Rodr \' guez, Jos \'e MM Montiel, and Juan D Tard \'o s. Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual--inertial, and multimap slam. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 37(6):1874--1890, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Initialization techniques for 3d slam: A survey on rotation estimation and its use in pose graph optimization

    Luca Carlone, Roberto Tron, Kostas Daniilidis, and Frank Dellaert. Initialization techniques for 3d slam: A survey on rotation estimation and its use in pose graph optimization. In 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , pages 4597--4604. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Carla: An open urban driving simulator

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, German Ros, Felipe Codevilla, Antonio Lopez, and Vladlen Koltun. Carla: An open urban driving simulator. In Conference on robot learning , pages 1--16. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 , 2020

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Lsd-slam: Large-scale direct monocular slam

    Jakob Engel, Thomas Sch \"o ps, and Daniel Cremers. Lsd-slam: Large-scale direct monocular slam. In European conference on computer vision , pages 834--849. Springer, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Comparison of various slam systems for mobile robot in an indoor environment

    Maksim Filipenko and Ilya Afanasyev. Comparison of various slam systems for mobile robot in an indoor environment. In 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Systems (IS) , pages 400--407. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    Transformer-based model for monocular visual odometry: a video understanding approach

    Andr \'e O Fran c ani and Marcos ROA Maximo. Transformer-based model for monocular visual odometry: a video understanding approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06121 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    islam: Imperative slam

    Taimeng Fu, Shaoshu Su, Yiren Lu, and Chen Wang. islam: Imperative slam. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    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 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 3354--3361. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  10. [18]

    A review of visual inertial odometry from filtering and optimisation perspectives

    Jianjun Gui, Dongbing Gu, Sen Wang, and Huosheng Hu. A review of visual inertial odometry from filtering and optimisation perspectives. Advanced Robotics , 29(20):1289--1301, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    A survey on visual transformer

    Kai Han, Yunhe Wang, Hanting Chen, Xinghao Chen, Jianyuan Guo, Zhenhua Liu, Yehui Tang, An Xiao, Chunjing Xu, Yixing Xu, et al. A survey on visual transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12556 , 2020

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A review of monocular visual odometry

    Ming He, Chaozheng Zhu, Qian Huang, Baosen Ren, and Jintao Liu. A review of monocular visual odometry. The Visual Computer , 36(5):1053--1065, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Robocentric visual--inertial odometry

    Zheng Huai and Guoquan Huang. Robocentric visual--inertial odometry. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 41(7):667--689, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    The tum high definition video datasets

    Christian Keimel, Arne Redl, and Klaus Diepold. The tum high definition video datasets. In 2012 Fourth international workshop on quality of multimedia experience , pages 97--102. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    R 3 live: A robust, real-time, rgb-colored, lidar-inertial-visual tightly-coupled state estimation and mapping package

    Jiarong Lin and Fu Zhang. R 3 live: A robust, real-time, rgb-colored, lidar-inertial-visual tightly-coupled state estimation and mapping package. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 10672--10678. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Deep patch visual slam

    Lahav Lipson, Zachary Teed, and Jia Deng. Deep patch visual slam. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 424--440. Springer, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    Graph representation learning and optimization for spherical emission source microscopy system

    Xiaorui Liu, Zijie Li, Weihua Zong, Hang Su, Peng Liu, and Shuzhi Sam Ge. Graph representation learning and optimization for spherical emission source microscopy system. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , pages 1--14, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Ransac for robotic applications: A survey

    Jos \'e Mar \' a Mart \' nez-Otzeta, Itsaso Rodr \' guez-Moreno, I \ n igo Mendialdua, and Basilio Sierra. Ransac for robotic applications: A survey. Sensors , 23(1):327, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Modality-invariant visual odometry for embodied vision

    Marius Memmel, Roman Bachmann, and Amir Zamir. Modality-invariant visual odometry for embodied vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 21549--21559, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    A survey on odometry for autonomous navigation systems

    Sherif AS Mohamed, Mohammad-Hashem Haghbayan, Tomi Westerlund, Jukka Heikkonen, Hannu Tenhunen, and Juha Plosila. A survey on odometry for autonomous navigation systems. IEEE access , 7:97466--97486, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Orb-slam2: An open-source slam system for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras

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

    2017

  22. [30]

    Measuring robustness of visual slam

    David Prokhorov, Dmitry Zhukov, Olga Barinova, Konushin Anton, and Anna Vorontsova. Measuring robustness of visual slam. In 2019 16th International conference on machine vision applications (MVA) , pages 1--6. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monocular visual-inertial state estimator

    Tong Qin, Peiliang Li, and Shaojie Shen. Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monocular visual-inertial state estimator. IEEE transactions on robotics , 34(4):1004--1020, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Fusemodnet: Real-time camera and lidar based moving object detection for robust low-light autonomous driving

    Hazem Rashed, Mohamed Ramzy, Victor Vaquero, Ahmad El Sallab, Ganesh Sistu, and Senthil Yogamani. Fusemodnet: Real-time camera and lidar based moving object detection for robust low-light autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer V...

    2019

  25. [33]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention--MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part...

    2015

  26. [34]

    Superglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks

    Paul-Edouard Sarlin, Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabinovich. Superglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4938--4947, 2020

    2020

  27. [35]

    Shift: a synthetic driving dataset for continuous multi-task domain adaptation

    Tao Sun, Mattia Segu, Janis Postels, Yuxuan Wang, Luc Van Gool, Bernt Schiele, Federico Tombari, and Fisher Yu. Shift: a synthetic driving dataset for continuous multi-task domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ...

    2022

  28. [36]

    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 neural information processing systems , 34:16558--16569, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Deep patch visual odometry

    Zachary Teed, Lahav Lipson, and Jia Deng. Deep patch visual odometry. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    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 conference on computer vision , pages 3903--3911, 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Deepvo: Towards end-to-end visual odometry with deep recurrent convolutional neural networks

    Sen Wang, Ronald Clark, Hongkai Wen, and Niki Trigoni. Deepvo: Towards end-to-end visual odometry with deep recurrent convolutional neural networks. In 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , pages 2043--2050. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  33. [41]

    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 Sebastian 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

  34. [42]

    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

    2021

  35. [43]

    Pypose: A library for robot learning with physics-based optimization

    Chen Wang, Dasong Gao, Kuan Xu, Junyi Geng, Yaoyu Hu, Yuheng Qiu, Bowen Li, Fan Yang, Brady Moon, Abhinav Pandey, et al. Pypose: A library for robot learning with physics-based optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ,...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Visual transformers: Token-based image representation and processing for computer vision

    Bichen Wu, Chenfeng Xu, Xiaoliang Dai, Alvin Wan, Peizhao Zhang, Zhicheng Yan, Masayoshi Tomizuka, Joseph Gonzalez, Kurt Keutzer, and Peter Vajda. Visual transformers: Token-based image representation and processing for computer vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03677 , 2020

    2006 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Visual odometry and 3d point clouds under low-light conditions

    Hongmou Zhang, Ines Ernst, Sergey Zuev, Anko B \"o rner, Martin Knoche, and Reinhard Klette. Visual odometry and 3d point clouds under low-light conditions. In 2018 International Conference on Image and Vision Computing New Zealand (IVCNZ) , pages 1--6. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Light-slam: A robust deep-learning visual slam system based on lightglue under challenging lighting conditions

    Zhiqi Zhao, Chang Wu, Xiaotong Kong, Zejie Lv, Xiaoqi Du, and Qiyan Li. Light-slam: A robust deep-learning visual slam system based on lightglue under challenging lighting conditions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02382 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.