Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 29 references

FAST-LIVO2 on Resource-Constrained Platforms: LiDAR-Inertial-Visual Odometry with Efficient Memory and Computation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The paper claims that selectively skipping camera frames when LiDAR constraints are strong cuts per-frame runtime by about a third and memory by nearly half on the Hilti benchmark, with accuracy within 3 cm of the full system.

desk verdict Useful incremental efficiency work on FAST-LIVO2, but the headline savings are overstated and the rotation-blind degeneracy metric is the real soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13876 v1 pith:HA6467RK submitted 2025-01-23 cs.RO

Bingyang Zhou , Chunran Zheng , Ziming Wang , Fangcheng Zhu , Yixi Cai , Fu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords LiDAR-inertial-visualodometrydegeneration-awareframeselectionerror-stateiteratedKalmanfilterhybridlocalandlong-termmapresource-constrainedplatformsedgecomputingFAST-LIVO2Hiltidataset
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 tries to establish that the full-measurement LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry pipeline FAST-LIVO2 can be made much cheaper to run without sacrificing robustness, by spending computation only when the sensor actually needs help. Its central device is a degeneracy detector that watches a normalized singular value of the LiDAR plane-normal matrix; when that value is high, the environment already constrains the pose and the system can skip most camera frames. A second device is a map split into a small local unified LiDAR-visual map plus a sparse long-term visual map, so historical visual observations survive without keeping a huge dense map. On the Hilti benchmark the paper reports a 33 percent per-frame runtime cut and 47 percent lower memory use against FAST-LIVO2, at the cost of about 3 cm more RMSE, and demonstrates real-time operation on a roughly $100 ARM board. The significance, if correct, is that tightly coupled LIVO becomes deployable on cheap edge hardware for drones and handheld robots.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a degeneration-aware adaptive visual frame selector built on the smallest normalized singular value of the translation-only plane-normal matrix $\tilde{\sigma}_{\min}$ (Eq. (3)). The paper argues that rotational degeneracy with well-constrained translation is rare, so translational constraint sufficiency can stand in for overall LiDAR health. When $\tilde{\sigma}_{\min}$ falls below a fixed threshold (0.07) for consecutive frames, the selector keeps every camera image; otherwise it thins images to keyframes with an adaptive threshold $\tau = \sqrt{3}\,\tilde{\sigma}_{\min}\,\tau_{\text{predefined}}$ (Eq. (4)), spending visual computation in inverse proportion to LiDAR constraint strength. The second mechanism is the hybrid map: a small unified local map (200 m edge) for dense LiDAR-visual matching, with points that leave its boundary transferred to a sparse long-term visual map (800 m edge) that preserves historical visual observations. Together they make visual update cost and map memory scale with need rather than with sensor rate.

What would settle it

Take a handheld or robot sequence inside a large textured sphere or on a turntable with no planar structure, run both FAST-LIVO2 and this system, and compare drift: if $\tilde{\sigma}_{\min}$ from Eq. (3) remains above 0.07 while most camera frames are skipped and the trajectory error grows well beyond the reported 3 cm gap, the degeneracy signal has missed an unconstrained direction and the central claim fails in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the expensive habit of updating the ESIKF with every available camera frame is unnecessary whenever the LiDAR scan is already well constrained. By computing the smallest normalized singular value of the translation-only plane-normal matrix $\tilde{\sigma}_{\min}$ from each recombined scan and comparing it to a fixed threshold, the system declares LiDAR degeneration only when that value stays below threshold for consecutive frames; in normal conditions the camera updates are thinned to keyframes whose spacing is itself scaled by $\tilde{\sigma}_{\min}$ through $\tau = \sqrt{3}\,\tilde{\sigma}_{\min}\,\tau_{\text{predefined}}$ (Eq. (4)). This converts the visual update from a fixed cost into an adaptive cost that is high only in genuinely degenerate scenes. The accompanying map change splits storage into a compact robocentric unified local map and a larger long-term visual map, with sliding windows at 20 m and 100 m and edge lengths 200 m and 800 m, so history is retained for relocalization without retaining all dense points. The paper reports the resulting trade-off on Hilti '22/'23 as 0.063 m average RMSE versus 0.034 m for FAST-LIVO2, with the 33 percent and 47 percent resource reductions, and an ablation on the HKIsland03 sequence showing the long-term visual map improves RMSE from 0.85 m to 0.39 m.

Load-bearing premise

The efficiency gain rests on trusting one number, the smallest normalized singular value of the LiDAR plane-normal matrix, to mean the LiDAR pose is well constrained, and on a fixed threshold of 0.07 working across all LiDAR types; if that number stays high while some pose direction is actually unconstrained, the system skips camera frames it needed and accuracy degrades.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the Hilti benchmark, per-frame total runtime drops from about 35.7 ms to 26.0 ms on x86 and from 75.9 ms to 57.8 ms on ARM; the visual part drops from 10.6 ms to 2.6 ms on x86, so the system meets 10 Hz real-time on the ARM board with about 37 ms per frame in live tests.
  • Memory averages 1.7 GB versus 2.5 GB for FAST-LIVO2 across Hilti sequences, enabling longer missions before exhausting edge-device RAM.
  • The adaptive selector keeps accuracy competitive: 6.3 cm average RMSE on Hilti versus 3.4 cm for FAST-LIVO2, and it still beats FAST-LIO2 and most LIVO baselines in the reported comparison.
  • The long-term visual map is load-bearing for accuracy on large sequences: removing it worsens RMSE from 0.39 m to 0.85 m on HKIsland03 with modest memory overhead.
  • The system runs in real time on a roughly $100 RK3588 ARM board entirely on CPU, implying LIVO can be deployed on cost- and power-constrained robots.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit extension is that the same selector logic could be dropped into other direct or semi-direct LIVO systems that currently consume all images, since the selector only needs the LiDAR plane-normal matrix and keyframe spacing, not FAST-LIVO2-specific code.
  • The fixed 0.07 threshold is the main generalization risk; a self-calibrating threshold that adapts to each LiDAR's noise and field of view, or a full six-degree-of-freedom degeneracy metric, would be a natural next step the paper does not test.
  • The hybrid map suggests a tunable memory-accuracy Pareto frontier: shrinking the local map edge length (currently 200 m) trades accuracy for memory continuously, and the paper's numbers bracket only one operating point.
  • The paper leaves implicit that any environment where LiDAR translation constraints are strong but the pose is still poorly constrained in rotation, such as a large sphere or a rotating platform, is a stress test where the translation-only degeneracy assumption would likely break.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper extends the authors' FAST-LIVO2 LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry system for resource-constrained platforms. The proposed system adds a LiDAR-degeneration-aware adaptive visual frame selector that reduces the frequency of visual updates when a translation-only LiDAR constraint metric (the smallest normalized singular value of the plane-normal outer product) is above a threshold, and it replaces the single large unified map with a smaller local unified map plus a long-term visual map. The paper reports results on 16 Hilti 2022/2023 sequences, runtime and memory comparisons with FAST-LIVO2 on x86 and ARM platforms, qualitative private-dataset tests, and an ablation of the long-term visual map on the MARS-LVIG HKIsland03 sequence. The claimed net effects are a 33% per-frame runtime reduction, a 47% memory reduction, and a 3 cm average RMSE increase relative to FAST-LIVO2.

Significance. If the reported trade-off is accurate, the system is a useful engineering step for deploying direct LIVO on edge hardware. The paper does several things well: it evaluates on a standardized public benchmark, compares against multiple state-of-the-art systems, reports per-module runtime and memory figures, and includes an ablation for the long-term visual map. The adaptive visual frame selection idea is reasonable and the use of the Hilti benchmark limits benchmark overfitting. However, the headline efficiency numbers are not reproduced by the tables, and the degeneracy detector's translation-only metric is not validated against the specific sequences where accuracy degrades most. No code or data artifacts accompany the submission, so the quantitative contributions require additional verification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section V-B.2; Section V-B.3; Tables II–III] The abstract's headline claims of a 33% per-frame runtime reduction and a 47% memory reduction are not supported by the reported data. From Table II, the mean total runtime reductions are (75.87−57.82)/75.87 ≈ 24% on ARM and (35.66−25.99)/35.66 ≈ 27% on x86; from Table III, the mean memory reduction is (2.5−1.7)/2.5 = 32%. The authors should either recompute the headline numbers from the tables or identify the specific subset of sequences and measurement conditions that yield 33% and 47%.
  2. [Section IV-A.1, Eq. (3); Table I] The adaptive visual frame selector rests on the claim that LiDAR degeneration can be inferred from the translation-only point-to-plane Jacobian A, with rotational DoFs ignored because translation-well-constrained rotational degeneration is said to be 'exceedingly rare' (Section IV-A.1). However, the largest RMSE regressions relative to FAST-LIVO2 in Table I occur in Construction Stairs (0.170 vs 0.016 m), Cupola (0.220 vs 0.121 m), and Attic to Upper Gallery (0.180 vs 0.069 m), which the paper associates with intense rotations and sparse structural information. In these scenes, the translation-only sigma_min from Eq. (3) can remain high while rotational constraints are weak, causing the selector to drop visual frames that are needed. Please provide per-sequence evidence that sigma_min correctly tracks the availability of rotational constraints in these sequences, or extend the degeneracy metric to the full SE(3) Jacobian and show that the fixed 0.07 threshold still selects appropriate frames.
  3. [Section V-A.3 and Eq. (4)] The parameters of the central mechanism are presented as a consistent configuration, but in fact they are tuned per scene family: keyframe thresholds are set to 1 m–60° for indoor and 2 m–60° for outdoor sequences, while the map edge lengths (200 m/800 m) and sliding thresholds (20 m/100 m) are fixed. The paper provides no sensitivity analysis for the degeneration threshold 0.07 or for tau_predefined in Eq. (4), so it is unclear whether the reported efficiency-accuracy trade-off is robust to these choices. Please report results for perturbed thresholds (e.g., 0.05, 0.10 and nearby tau values) on a few representative Hilti sequences.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V-B.2 and Table II] The text states that the LiDAR module experienced a slight increase in runtime due to code optimizations, but Table II shows the opposite: the Ours LiDAR times are lower than FAST-LIVO2 on both ARM (53.83 vs 56.50 ms) and x86 (23.36 vs 25.05 ms). Please correct the text or the table.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The normalization operation in Eq. (3) is not defined. In addition, the singular values of nest(nest)^T are the squared singular values of A; please state explicitly whether the threshold is applied to normalized singular values of A or of A^T A.
  3. [Section I, Contribution 3] The paper promises that the private datasets will be open-sourced, but no repository URL, dataset release statement, or code availability is provided. Since the claims concern a concrete system built on FAST-LIVO2, releasing code and configuration files would materially improve verifiability.
  4. [Table II] The table is labeled as reporting 'mean and standard error' but the paper does not state whether these statistics are computed across sequences, across repeated runs, or both; please clarify the measurement protocol.
  5. [Various] There are several typos and minor wording issues: 'fwollowed' in the opening of Section V, 'improves' in the Introduction, 'datast' in Section V-E, and 'consist' in Section IV-B.1. Also, in Fig. 9, 'Aivia LiDAR' should presumably be 'Livox Avia LiDAR'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the efficiency and memory claims are measured against external benchmarks, and the degeneration threshold is a fixed parameter rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (33% runtime reduction, 47% memory reduction, and roughly 3 cm RMSE increase) are direct measurements on the external Hilti benchmark relative to a concrete baseline, not outputs of a model fit to those numbers. The adaptive visual frame selector is driven by the normalized singular values of Eq. (3), and Section V.A.3 states 'a consistent degeneration detection threshold of 0.07 was used across all tests,' with no indication that the threshold or the keyframe-scaling rule was fitted to the reported accuracy results. The reliance on the authors' FAST-LIVO2 as the starting point and baseline is normal engineering inheritance: the ESIKF and map-update machinery is cited from [6,26], while the claimed improvements are validated by measured runtimes (Table II), memory usage (Table III), and ablation on the MARS-LVIG sequence. Self-citations to related group works such as Swarm-LIO [17,18], ikd-tree [25], and MARS-LVIG [29] are contextual and are not used to establish the new efficiency or accuracy claims. Choices like the 200 m local-map size versus FAST-LIVO2's 2 km map may raise fairness questions about the memory comparison, but that is an experimental-design concern rather than an equation-level reduction to the paper's own inputs. No step in the claimed derivation reduces by construction to its own input, so the paper is not circular.

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

The paper's contributions are engineering modules on top of the authors' FAST-LIVO2; no new entities are postulated. The main free parameters are hand-set thresholds and map sizes. The load-bearing domain assumptions are that translation-only degeneracy detection is sufficient and that the inherited framework is sound.

free parameters (3)
  • degeneration threshold sigma_min = 0.07
    Hand-set threshold used across all Hilti sequences to trigger adaptive visual frame selection (Section V.A.3); central to the degeneration-aware selector.
  • keyframe selection thresholds tau_predefined = 1 m / 60 deg (indoor), 2 m / 60 deg (outdoor)
    Scene-adaptive thresholds in Eq. (4); chosen by scene scale rather than derived, affecting how aggressively visual frames are dropped.
  • map edge lengths and sliding thresholds = local map 200m, long-term map 800m, sliding 20m/100m
    Manual configuration (Section V.A.3) that determines the memory and robustness trade-off.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Rotational degeneracy is rare enough to ignore; LiDAR degeneracy can be judged from translational constraints alone
    Section IV-A.1 states that it is 'exceedingly rare' for all three translational DoFs to be well-constrained while rotations degenerate; the whole visual-frame-selection policy rests on this.
  • domain assumption The inherited FAST-LIVO2 framework (state definitions, ESIKF sequential updates, octree map management) is correct and reused without re-derivation
    Section IV states the work expands on FAST-LIVO2 [6] and inherits noise settings and core modules; any error there propagates.
  • domain assumption A single normalized singular-value threshold generalizes across different LiDAR types and environments
    Section V.D.2 claims a universal threshold works for AVIALi and Mid-360; this is asserted from experiments without a theoretical bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FAST-LIVO2 on Resource-Constrained Platforms: LiDAR-Inertial-Visual Odometry with Efficient Memory and Computation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HA6467RK

@misc{pith2026250113876,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FAST-LIVO2 on Resource-Constrained Platforms: LiDAR-Inertial-Visual Odometry with Efficient Memory and Computation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HA6467RK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13876}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a lightweight LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry system optimized for resource-constrained platforms. It integrates a degeneration-aware adaptive visual frame selector into error-state iterated Kalman filter (ESIKF) with sequential updates, improving computation efficiency significantly while maintaining a similar level of robustness. Additionally, a memory-efficient mapping structure combining a locally unified visual-LiDAR map and a long-term visual map achieves a good trade-off between performance and memory usage. Extensive experiments on x86 and ARM platforms demonstrate the system's robustness and efficiency. On the Hilti dataset, our system achieves a 33% reduction in per-frame runtime and 47% lower memory usage compared to FAST-LIVO2, with only a 3 cm increase in RMSE. Despite this slight accuracy trade-off, our system remains competitive, outperforming state-of-the-art (SOTA) LIO methods such as FAST-LIO2 and most existing LIVO systems. These results validate the system's capability for scalable deployment on resource-constrained edge computing platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13876 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of a real-time experiment on the low-power ARM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System overview. In the figure detailing voxel data on the lower-right side, the dashed ellipse encloses points considered to lie on a plane with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of sequential update ESIKF with adaptive visual frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Our platform with hardware synchronization for data acquisition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of map structure and sliding process in our system and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of some representative tested sequences. * denotes the moment when detected LiDAR degeneration occurs. The percentage next to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Real-time localization experiments on the RK3588 platform. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Validation of LiDAR degeneracy evaluation. The plot shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ablation study results on our proposed long-term visual map [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of memory usage for different algorithms in MaRS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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, no. 9, 2014

    2014

  2. [2]

    Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monoc- ular visual-inertial state estimator,

    T. Qin, P. Li, and S. Shen, “Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monoc- ular visual-inertial state estimator,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1004–1020, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Fast-lio: A fast, robust lidar-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated kalman filter,

    W. Xu and F. Zhang, “Fast-lio: A fast, robust lidar-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated kalman filter,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, pp. 1–1, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Lvi-sam: Tightly-coupled lidar-visual-inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,

    T. Shan, B. Englot, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, “Lvi-sam: Tightly-coupled lidar-visual-inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,” in 2021 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 5692–5698

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Fast-livo: Fast and tightly-coupled sparse-direct lidar-inertial-visual odometry,

    C. Zheng, Q. Zhu, W. Xu, X. Liu, Q. Guo, and F. Zhang, “Fast-livo: Fast and tightly-coupled sparse-direct lidar-inertial-visual odometry,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 4003–4009

    2022

  6. [6]

    Fast-livo2: Fast, direct lidar-inertial-visual odometry,

    C. Zheng, W. Xu, Z. Zou, T. Hua, C. Yuan, D. He, B. Zhou, Z. Liu, J. Lin, F. Zhu et al. , “Fast-livo2: Fast, direct lidar-inertial-visual odometry,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14035 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    R 2live: A robust, real- time, lidar-inertial-visual tightly-coupled state estimator and mapping,

    J. Lin, C. Zheng, W. Xu, and F. Zhang, “R 2live: A robust, real- time, lidar-inertial-visual tightly-coupled state estimator and mapping,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7469–7476, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

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

    J. Lin and F. 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). IEEE, 2022, pp. 10 672–10 678

    work page 2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Svo: Semidirect visual odometry for monocular and multicamera systems,

    C. Forster, Z. Zhang, M. Gassner, M. Werlberger, and D. Scaramuzza, “Svo: Semidirect visual odometry for monocular and multicamera systems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 249– 265, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Openvins: A research platform for visual-inertial estimation,

    P. Geneva, K. Eckenhoff, W. Lee, Y . Yang, and G. Huang, “Openvins: A research platform for visual-inertial estimation,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 4666–4672

    2020

  3. [11]

    Ego-planner: An esdf- free gradient-based local planner for quadrotors,

    X. Zhou, Z. Wang, H. Ye, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Ego-planner: An esdf- free gradient-based local planner for quadrotors,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 478–485, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    On-manifold model predictive control for trajectory tracking on robotic systems,

    G. Lu, W. Xu, and F. Zhang, “On-manifold model predictive control for trajectory tracking on robotic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 9192–9202, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    On degeneracy of optimization- based state estimation problems,

    J. Zhang, M. Kaess, and S. Singh, “On degeneracy of optimization- based state estimation problems,” in 2016 IEEE international confer- ence on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 809–816

    2016

  6. [14]

    X-icp: Localizability-aware lidar registration for robust localization in ex- treme environments,

    T. Tuna, J. Nubert, Y . Nava, S. Khattak, and M. Hutter, “X-icp: Localizability-aware lidar registration for robust localization in ex- treme environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Adalio: Robust adaptive lidar-inertial odometry in degenerate indoor environments,

    H. Lim, D. Kim, B. Kim, and H. Myung, “Adalio: Robust adaptive lidar-inertial odometry in degenerate indoor environments,” in 2023 20th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 48–53

    2023

  8. [16]

    As-lio: Spatial overlap guided adaptive sliding window lidar-inertial odometry for aggressive fov variation,

    T. Zhang, X. Zhang, Z. Liao, X. Xia, and Y . Li, “As-lio: Spatial overlap guided adaptive sliding window lidar-inertial odometry for aggressive fov variation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11426 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Swarm-lio: Decentralized swarm lidar-inertial odometry,

    F. Zhu, Y . Ren, F. Kong, H. Wu, S. Liang, N. Chen, W. Xu, and F. Zhang, “Swarm-lio: Decentralized swarm lidar-inertial odometry,” in 2023 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 3254–3260

    2023

  10. [18]

    Swarm-lio2: Decentralized, efficient lidar-inertial odometry for uav swarms,

    F. Zhu, Y . Ren, L. Yin, F. Kong, Q. Liu, R. Xue, W. Liu, Y . Cai, G. Lu, H. Li et al., “Swarm-lio2: Decentralized, efficient lidar-inertial odometry for uav swarms,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Switch-slam: Switching-based lidar-inertial-visual slam for degenerate environments,

    J. Lee, R. Komatsu, M. Shinozaki, T. Kitajima, H. Asama, Q. An, and A. Yamashita, “Switch-slam: Switching-based lidar-inertial-visual slam for degenerate environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Sdv-loam: semi- direct visual–lidar odometry and mapping,

    Z. Yuan, Q. Wang, K. Cheng, T. Hao, and X. Yang, “Sdv-loam: semi- direct visual–lidar odometry and mapping,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 11 203– 11 220, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Dv-loam: Direct visual lidar odometry and mapping,

    W. Wang, J. Liu, C. Wang, B. Luo, and C. Zhang, “Dv-loam: Direct visual lidar odometry and mapping,” Remote Sensing, vol. 13, no. 16, p. 3340, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Point-line livo using patch-based gradient optimization for degenerate scenes,

    T. Shi, K. Qian, Y . Fang, Y . Zhang, and H. Yu, “Point-line livo using patch-based gradient optimization for degenerate scenes,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Camvox: A low-cost and accurate lidar-assisted visual slam system,

    Y . Zhu, C. Zheng, C. Yuan, X. Huang, and X. Hong, “Camvox: A low-cost and accurate lidar-assisted visual slam system,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 5049–5055

    2021

  16. [24]

    Sr-livo: Lidar- inertial-visual odometry and mapping with sweep reconstruction,

    Z. Yuan, J. Deng, R. Ming, F. Lang, and X. Yang, “Sr-livo: Lidar- inertial-visual odometry and mapping with sweep reconstruction,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    ikd-tree: An incremental kd tree for robotic applications,

    Y . Cai, W. Xu, and F. Zhang, “ikd-tree: An incremental kd tree for robotic applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.10808 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Efficient and prob- abilistic adaptive voxel mapping for accurate online lidar odometry,

    C. Yuan, W. Xu, X. Liu, X. Hong, and F. Zhang, “Efficient and prob- abilistic adaptive voxel mapping for accurate online lidar odometry,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 8518–8525, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Hilti-oxford dataset: A millimeter- accurate benchmark for simultaneous localization and mapping,

    L. Zhang, M. Helmberger, L. F. T. Fu, D. Wisth, M. Camurri, D. Scaramuzza, and M. Fallon, “Hilti-oxford dataset: A millimeter- accurate benchmark for simultaneous localization and mapping,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 408–415, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    The hilti slam challenge dataset,

    M. Helmberger, K. Morin, B. Berner, N. Kumar, G. Cioffi, and D. Scaramuzza, “The hilti slam challenge dataset,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7518–7525, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Mars-lvig dataset: A multi-sensor aerial robots slam dataset for lidar-visual-inertial-gnss fusion,

    H. Li, Y . Zou, N. Chen, J. Lin, X. Liu, W. Xu, C. Zheng, R. Li, D. He, F. Kong et al., “Mars-lvig dataset: A multi-sensor aerial robots slam dataset for lidar-visual-inertial-gnss fusion,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , p. 02783649241227968, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

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