Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Certifiably-Correct Mapping for Safe Navigation Despite Odometry Drift

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that deflating the claimed-safe region by the incremental pose-error covariance, every frame, keeps a robot's obstacle map correct even as global odometry error grows unbounded.

desk verdict Solid SFC contribution, but the ESDF certificate has an unproven 1-Lipschitz step that reviewers should catch. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18713 v1 pith:PUJWGIXP submitted 2025-04-25 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Devansh R. Agrawal , Taekyung Kim , Rajiv Govindjee , Trushant Adeshara , Jiangbo Yu , Anurekha Ravikumar , Dimitra Panagou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords certifiablycorrectmappingodometrydriftdeflationsafeflightcorridorsigneddistancefielduncertainposenavigationvisual-inertial
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

Robotic navigation maps are usually built by stitching sensor data together with pose estimates that drift, and the drift can quietly turn obstacle geometry into 'free space,' causing collisions. This paper tries to establish that the problem can be avoided by deflating the claimed-safe region at every timestep: before the map is used, each safe polytope or signed-distance value is shrunk by a margin computed from the incremental pose-error covariance. Under a truncated-Gaussian bound on the per-frame transform error, the paper proves that a correct map stays correct, meaning every point marked safe is genuinely obstacle-free in the robot's body frame. If true, planners can trust a smaller, certified map for safety checks while continuing to use a larger, uncertified map for exploration, and a rover reversing into a previously mapped tunnel stops before the obstacle instead of colliding.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the uncertainty ellipsoid for a point moved by an uncertain SE(3) transform: under Assumption 1, a point $p|_B$ lies in $\mathcal E=\{p:\|\Sigma_p^{-1/2}(p-\hat p)\|\le 1\}$ with $\Sigma_p=\kappa J\Sigma J^{\mathsf T}$ and $J=[R\; -R[p]_\times]$. The deflation operation converts this ellipsoid into a margin: for polytopes, the maximum over the vertices of a face of the ellipsoid's extent along the face normal gives the inward shift $\rho_i$; for ESDFs, the largest eigenvalue of the ellipsoid gives the subtraction, because an ESDF is 1-Lipschitz and the minimum value over the ellipsoid is bounded by the center value minus the ellipsoid's radius. Everything else is bookkeeping: both updates equal 'transform by the estimated pose, then shrink by the covariance-derived margin,' and the proofs only need convexity of polytopes and Lipschitzness of signed distance fields.

What would settle it

Take a static obstacle, drive past it once to map it, then return toward it with the certified map while scaling the reported incremental covariance down by half; if the safety filter ever lets the rover enter a voxel whose ground-truth distance to the obstacle is negative, the guarantee fails. Alternatively, record the true incremental pose error over many runs and check whether more than the $\kappa$ quantile of points falls outside the predicted ellipsoid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that correctness of a map is preserved under two concrete deflation rules. For a safe flight corridor, a polytope written in vertex form is transformed by the estimated relative pose and then each face is shifted inward by $\rho_i = \max_j \sqrt{a_{k,i}^{\mathsf T}\Sigma_{i,j}a_{k,i}}$, where $\Sigma_{i,j}=\kappa J_{i,j}\Sigma_k J_{i,j}^{\mathsf T}$ is the covariance ellipsoid of the uncertain transform applied to a vertex; Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 prove $S_k\subseteq F$ implies $S_{k+1}\subseteq F$. For a signed distance field, the certified ESDF at frame $k+1$ is the previous certified ESDF minus $\sqrt{\lambda_{\max}(\Sigma_p)}$ at each point, and Theorem 2 proves this remains a lower bound on the true distance to the nearest obstacle. Both results rest on Assumption 1: every transformed point stays inside the ellipsoid defined by the first-order covariance scaled by $\kappa$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire guarantee rests on knowing, for each frame, an honest bound on how wrong the pose-change estimate can be; the experiments estimate that bound from quantities the odometry system does report, and if the estimate is too small the map can be unsafe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot can run an uncertified map for mission planning and the certified map for the safety filter, since the certified map is the only one trusted for collision checks.
  • Regions that shrink to zero volume are dropped from memory and treated as unknown, so the certified map does not accumulate stale, unsafe geometry; revisiting a region re-adds it when freshly sensed.
  • The rover experiment shows one concrete corollary: during a blind reverse maneuver through a mapped tunnel, the certified ESDF deflates the stale corridor and the safety filter stops the rover about 15 cm before impact, where the baseline collides.
  • Better odometry, meaning smaller incremental covariance, directly yields larger certified free volume; the paper's Appendix G shows the certified volume approaching the baseline volume as the covariance shrinks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an extension the paper does not make, the same deflation recipe should transfer to any map representation whose safe region is defined by a containment test, such as occupancy grids: if the incremental ellipsoid can be converted into a margin, correctness would follow by the same argument.
  • A testable extension is to make the certification adaptive: monitor the empirical fraction of incremental pose errors inside the ellipsoid online and inflate $\kappa$ when that fraction exceeds the assumed quantile, preserving the guarantee for non-Gaussian, outlier-prone odometry without a full distributional model.
  • The paper's Appendix D covariance estimate, built from global pose covariances with a fixed correlation coefficient, is the weakest practical link; the certification is only as strong as that estimate, so a monitoring check of whether the reported ellipsoid actually contains the observed pose error would decide how much trust to place in real deployments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a method for maintaining a formally correct local obstacle map when the robot pose estimate is uncertain. The key idea is to deflate the claimed safe region at each frame according to the incremental odometry covariance: for Safe Flight Corridors (SFCs), each polytope is shrunk by a margin computed from the vertices (Lemma 1 and Theorem 1), and for Euclidean Signed Distance Fields (ESDFs), the distance value is reduced by the circumradius of the pose-uncertainty ellipsoid (Theorem 2). Under Assumption 1, which truncates the Gaussian pose perturbation to an ellipsoidal bound, the authors prove that if the safe region is a subset of the true free space at time k, then the deflated region is also a subset at time k+1. The methods are tested on the Replica dataset and on a real rover with a VIO pipeline, comparing against baseline and heuristic forgetting approaches.

Significance. Assuming the proof gap in Theorem 2 can be fixed, the SFC deflation bound is a sound and useful construction, and the overall idea of using incremental pose covariances to bound map errors addresses a real gap in perception-aware safety. The paper is clearly written, the SFC proof is elegant, and the authors make code available. However, the current manuscript does not fully deliver the advertised 'certifiably-correct' claim: Theorem 2 has a missing Lipschitz argument, the Jacobian in Eq. (27b) is inconsistent with the assumptions, and the experimental validation relies on a heuristic covariance estimate that is not certified. These issues are localizable and fixable, so I recommend major revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (26) and Appendix C] The proof of Theorem 2 uses the fact that the certified ESDF dk_M has Lipschitz constant 1 in the step min_{q in E} dk_M(bT_M^{Bk} q) >= dk_M(bT_M^{Bk} \hat{p}) - diam(E)/2. However, the recursive update dk+1_M(p) = dk_M(p) - sqrt(lambda_max(Sigma_p)) does not preserve the 1-Lipschitz property unless the subtracted term is itself 1-Lipschitz (or has a bounded gradient), which is not shown and is not generally true for arbitrary Sigma. The true ESDF is 1-Lipschitz, but the certified ESDF is not necessarily. This is a load-bearing gap: without 1-Lipschitzness, the bound in step (3) does not hold and the induction fails. The authors need to either prove that the correction term is non-expansive, or show that dk_M satisfies a weaker property that still validates step (3).
  2. [Section V, Eq. (27b)] The Jacobian in the deflation formula is written as J = [R, -R[bT_M^{Bk+1} \cdot p|M]_\times]. According to Assumption 1 and the proof of Theorem 2, the Jacobian must use the source-frame point p|Bk+1 in the skew-symmetric block. Since bT_M^{Bk+1} maps from Bk+1 to M, applying it to p|M is not a valid source-frame point; this appears to be a typo for bT_{Bk+1}^M \cdot p|M (the inverse mapping). As written, Eq. (27b) defines a different ellipsoid and the proof does not follow. This must be corrected and the implementation checked.
  3. [Section VIII and Appendix D] The real-world experiment estimates the incremental covariance using a heuristic correlation rho=0.99 in Eq. (45), and Eq. (47) is not guaranteed to produce a valid joint covariance when the global covariance matrices do not commute. Since the certified guarantee is only as strong as the correctness of Sigma_k, the rover demonstration does not validate the certified claim; it validates behavior under a heuristic covariance estimate. The authors should either validate Assumption 1 and the covariance estimate on the actual odometry residuals, or explicitly state in the abstract and main text that the hardware experiment is a heuristic validation, not a certificate. Section IX already concedes some of this, but the framing throughout the paper is stronger than the evidence.
  4. [Section VII, Tables VI and VII] The Certified ESDF methods show nonzero violation rates (e.g., 2.43% for room0 at sigma2=1e-6; 0.5-1.35% even at sigma2 -> 1e-12 in Table VII), and maximum violations around 100 mm. The paper attributes these to the truncated noise model and voxel discretization. These results do not contradict the conditional theorem, but they do indicate that Assumption 1 is not satisfied in the simulation setting with the given kappa. The authors should provide guidance on how a user can determine whether Assumption 1 holds (e.g., by checking residual coverage) and should avoid claiming in the abstract that the map is 'ensured' to be correct when the numerical evaluation shows otherwise.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a stray brace in '(VIO}/SLAM)'; it should read 'VIO/SLAM'.
  2. [Section IV, proof sketch of Lemma 1] The proof sketch contains typos: 'deflaion' should be 'deflation' and 'hyerplane' should be 'hyperplane'.
  3. [Section V, proof of Theorem 2] The proof contains a typo: 'defition' should be 'definition'.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (11b)-(11c)] It would help to state explicitly whether R and t are the rotation and translation of bT_{B_{k+1}}^{B_k} or its inverse, since the notation is easy to misread.
  5. [Section VIII] The description of the safety filter stopping the robot could be clarified: the deflation shrinks the local map, which causes the forward-propagated trajectory to leave the certified safe region earlier, so the filter zeros the linear command.
  6. [Appendix G, Table VII] The unit for 'Max Violation' in Table VII is stated as mm, but the values (e.g., 0.17, 0.60, 1.24) appear inconsistent with the maximum violations in Table II (tens to hundreds of mm) for similar settings. Please verify the units or the experimental setup.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The correctness theorems are conditional on an explicit Assumption 1 and are derived, not assumed; the only heuristic (rho=0.99) affects the experiment's input covariance, not the proof, so no circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 1 (Section IV) and Theorem 2 (Section V) each take Assumption 1 as a stated hypothesis: every point transformed by the uncertain transform lies in the ellipsoid determined by kappa J Sigma J^T. Lemma 1 computes per-face deflation rho_i from the maximum over vertices of sqrt(a^T Sigma_{i,j} a), and the proof shows, via Lemma 2's separating hyperplane, that any obstacle on the boundary of the old polytope lies outside the new polytope. This is a constructive derivation, not a restatement of the theorem's conclusion. Theorem 2 likewise derives the C-ESDF update d_{k+1}=d_k - sqrt(lambda_max Sigma_p) from the ellipsoid bound and the unit-Lipschitz property of ESDFs; Definition 2 is not inserted into the proof. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: kappa is a user-set confidence quantile, the simulation covariance Sigma is the same perturbation used to generate the trajectories, and the only hand-set value in the hardware section, rho=0.99 in Appendix D, is an estimate of the incremental covariance fed into the safety filter, not a parameter of the correctness proof. The paper explicitly concedes in Section IX that Assumption 1 'may not hold in practice' and that the experiments rely on an estimated incremental covariance; that is an honest validity limitation, not a circular step. The only self-citation is [27], used for contrast ('In contrast to [27], this paper assumes...'), not as load-bearing support. The evaluation against the external Replica dataset and baseline comparisons corroborates that the claim has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on Assumption 1 (truncated Gaussian odometry error) and on the availability of an accurate incremental covariance. No new physical entities are introduced. Two hand-chosen parameters, kappa and rho, control the confidence level and the covariance reconstruction, respectively; neither is fitted to match the experimental outcomes.

free parameters (2)
  • kappa = 2 (97%) or 3 (99%) by user choice
    Scales the covariance in Assumption 1 to set the probability that the ellipsoid bound contains the transformed point. Not fitted to data, but chosen by hand; affects the conservativeness of the guarantee.
  • rho = 0.99
    Assumed correlation coefficient between successive VIO pose covariances when estimating the relative transform covariance in Appendix D. Chosen by hand; underpins the real-world experiment's deflation. If the actual correlation is lower, the deflation is underestimated and the certificate breaks.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: the incremental transform error is Gaussian and every transformed point lies inside the ellipsoid defined by the reported covariance scaled by kappa.
    This is the core premise of both Lemma 1 and Theorem 2. It is an assumption about the odometry noise model, not a proven fact, and may not hold in practice (the paper acknowledges this in Section IX).
  • domain assumption The environment is static, the obstacle set O is closed, and F contains no isolated points.
    Stated in the Problem Statement (Section III). Required for the definition of the ESDF and for the correctness notion S_k subset of F.
  • domain assumption If an obstacle point is within the camera's field of view, it will be detected as an obstacle.
    Stated in Section III. This is a common assumption in mapping literature; it ensures that new safe regions are not falsely added.
  • standard math The ESDF is 1-Lipschitz: |d(p1)-d(p2)| <= ||p1-p2||.
    Used in the proof of Theorem 2 to lower-bound the minimum ESDF over an uncertainty ellipsoid by the center value minus half the diameter.
  • domain assumption Incremental odometry perturbations follow a normal distribution in the Lie algebra of SE(3).
    Explicitly stated in the Conclusions as a limitation. The theory requires this normality to justify the ellipsoidal bound and the covariance propagation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Certifiably-Correct Mapping for Safe Navigation Despite Odometry Drift." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PUJWGIXP

@misc{pith2026250418713,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Certifiably-Correct Mapping for Safe Navigation Despite Odometry Drift},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PUJWGIXP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18713}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate perception, state estimation and mapping are essential for safe robotic navigation as planners and controllers rely on these components for safety-critical decisions. However, existing mapping approaches often assume perfect pose estimates, an unrealistic assumption that can lead to incorrect obstacle maps and therefore collisions. This paper introduces a framework for certifiably-correct mapping that ensures that the obstacle map correctly classifies obstacle-free regions despite the odometry drift in vision-based localization systems (VIO}/SLAM). By deflating the safe region based on the incremental odometry error at each timestep, we ensure that the map remains accurate and reliable locally around the robot, even as the overall odometry error with respect to the inertial frame grows unbounded. Our contributions include two approaches to modify popular obstacle mapping paradigms, (I) Safe Flight Corridors, and (II) Signed Distance Fields. We formally prove the correctness of both methods, and describe how they integrate with existing planning and control modules. Simulations using the Replica dataset highlight the efficacy of our methods compared to state-of-the-art techniques. Real-world experiments with a robotic rover show that, while baseline methods result in collisions with previously mapped obstacles, the proposed framework enables the rover to safely stop before potential collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18713 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of notation and objectives. (a) depicts the operating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two approaches to constructing an obstacle map. (Top row) An RGBD camera provides (a) the first person RGB image, and (b) the depth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of a snapshot of the office0 environment mapped using the baseline and certified SFC methods. (a, d) shows the office0 environment, while (b, e) and (c, f) show the respective S sets at the 500-th timestep from an external and an internal view. The baseline map claims a larger volume to be safe compared to the certified method (red volume is larger than green volume). However, we can also see numerous … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the maps generated using the baseline and certified ESDF methods on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Rover Experimental Setup. (a) Block diagram. The human is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Rover Experimental Results. (a, b) shows snapshots of the reconstructed obstacle map and the estimated rover pose with (a) the baseline method and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Experimental domain used in Figure 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the effect of the deflation on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (Left) Effect of the odometry covariance on the mapping violation rate. (Right) Effect of the odometry covariance on the claimed free volume. Notice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Con- trol barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,

    A. D. Ames, X. Xu, J. W. Grizzle, and P. Tabuada, “Con- trol barrier function based quadratic programs for safety critical systems,” IEEE TAC, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 3861– 3876, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Advances in the Theory of Control Barrier Functions: Addressing Practical Challenges in Safe Control Synthesis for Autonomous and Robotic Systems

    K. Garg, J. Usevitch, J. Breeden, M. Black, D. Agrawal, H. Parwana, and D. Panagou, “Advances in the theory of control barrier functions: Addressing practical challenges in safe control synthesis for autonomous and robotic systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.16719 , 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Aggressive 3-D collision avoidance for high-speed navigation.,

    B. T. Lopez and J. P. How, “Aggressive 3-D collision avoidance for high-speed navigation.,” in IEEE ICRA , pp. 5759–5765, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Faster: Fast and safe trajectory planner for flights in unknown environments,

    J. Tordesillas, B. T. Lopez, and J. P. How, “Faster: Fast and safe trajectory planner for flights in unknown environments,” in IEEE IROS , pp. 1934–1940, IEEE, 2019

    work page 1934

  5. [5]

    gatekeeper: Online safety verification and control for nonlinear sys- tems in dynamic environments,

    D. R. Agrawal, R. Chen, and D. Panagou, “gatekeeper: Online safety verification and control for nonlinear sys- tems in dynamic environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    V oxblox: Incremental 3d euclidean signed distance fields for on-board mav planning,

    H. Oleynikova, Z. Taylor, M. Fehr, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “V oxblox: Incremental 3d euclidean signed distance fields for on-board mav planning,” in IEEE IROS, pp. 1366–1373, IEEE, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    nvblox: Gpu- accelerated incremental signed distance field mapping,

    A. Millane, H. Oleynikova, E. Wirbel, R. Steiner, V . Ra- masamy, D. Tingdahl, and R. Siegwart, “nvblox: Gpu- accelerated incremental signed distance field mapping,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2698–2705, IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight cor- ridors in 3-d complex environments,

    S. Liu, M. Watterson, K. Mohta, K. Sun, S. Bhattacharya, C. J. Taylor, and V . Kumar, “Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight cor- ridors in 3-d complex environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1688–1695, 2017

    2017

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Octomap: An efficient probabilistic 3d mapping framework based on octrees,

    A. Hornung, K. M. Wurm, M. Bennewitz, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “Octomap: An efficient probabilistic 3d mapping framework based on octrees,” Autonomous robots, vol. 34, pp. 189–206, 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    Nerf-slam: Real-time dense monocular slam with neural radiance fields,

    A. Rosinol, J. J. Leonard, and L. Carlone, “Nerf-slam: Real-time dense monocular slam with neural radiance fields,” in IEEE ICRA, pp. 3437–3444, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Visual odometry [tutorial],

    D. Scaramuzza and F. Fraundorfer, “Visual odometry [tutorial],” IEEE Robot. & Automat. Mag., vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 80–92, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Vins-motion: tightly-coupled fusion of vins and motion constraint,

    Z. Yu, L. Zhu, and G. Lu, “Vins-motion: tightly-coupled fusion of vins and motion constraint,” in IEEE ICRA , pp. 7672–7678, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Kimera-multi: Robust, distributed, dense metric-semantic slam for multi-robot systems,

    Y . Tian, Y . Chang, F. H. Arias, C. Nieto-Granda, J. P. How, and L. Carlone, “Kimera-multi: Robust, distributed, dense metric-semantic slam for multi-robot systems,” IEEE TRO, vol. 38, no. 4, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Direct lidar- inertial odometry: Lightweight lio with continuous-time motion correction,

    K. Chen, R. Nemiroff, and B. T. Lopez, “Direct lidar- inertial odometry: Lightweight lio with continuous-time motion correction,” in IEEE ICRA, pp. 3983–3989, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Drift-free visual slam using digital twins,

    R. Merat, G. Cioffi, L. Bauersfeld, and D. Scara- muzza, “Drift-free visual slam using digital twins,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1633–1640, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    The Replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces,

    J. Straub, T. Whelan, L. Ma, Y . Chen, E. Wijmans, S. Green, J. J. Engel, R. Mur-Artal, C. Ren, S. Verma, A. Clarkson, M. Yan, B. Budge, Y . Yan, X. Pan, J. Yon, Y . Zou, K. Leon, N. Carter, J. Briales, T. Gillingham, E. Mueggler, L. Pesqueira, M. Savva, D. Batra, H. M. Strasd...

    1906 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Past, present, and future of simultaneous localization and mapping: Toward the robust-perception age,

    C. Cadena, L. Carlone, H. Carrillo, Y . Latif, D. Scara- muzza, J. Neira, I. Reid, and J. J. Leonard, “Past, present, and future of simultaneous localization and mapping: Toward the robust-perception age,” IEEE Transactions on robotics, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1309–1332, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    A comprehensive survey of visual slam algorithms,

    A. Macario Barros, M. Michel, Y . Moline, G. Corre, and F. Carrel, “A comprehensive survey of visual slam algorithms,” Robotics, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 24, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    cuVSLAM

    Nvidia-Isaac, “cuVSLAM.” https://nvidia-isaac-ros. github.io/concepts/visual slam/cuvslam/index.html, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

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

    C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodr ´ıguez, J. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard ´os, “Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam,” IEEE transactions on robotics , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1874– 1890, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Present and future of slam in extreme environments: The DARPA SubT challenge,

    K. Ebadi, L. Bernreiter, H. Biggie, G. Catt, Y . Chang, A. Chatterjee, C. E. Denniston, S.-P. Desch ˆenes, K. Har- low, S. Khattak, et al. , “Present and future of slam in extreme environments: The DARPA SubT challenge,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 40, pp. 936–959, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Into the robotic depths: Analysis and insights from the darpa subter- ranean challenge,

    T. H. Chung, V . Orekhov, and A. Maio, “Into the robotic depths: Analysis and insights from the darpa subter- ranean challenge,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 477–502, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Cerberus in the darpa subterranean challenge,

    M. Tranzatto, T. Miki, M. Dharmadhikari, L. Bernreiter, M. Kulkarni, F. Mascarich, O. Andersson, S. Khattak, M. Hutter, R. Siegwart, et al. , “Cerberus in the darpa subterranean challenge,” Science Robotics, vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabp9742, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    SE-Sync: a certifiably correct algorithm for synchronization over the special euclidean group,

    D. M. Rosen, L. Carlone, A. S. Bandeira, and J. J. Leonard, “SE-Sync: a certifiably correct algorithm for synchronization over the special euclidean group,” IEEE IJRR, vol. 38, no. 2-3, pp. 95–125, 2019

    2019

  17. [25]

    LiDAR point cloud registration with formal guarantees,

    M. Marchi, J. Bunton, B. Gharesifard, and P. Tabuada, “LiDAR point cloud registration with formal guarantees,” in IEEE CDC, pp. 3462–3467, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    TEASER: Fast and certifiable point cloud registration,

    H. Yang, J. Shi, and L. Carlone, “TEASER: Fast and certifiable point cloud registration,” IEEE TRO., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 314–333, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Online and certifiably correct visual odom- etry and mapping,

    D. R. Agrawal, R. Govindjee, J. Yu, A. Ravikumar, and D. Panagou, “Online and certifiably correct visual odom- etry and mapping,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05254 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ins assisted monocular vi- sual odometry for aerial vehicles,

    J. Zhang and S. Singh, “Ins assisted monocular vi- sual odometry for aerial vehicles,” in Field and Service Robotics: Results of the 9th International Conference , pp. 183–197, Springer, 2015

    2015

  21. [29]

    Stein icp for uncertainty estimation in point cloud matching,

    F. A. Maken, F. Ramos, and L. Ott, “Stein icp for uncertainty estimation in point cloud matching,” IEEE robotics and automation letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1063– 1070, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Toward certi- fying maps for safe registration-based localization under adverse conditions,

    J. Laconte, D. Lisus, and T. D. Barfoot, “Toward certi- fying maps for safe registration-based localization under adverse conditions,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Let- ters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1572–1579, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    C-blox: A scalable and consistent tsdf-based dense mapping approach,

    A. Millane, Z. Taylor, H. Oleynikova, J. Nieto, R. Sieg- wart, and C. Cadena, “C-blox: A scalable and consistent tsdf-based dense mapping approach,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and sys- tems (IROS), pp. 995–1002, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Multi- robot simultaneous localization and mapping using man- ifold representations,

    A. Howard, G. S. Sukhatme, and M. J. Mataric, “Multi- robot simultaneous localization and mapping using man- ifold representations,” Proceedings of the IEEE , vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 1360–1369, 2006

    2006

  25. [33]

    Explo- ration without global consistency using local volume con- solidation,

    T. Cieslewski, A. Ziegler, and D. Scaramuzza, “Explo- ration without global consistency using local volume con- solidation,” in The International Symposium of Robotics Research, pp. 559–574, Springer, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    A micro lie theory for state estimation in robotics,

    J. Sola, J. Deray, and D. Atchuthan, “A micro lie theory for state estimation in robotics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01537, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Characterizing the uncertainty of jointly dis- tributed poses in the lie algebra,

    J. G. Mangelson, M. Ghaffari, R. Vasudevan, and R. M. Eustice, “Characterizing the uncertainty of jointly dis- tributed poses in the lie algebra,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1371–1388, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    T. D. Barfoot, State estimation for robotics . Cambridge University Press, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Polyhedral computation,

    B. Legat, “Polyhedral computation,” in JuliaCon, July 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Double description method revisited,

    K. Fukuda and A. Prodon, “Double description method revisited,” in Franco-Japanese and Franco-Chinese con- ference on combinatorics and computer science , pp. 91– 111, Springer, 1995

    1995

  31. [39]

    Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam,

    Z. Zhu, S. Peng, V . Larsson, W. Xu, H. Bao, Z. Cui, M. R. Oswald, and M. Pollefeys, “Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    A tutorial on quantitative trajectory evaluation for visual (-inertial) odometry,

    Z. Zhang and D. Scaramuzza, “A tutorial on quantitative trajectory evaluation for visual (-inertial) odometry,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 7244–7251, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Modeling kinect sensor noise for improved 3d reconstruction and track- ing,

    C. V . Nguyen, S. Izadi, and D. Lovell, “Modeling kinect sensor noise for improved 3d reconstruction and track- ing,” in Intl. Conf. 3D imaging, modeling, processing, visualization & transmission , pp. 524–530, IEEE, 2012. APPENDIX A. Review of Matrix Lie Groups Here we review...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.