An SE(3) Noise Model for Range-Azimuth-Elevation Sensors

James Richard Forbes; Thomas Hitchcox

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

An SE(3) Noise Model for Range-Azimuth-Elevation Sensors

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper develops an SE(3) noise model for range-azimuth-elevation sensors whose compound submap covariance incorporates measurement curvature, sensor-to-vehicle extrinsic uncertainty, and odometry drift, addressing the overconfidence…

desk verdict A clean, well-scoped SE(3) RAE noise model that correctly folds measurement, extrinsic, and odometry uncertainty into per-point submap covariances; the math is sound, but the paper stops short of validating the promised scan-matching benefit. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19009 v1 pith:CMWFE5KY submitted 2025-04-26 cs.RO

Thomas Hitchcox , James Richard Forbes This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords scanmatchingrange-azimuth-elevationsensormatrixLiegroupsSE(3)uncertaintycharacterizationsubmapcovarianceodometrypoint-cloudalignment

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

Scan matching aligns point clouds by solving a weighted least-squares problem, and the weights are only as good as the covariance assigned to each measured point. This paper argues that for range-azimuth-elevation sensors such as radar, lidar, and laser scanners, the standard linearized ellipsoidal covariance is systematically wrong: it overstates uncertainty at close range, understates it at long range, and ignores two extra error sources, imperfect sensor-to-vehicle mounting and drift in the odometry used to build a submap. The authors therefore model each RAE measurement as an element of the matrix Lie group SE(3), with noise defined in the Lie algebra, and propagate sensor, extrinsic, and odometry covariances through adjoint maps into one compound submap-level covariance. Illustrative results on a simulated vehicle and on a real underwater laser-scanner submap show envelopes that grow from slender bananas near the central pose to large, more ellipsoidal shapes far from it. If the model is right, scan matching can weight points by covariance that reflects where each point sits along the scan and how far its vantage pose is from the submap's central pose.

What carries the argument

The machine is the adjoint map on SE(3), $\mathrm{Ad}(T) : \mathfrak{se}(3) \to \mathfrak{se}(3)$, which transports Lie-algebra perturbations between frames. The measurement is parameterized as $T_{\ell m}^{ps} = (C_{\ell m}(\phi,\theta), r^{ps}_\ell(r)) \in SE(3)$, with the measurement-aligned frame $F_m$ defined by placing its first axis along the range ray; in this frame the sensor covariance is a fixed diagonal matrix. Composing the sensor-to-vehicle pose and the relative vehicle pose, and applying right perturbations at each step, turns every error source into a term of the form $\mathrm{Ad}(T) \Sigma \, \mathrm{Ad}(T)^T$. The compound covariance of Eq. (24b) is exactly the sum of these three adjoint-mapped covariances: one for the relative odometry pose, one for the sensor extrinsics, and one for the RAE measurement itself.

What would settle it

Scan a static scene repeatedly from the same trajectory with a laser scanner and a DVL-INS, compute the empirical sample covariance of each submap point across passes, and compare its 3-sigma envelope with the model envelope from Eq. (24b); if the empirical envelope systematically exceeds the model at large distances from the central pose, the independence and zero-mean assumptions are the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that RAE measurement noise is naturally defined on SE(3), not in Euclidean $\mathbb{R}^3$: a measurement with range $r$, azimuth $\phi$, and elevation $\theta$ is encoded as the pose $T_{\ell m}^{ps} \in SE(3)$, with a zero-mean Gaussian perturbation $\delta\xi^p_m$ in the Lie algebra, and a covariance $\Sigma^s_m = \mathrm{diag}(\sigma_\theta^2, \sigma_\phi^2, \delta^2, \sigma_r^2, \delta^2, \delta^2)$ in the measurement-aligned frame $F_m$. Adjoint maps then carry this curved, banana-shaped covariance to the vehicle frame and, through Eq. (24b), to the submap frame, where it is summed with the adjoint-mapped extrinsic covariance $\Sigma^s_\ell$ and the relative-pose odometry covariance $\Sigma^z_b$. The resulting $\Gamma^p_m$ is a single $6 \times 6$ covariance capturing measurement curvature, mounting error, and trajectory drift at once, and it can be projected back to $\mathbb{R}^3$ for conventional point-cloud alignment without re-linearizing the sensor model.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that range noise, extrinsic calibration error, and odometry error are all zero-mean, Gaussian, and statistically independent of one another; if any has a bias or correlates with another, the propagated submap covariance will be too small and scan matching will be overconfident again.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Point-cloud alignment weights computed from $\Gamma^p_m$ grow with distance from the chosen central submap pose, so far-away or sparse points no longer receive spuriously high weight.
The $\mathbb{R}^3$ covariance extracted in Eq. (26b) inherits the curved banana-shaped geometry of the SE(3) model, so standard weighted least-squares alignment can keep working without linearizing the RAE sensor.
Data association can use the same submap covariance in Mahalanobis validation tests, which should reduce outlier acceptance relative to ellipsoidal gates.
For submaps built from 2D profiles, such as push-broom laser or multibeam sonar, the model makes the choice of central submap pose explicit: centering the submap minimizes odometry-driven overconfidence.
Residuals defined directly on SE(3), rather than on point positions, can use the full $6 \times 6$ covariance $\Gamma^p_m$ without projecting it to $\mathbb{R}^3$.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural next step is to feed $\Gamma^p_m$ into a closed-loop scan-matching consistency metric such as normalized estimation error squared; the paper illustrates the covariance envelopes but does not run that end-to-end experiment.
Because odometry enters only through the relative-pose covariance $\Sigma^z_b$, any source of relative-pose uncertainty, such as loop-closure edges or a learned trajectory error model, could be substituted into Eq. (24b) in place of the white-noise-on-acceleration prior used in the field example.
The independence and zero-mean Gaussian assumptions are the soft spot: under biased DVL-INS trajectories the empirical point error will carry correlations the model cannot represent, so the field envelopes should be read as optimistic lower bounds until bias-aware terms are added.
The model could be turned into a trajectory-planning heuristic: since covariance balloons with distance from the central pose, planners could keep the vehicle's reference pose near information-rich regions of a submap to keep alignment weights honest.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a clean, well-scoped methods paper that does what it says—builds an SE(3) RAE noise model that folds measurement, extrinsic, and odometry uncertainty into per-point submap covariances. The derivation in Eqs. (17)–(24) is standard Lie-group machinery applied carefully, and the adjoint-based composition is correct as far as I can tell. It is a genuine incremental step over the prior R×S2 and SO(2)×R models.

What the paper does well: it gives a concrete, reusable formula (24b) with clear notation, and the simulations and field envelopes illustrate the qualitative behavior—bananas near the center, ellipsoids growing with distance. The authors are honest that this is a visualization, not a validation.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, no quantitative validation. The field section uses hand-selected noise parameters and shows 3-sigma envelopes only; there is no consistency check, no comparison to alternative models, no statistical test. The conclusion explicitly defers that. Second, the model as presented is marginal per point. When you project (24b) to R3 via (26) and feed block-diagonal weights into a scan matcher, you ignore the cross-correlation between points induced by shared vehicle-pose error and odometry drift. That is not a flaw in the derivation, but it does mean the headline promise—that this addresses overconfidence in scan matching—is not established. The paper does not claim to provide the joint covariance, so this is a scope limitation more than an error. Third, no code or data released, so the field result is not independently checkable.

None of this sinks the paper. The math is sound, the contribution is real, and it is the kind of thing a robotics venue should publish. It deserves a serious referee, though the referee should push for a consistency experiment or at least a clear statement about the joint-covariance limitation.

For a reader: anyone doing scan matching or submap-based SLAM with lidar/radar/sonar will get value from the model. I'd cite it. Bring it to reading group if you want to discuss the gap between marginal and joint covariance.

Recommendation: send to peer review. It will need revision, but it's a legitimate contribution.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a noise model for range-azimuth-elevation (RAE) sensors on the matrix Lie group SE(3). The measurement is represented as an SE(3) pose, with sensor noise defined as a diagonal covariance in a measurement-aligned frame. The model then propagates this sensor covariance, together with sensor-to-vehicle extrinsic uncertainty and relative-vehicle-pose (odometry) uncertainty, through adjoint maps to obtain a compound per-point covariance, summarized in Eq. (24b). A projection of this SE(3) covariance to an R3 covariance for point-cloud alignment is given in Eq. (26b). Illustrative results are presented for a simulated 2D range-bearing example and for a real underwater laser-scanner submap, both showing 3-sigma uncertainty envelopes. The paper claims that this model addresses overconfidence in scan matching by accounting for measurement geometry, mounting errors, and trajectory drift.

Significance. If the covariance model were used as the basis for scan-matching weights, it would be a useful practical contribution: it captures the curved 'banana-shaped' uncertainty of RAE measurements in a principled, coordinate-free way, and it propagates extrinsic and odometry covariances through standard adjoint identities without free parameters fitted to the output. The derivations in Sections III-B through III-D are explicit and internally consistent, and the lack of circularity is a strength. However, the practical significance is not yet established: the model provides only marginal per-point covariances, the scan-matching use case is not demonstrated, and the experimental sections are qualitative envelope visualizations with hand-selected noise parameters. Thus the central claim that the model reduces overconfidence in scan matching remains unsupported.

major comments (3)

[§III-D, Eq. (24b), and §III-E, Eq. (26b)] The model provides a marginal covariance for each point in a submap, but the motivating scan-matching application requires the joint covariance of all points in the submap. When the R3 projection in Eq. (26b) is used to form weights in a point-cloud alignment least-squares problem, the result is a block-diagonal weight matrix: it treats the vehicle-pose perturbation δξ_z^b in Eq. (21) as independent for every point, and it similarly ignores correlations induced by the shared extrinsic uncertainty Σ_s^ℓ. This omits exactly the odometry-induced cross-correlations that the paper highlights as a source of overconfidence. Consequently, even under the paper's zero-mean Gaussian assumptions, the submap information matrix remains overconfident, and the claim that the model 'seamlessly' incorporates odometry uncertainty into scan matching is not established. The authors should either derive the joint covariance across points or explicitly state that only marginal covariances are provided and discuss the implications for scan-matching consistency.
[§IV and §V] The field and simulation results do not validate the claimed accuracy improvement. Section IV reports only 3-sigma envelope visualizations using hand-selected noise parameters (Tables I and II); there is no comparison of the proposed covariance against empirical errors, no scan-matching experiment, no consistency metric (e.g., normalized estimation error squared), and no baseline comparison against the standard ellipsoidal model the paper argues against. Section V explicitly defers 'performance and consistency analysis' to future work. Since the entire motivation is that inaccurate covariance weighting causes overconfidence, the absence of any quantitative evaluation means the central practical promise of the paper is untested.
[§III-C and §III-D] The derivation assumes that measurement, extrinsic, and odometry errors are zero-mean, Gaussian, and mutually uncorrelated, and that the sensor-level covariance is diagonal in the measurement-aligned frame (Eq. (15)). These assumptions are stated, but their effect on the conclusions is not examined. If any of these errors are biased or correlated, the propagated covariance will be overconfident, which is the very failure mode the paper sets out to fix. A sensitivity analysis or a discussion of how the model degrades under bias and correlation would strengthen the paper; as written, the robustness of the central claim to these assumptions is unknown.

minor comments (5)

[§I, Introduction] The abstract and introduction state that the model allows 'seamless incorporation' of extrinsic and odometry uncertainty, but the scope is actually the marginal covariance of each point. The wording is stronger than what is derived and should be aligned with the technical content.
[§IV-B, Table II and text] The WNOA PSD values are described as 'for illustrative purposes,' and the extrinsic covariance is similarly hand-selected; the paper should state clearly that no claim of quantitative accuracy is being made from these figures.
[§III-B, Eq. (9)] The positive-definite padding δ is introduced without specifying its magnitude or its effect on the resulting covariance; a note on choosing δ relative to σ_r, σ_θ, and σ_ϕ would improve reproducibility.
[§III-D, Eq. (23)] The text says the odometry uncertainty is caused by 'noisy and potentially biased' measurements, but the model only represents zero-mean noise; bias is mentioned but not modeled. This should be clarified to avoid implying that bias is accounted for in Σ_z^b.
[References] Reference [29] is cited for push-broom laser scanners, and the Voyis Insight Pro scanner in Section IV-B would benefit from a product citation or a more detailed sensor description; as written, the reader cannot reproduce the data collection conditions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the compound covariance (24b) is a forward propagation of user-specified input covariances via standard adjoint identities.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a forward application of matrix-Lie-group adjoint covariance composition, not a fit of outputs back into inputs. Equation (11b) maps the stated sensor-level covariance Sigma_s_m through the adjoint of the SE(2)/SE(3) measurement pose; equation (18b) adds sensor-to-vehicle extrinsic covariance Sigma_s_ell under the stated uncorrelated-error assumption; equation (22b) adds the relative-pose odometry covariance Sigma_z_b; and the compound expression (24b) is the algebraic simplification of these steps. Every covariance appearing on the right-hand side of (24b) is an assumed or propagated input: the RAE sensor covariance (15), the extrinsic covariance (19), and the odometry covariance (23) are all user-specified or propagated from stated PSDs. No quantity in the model is fitted to the resulting covariance envelopes in Figs. 5 and 8, nor is any scan-matching outcome used to tune the noise parameters. The self-citations [8] and [28] are contextual references for push-broom laser scanning and low-observability extrinsic calibration, and are not load-bearing for the Lie-group derivation, which relies on standard adjoint uncertainty propagation [9, 23]. The paper's practical claim that this model will reduce scan-matching overconfidence is an extrapolation, and Section V explicitly defers consistency analysis to future work, but that is a validation gap or correctness risk, not circularity. No derivation step reduces by construction to its own output.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central covariance result (24b) rests on a standard Lie-group Gaussian noise representation plus three domain assumptions: zero-mean Gaussian perturbations, first-order small-perturbation expansions in (17) and (21), and mutual independence of measurement, extrinsic, and odometry errors. All numerical noise levels are user-selected or illustrative; none are fitted to match a target covariance, so the free parameters do not by themselves introduce circularity. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (10)

Range standard deviation sigma_r = 0.01 m (simulation and field)
Set by hand as an illustrative sensor specification in Tables I and II; it is an input to the noise model, not fitted to an outcome.
Bearing/elevation standard deviation sigma_theta = 5 deg (simulation), 0.1 deg (field)
Chosen for illustration; controls the banana width in Eq. (15).
Azimuth standard deviation sigma_phi = 3 deg (field)
Hand-selected for the underwater laser scanner in Table II; not estimated from calibration data.
Positive-definite padding delta = unspecified small value
Introduced in Eqs. (9) and (15) solely to keep the covariance matrix positive definite; no physical meaning.
Extrinsic rotation std sigma_alpha = 1 deg (simulation), 0.1 deg (field)
Hand-selected extrinsic calibration uncertainty in Tables I and II.
Extrinsic translation std sigma_beta = 5e-3 m
Hand-selected extrinsic translation uncertainty in Tables I and II.
Gyro PSD sigma_g^2 = 1e-4 rad^2/s
Sets odometry uncertainty in the simulation (Table I); chosen for illustrative effect.
Wheel odometry PSD sigma_w^2 = 1e-4 m^2/s
Sets odometry uncertainty in the simulation (Table I).
WNOA rotational acceleration PSD sigma_omega_dot^2 = 9e-6 rad^2/s^3
Hand-set white-noise-on-acceleration prior in Table II.
WNOA translational acceleration PSD sigma_nu_dot^2 = 1e-8 m^2/s^3
Hand-set white-noise-on-acceleration prior in Table II.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Uncertainty is represented as zero-mean Gaussian perturbations delta_xi ~ N(0, Sigma) in the Lie algebra.
Stated in Section II-B; the entire covariance model is built on this representation.
domain assumption First-order small-perturbation approximation in Eqs. (17) and (21), dropping higher-order products and BCH terms.
The compound covariance sums adjoint-mapped covariances only if cross terms are neglected; no error bound is given.
domain assumption Measurement noise, extrinsic uncertainty, and odometry uncertainty are uncorrelated.
Stated in Sections III-C and III-D as 'assuming uncorrelated', and used to justify additive covariance in Eq. (24b).
domain assumption White-noise-on-acceleration motion prior for vessel kinematics in Eq. (32).
Used in the field example to compute odometry covariance; a biased or non-WNOA trajectory would change Sigma_z^b.
standard math Standard matrix Lie group identities for adjoint and exponential maps.
Used to derive Eqs. (17), (21), and (24b); routine in the Lie group state estimation literature.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An SE(3) Noise Model for Range-Azimuth-Elevation Sensors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMWFE5KY

@misc{pith2026250419009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An SE(3) Noise Model for Range-Azimuth-Elevation Sensors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMWFE5KY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19009}
}

read the original abstract

Scan matching is a widely used technique in state estimation. Point-cloud alignment, one of the most popular methods for scan matching, is a weighted least-squares problem in which the weights are determined from the inverse covariance of the measured points. An inaccurate representation of the covariance will affect the weighting of the least-squares problem. For example, if ellipsoidal covariance bounds are used to approximate the curved, "banana-shaped" noise characteristics of many scanning sensors, the weighting in the least-squares problem may be overconfident. Additionally, sensor-to-vehicle extrinsic uncertainty and odometry uncertainty during submap formation are two sources of uncertainty that are often overlooked in scan matching applications, also likely contributing to overconfidence on the scan matching estimate. This paper attempts to address these issues by developing a model for range-azimuth-elevation sensors on matrix Lie groups. The model allows for the seamless incorporation of extrinsic and odometry uncertainty. Illustrative results are shown both for a simulated example and for a real point-cloud submap collected with an underwater laser scanner.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19009 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Parameterizing the range-bearing measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Illustrating the 99.73% (3σ) confidence envelopes for simulated range-bearing measurements (left) and rangeazimuth-elevation measurements (right). model is defined by (8) and (10), T ps ℓm = T¯ ps ℓm Exp δξ p m , (11a) Σ p m = E[ δξ p m (δξ p m) T ] = Ad T sp mm Σ s m Ad T sp mmT . (11b) An illustration of this noise model is shown in Fig. 4a. The DCM Cℓm may be found through Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization. De… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Uncertainty envelopes for the submap-level noise model (24b). A vehicle moves from left to right, periodically recording [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Voyis Insight Pro underwater laser scanner. The base [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Data collection in Wiarton, Ontario. The sensor payload [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: 99.73 % confidence envelopes for ten points randomly selected from a point-cloud submap containing a shipwreck. The vehicle trajectory is shown in black, with the central submap pose shown as a black triad. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank Ryan Wicks of V…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

Radar odometry on SE(3) with constant acceleration motion prior and polar measurement model,

K. Retan, F. Loshaj, and M. Heizmann, “Radar odometry on SE(3) with constant acceleration motion prior and polar measurement model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.05956 , 2022

arXiv 2022
[2]

Pointing the way: Refining radar-lidar localization using learned ICP weights,

D. Lisus, J. Laconte, K. Burnett, and T. D. Barfoot, “Pointing the way: Refining radar-lidar localization using learned ICP weights,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08731, 2023

arXiv 2023
[3]

Incorporating Point Uncertainty in Radar SLAM

Y . Xu, Q. Huang, S. Shen, and H. Yin, “Modeling point uncertainty in radar SLAM,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16082 , 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[4]

LOAM: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time,

J. Zhang and S. Singh, “LOAM: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time,” in Robot.: Sci. Syst. (RSS) , Berkeley, CA, vol. 2, 2014, pp. 1–9

work page 2014
[5]

Tightly coupled 3D lidar inertial odometry and mapping,

H. Ye, Y . Chen, and M. Liu, “Tightly coupled 3D lidar inertial odometry and mapping,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), IEEE, 2019, pp. 3144–3150

work page 2019
[6]

3D laser scanner for underwater manipulation,

A. Palomer, P. Ridao, D. Youakim, D. Ribas, J. Forest, and Y . Petillot, “3D laser scanner for underwater manipulation,”Sensors, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 1086, 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Inspection of an underwater structure using point-cloud SLAM with an AUV and a laser scanner,

A. Palomer, P. Ridao, and D. Ribas, “Inspection of an underwater structure using point-cloud SLAM with an AUV and a laser scanner,” J. Field Robot. , vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1333–1344, 2019

work page 2019
[8]

Improving self-consistency in under- water mapping through laser-based loop closure,

T. Hitchcox and J. R. Forbes, “Improving self-consistency in under- water mapping through laser-based loop closure,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1873–1892, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 32 references

[9]

T. D. Barfoot, State Estimation for Robotics . Cambridge University Press, 2017

2017
[10]

Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions,

B. K. Horn, “Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions,” J. Opt. Soc. Amer. A , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 629–642, 1987

1987
[11]

Least-squares fitting of two 3-D point sets,

K. S. Arun, T. S. Huang, and S. D. Blostein, “Least-squares fitting of two 3-D point sets,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , no. 5, pp. 698–700, 1987

1987
[12]

Weighted optimal linear attitude and translation estimator: Theory and application,

D. Qian, “Weighted optimal linear attitude and translation estimator: Theory and application,” M.S. thesis, McGill University, 2018

2018
[13]

Radar and stereo vision fusion for multitarget tracking on the special Euclidean group,

J. ´Cesi´c, I. Markovi ´c, I. Cvi ˇsi´c, and I. Petrovi ´c, “Radar and stereo vision fusion for multitarget tracking on the special Euclidean group,” Robot. Auton. Syst. , vol. 83, pp. 338–348, 2016

2016
[14]

Gaussian approximation of non-linear measurement models on Lie groups,

G. Chirikjian and M. Kobilarov, “Gaussian approximation of non-linear measurement models on Lie groups,” in IEEE Conf. Decis. Control , IEEE, 2014, pp. 6401–6406

2014
[15]

Data association in stochastic mapping using the joint compatibility test,

J. Neira and J. D. Tard ´os, “Data association in stochastic mapping using the joint compatibility test,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 890–897, 2001

2001
[16]

On the covariance of ICP- based scan-matching techniques,

S. Bonnabel, M. Barczyk, and F. Goulette, “On the covariance of ICP- based scan-matching techniques,” in Amer. Control Conf., IEEE, 2016, pp. 5498–5503

2016
[17]

Real-time correlative scan matching,

E. B. Olson, “Real-time correlative scan matching,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA) , IEEE, 2009, pp. 4387–4393

2009
[18]

A new approach to 3D ICP covariance estimation,

M. Brossard, S. Bonnabel, and A. Barrau, “A new approach to 3D ICP covariance estimation,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. (RAL) , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 744–751, 2020

2020
[19]

Bathymetric particle filter SLAM using trajectory maps,

S Barkby, S. B. Williams, O. Pizarro, and M. V . Jakuba, “Bathymetric particle filter SLAM using trajectory maps,” Int. J. Robot. Res., vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 1409–1430, 2012

2012
[20]

Bayesian attitude estimation with the matrix Fisher distri- bution on SO(3),

T. Lee, “Bayesian attitude estimation with the matrix Fisher distri- bution on SO(3),” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control , vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 3377–3392, 2018

2018
[21]

Matrix Fisher–Gaussian distribution on SO(3) × Rn and Bayesian attitude estimation,

W. Wang and T. Lee, “Matrix Fisher–Gaussian distribution on SO(3) × Rn and Bayesian attitude estimation,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 2175–2191, 2021

2021
[22]

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
[23]

Characterizing the uncertainty of jointly distributed poses in the Lie algebra,

J. G. Mangelson, M. Ghaffari, R. Vasudevan, and R. M. Eustice, “Characterizing the uncertainty of jointly distributed poses in the Lie algebra,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1371–1388, 2020

2020
[24]

G. S. Chirikjian, Stochastic Models, Information Theory, and Lie Groups, Volume 2: Analytic Methods and Modern Applications . Springer Science & Business Media, 2011, vol. 2

2011
[25]

The normal distributions transform: A new approach to laser scan matching,

P. Biber and W. Straßer, “The normal distributions transform: A new approach to laser scan matching,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. (IROS) , vol. 3, 2003, pp. 2743–2748

2003
[26]

An accurate closed-form estimate of ICP’s covariance,

A. Censi, “An accurate closed-form estimate of ICP’s covariance,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA) , IEEE, 2007, pp. 3167– 3172

2007
[27]

Observability- aware intrinsic and extrinsic calibration of LiDAR-IMU systems,

J. Lv, X. Zuo, K. Hu, J. Xu, G. Huang, and Y . Liu, “Observability- aware intrinsic and extrinsic calibration of LiDAR-IMU systems,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3734–3753, 2022

2022
[28]

Laser-to-vehicle extrinsic calibration in low-observability scenarios for subsea mapping,

T. Hitchcox and J. R. Forbes, “Laser-to-vehicle extrinsic calibration in low-observability scenarios for subsea mapping,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. (RAL), vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 3522–3529, 2024

2024
[29]

Road vehicle localization with 2D push- broom LIDAR and 3D priors,

I. Baldwin and P. Newman, “Road vehicle localization with 2D push- broom LIDAR and 3D priors,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), IEEE, 2012, pp. 2611–2617

2012
[30]

Practical considerations and extensions of the invariant extended Kalman filtering framework,

J. Arsenault, “Practical considerations and extensions of the invariant extended Kalman filtering framework,” M.S. thesis, McGill University, 2019

2019
[31]

Farrell, Aided Navigation: GPS with High Rate Sensors

J. Farrell, Aided Navigation: GPS with High Rate Sensors . McGraw- Hill, Inc., 2008

2008
[32]

Full STEAM ahead: Exactly sparse Gaussian process regression for batch continuous-time trajectory esti- mation on SE (3),

S. Anderson and T. D. Barfoot, “Full STEAM ahead: Exactly sparse Gaussian process regression for batch continuous-time trajectory esti- mation on SE (3),” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. (IROS), IEEE, 2015, pp. 157–164

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Radar odometry on SE(3) with constant acceleration motion prior and polar measurement model,

K. Retan, F. Loshaj, and M. Heizmann, “Radar odometry on SE(3) with constant acceleration motion prior and polar measurement model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.05956 , 2022

arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Pointing the way: Refining radar-lidar localization using learned ICP weights,

D. Lisus, J. Laconte, K. Burnett, and T. D. Barfoot, “Pointing the way: Refining radar-lidar localization using learned ICP weights,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08731, 2023

arXiv 2023

[3] [3]

Incorporating Point Uncertainty in Radar SLAM

Y . Xu, Q. Huang, S. Shen, and H. Yin, “Modeling point uncertainty in radar SLAM,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16082 , 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

LOAM: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time,

J. Zhang and S. Singh, “LOAM: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time,” in Robot.: Sci. Syst. (RSS) , Berkeley, CA, vol. 2, 2014, pp. 1–9

work page 2014

[5] [5]

Tightly coupled 3D lidar inertial odometry and mapping,

H. Ye, Y . Chen, and M. Liu, “Tightly coupled 3D lidar inertial odometry and mapping,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), IEEE, 2019, pp. 3144–3150

work page 2019

[6] [6]

3D laser scanner for underwater manipulation,

A. Palomer, P. Ridao, D. Youakim, D. Ribas, J. Forest, and Y . Petillot, “3D laser scanner for underwater manipulation,”Sensors, vol. 18, no. 4, p. 1086, 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Inspection of an underwater structure using point-cloud SLAM with an AUV and a laser scanner,

A. Palomer, P. Ridao, and D. Ribas, “Inspection of an underwater structure using point-cloud SLAM with an AUV and a laser scanner,” J. Field Robot. , vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 1333–1344, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Improving self-consistency in under- water mapping through laser-based loop closure,

T. Hitchcox and J. R. Forbes, “Improving self-consistency in under- water mapping through laser-based loop closure,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1873–1892, 2023

work page 2023