Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

LEMON-Mapping: Loop-Enhanced Large-Scale Multi-Session Point Cloud Merging and Optimization for Globally Consistent Mapping

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LEMON-Mapping claims loop closures should seed map-driven local refinement, not just pose-graph constraints, and reports accurate fusion of up to 20 sessions.

desk verdict A strong engineering paper for multi-robot LiDAR mapping with a genuinely new spatial-BA design, but the proof of its key theoretical lemma is wrong and the safety of the core approximation rests on an unvalidated assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10018 v4 pith:EDKIZ7K2 submitted 2025-05-15 cs.RO

Lijie Wang , Xiaoyi Zhong , Ziyi Xu , Kaixin Chai , Anke Zhao , Tianyu Zhao , Changjian Jiang , Qianhao Wang
show 2 more authors
Xieyuanli Chen Fei Gao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords multi-robotSLAMpointcloudmergingloopclosurebundleadjustmentposegraphoptimizationLiDARmappingglobalconsistencylarge-scale
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

LEMON-Mapping tries to establish that fusing many LiDAR point cloud sessions should be treated as a map-driven registration problem, not just a pose-graph optimization problem. The paper builds a pipeline that filters and recalls loop closures, runs spatial bundle adjustment in local windows around each loop, and then uses two pose graph optimization steps to propagate the local corrections across the whole map. If the claim is right, multi-robot teams exploring large areas can merge many overlapping sessions into a single geometrically accurate map without the divergence and blurring that pure pose-graph methods leave in overlap regions. The reported evidence includes lower absolute trajectory error than two comparison systems on public datasets and a 100% success rate when fusing 5, 10, and 20 sessions from the R3LIVE dataset.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the spatial bundle adjustment: instead of a temporal sliding window, poses are gathered by spatial proximity to each loop closure, so observations of the same plane or line from different robots are optimized together. It comes in two forms—diffusion BA (DBA), which freezes the inner poses near an isolated loop and incrementally adds poses from wider rings, and a spatial hierarchical BA (HBA), which reorders cross-robot poses by principal component analysis so that adjacent poses in the optimization window are spatially close. The rest of the pipeline exists to feed this mechanism and carry its output: a loop processing module rejects false loops and recalls rejected-but-valid ones after the first pose graph, and a final pose graph with sparsified constraints transfers the local alignment to the global map.

What would settle it

Compare diffusion BA against full joint BA on a dataset where odometry noise near the loop is artificially inflated so inner and outer poses have comparable uncertainty; if the frozen-inner approximation relies on Assumption 1, the two outputs will diverge and the DBA map will show systematic misalignment, contradicting the claimed covariance ordering.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that loop closures carry geometric information that traditional multi-robot pose graph optimization wastes: instead of using a loop only as a constraint between two pose nodes, LEMON-Mapping collects every pose inside a spherical window around the loop and jointly optimizes the poses of all robots against the plane features they observe. That spatial bundle adjustment has two variants, one that freezes inner poses and diffuses outward for isolated loops and one that reorders poses by principal component analysis for clusters of loops. A final pose graph, loaded with sparsified bundle-adjustment constraints and odometry edges, then transfers the local alignment to the whole trajectory. The paper reports that this design removes the layered, blurred geometry in overlapping regions, beats two pose-graph-only baselines on the S3E, GEODE, and MARS-LVIG datasets, and merges up to twenty R3LIVE sessions with a 100% success rate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Assumption 1 in Section V-A, namely that the inner poses frozen during diffusion bundle adjustment have significantly smaller measurement noise than the outer poses being added; the paper's stronger claim that this assumption is unnecessary (Lemma 3) appears to rest on a false matrix identity, so the safety of the approximation in practice depends on that unverified noise-ordering assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, multi-robot teams can merge many overlapping sessions into one geometrically accurate map, because the spatial bundle adjustment repairs overlap regions before the global pose graph distributes the correction.
  • Local accuracy from loop regions survives global propagation: the final pose graph carries sparsified bundle-adjustment constraints, so the whole map inherits the refinement rather than reverting to pose-only consistency.
  • The method scales past the usual three-to-five robot limit: the reported 100% success on 5, 10, and 20 sessions indicates the pipeline does not degrade as the number of sessions grows.
  • Loop recall is a measurable win: recovering rejected-but-valid loops after the first alignment reduces absolute trajectory error in the first pose graph and supplies extra constraints for the later bundle adjustment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the spatial-window idea could be applied to lifelong mapping or collaborative relocalization: any region revisited across sessions becomes a local optimization cell that a global graph stitches together.
  • The theoretical justification for freezing inner poses during diffusion bundle adjustment is less secure than the paper's Lemma 3 claims; the appendix proof appears to contain a false matrix identity, so the practical safety of the approximation currently rests on Assumption 1 that inner poses are far better measured than outer poses.
  • A stricter test of the twenty-session scalability result would measure global map quality against ground truth, since the reported success criterion is correct alignment with neighboring overlapping sessions rather than global end-to-end accuracy.
  • The 2-meter recall threshold and the descriptor-similarity threshold for cross-robot constraints are tunable; datasets with different LiDAR density or motion patterns may require recalibration, making a sensitivity study a natural next step.
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. The paper proposes LEMON-Mapping, a multi-session point-cloud merging and optimization framework for LiDAR mapping. The system comprises a loop-processing module with outlier rejection and a false-negative recall mechanism, a spatial bundle-adjustment stage with two variants (diffusion BA for isolated loops and hierarchical BA for clustered loops), and a two-step pose-graph optimization that propagates local corrections globally. The authors evaluate the framework on the S3E, GEODE, MARS-LVIG, and R3LIVE public datasets plus a self-collected dataset, comparing against DCL-SLAM, LAMM, BALM2, and HBA. They report lower ATE and better MapEval metrics, and a scalability study in which 5, 10, and 20 R3LIVE sessions are said to be merged with 100% success. The central empirical claim is that combining loop recall, spatial BA, and a final PGO yields globally consistent, geometrically accurate multi-robot maps.

Significance. If the experimental results hold, LEMON-Mapping is a practically valuable contribution to multi-robot LiDAR mapping: it engages with a real problem (local divergence and blurring in overlapping multi-session maps), is evaluated on multiple public datasets against external baselines, and includes ablations of the proposed components. The scalability experiment, with up to 20 sessions, is a useful stress test that many existing systems do not attempt. However, the theoretical justification for the diffusion BA (DBA) step relies on Lemma 3, whose proof in Appendix VIII-C is algebraically incorrect and whose statement appears false. Since this lemma is used to claim that freezing inner poses is safe even without assuming inner poses are better measured, the theoretical contribution is not currently established. The paper would be materially improved by either repairing or removing this claim and by validating the underlying Assumption 1 empirically.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V-A and Appendix VIII-C] The proof of Lemma 3 is invalid. In Section VIII-C1, the claimed identity L_ij Σ L_ij^T - diag(0, 1L_ij Σ 1L_ij^T) = [0L_ij; 0] Σ [0L_ij; 0]^T is wrong: subtracting the bottom-right block leaves the off-diagonal blocks 0L_ij Σ 1L_ij^T and 1L_ij Σ 0L_ij^T in the residual, and those are not zero. Consequently inequality (15) does not follow. The later Schur-complement step is also not valid as stated: the bottom-right block of H^{-1} M H^{-T} is not S^{-1} M_11 S^{-T}; cross terms involving M_00 and M_01 enter. In fact the claimed ordering is false: with H = [[1,0.9],[0.9,1]] and M = [[1,0.9999],[0.9999,1]], the joint covariance of the active block is about 0.28 while the DBA covariance is 1, contradicting Σ_DBA^1 ⪯ Σ_joint^11. The lemma therefore cannot be used to justify DBA.
  2. [Section V-A, Assumption 1 and Eq. (7)] With Lemma 3 false, the safety of freezing the inner pose block in DBA rests entirely on Assumption 1, which states that the inner LiDAR poses have significantly smaller measurement noise covariance than the outer poses. The paper does not validate this assumption in any experiment: the two refinement rates r_H and r_J defined in Eq. (7) are never measured, and no loop geometry is reported in which the coupling terms are shown to be negligible. I request either an empirical validation of Assumption 1 (e.g., reporting r_H and r_J across the tested loop closures) or a weakened theoretical statement that explicitly relies on the assumption, together with evidence that the assumption holds in the experiments.
  3. [Section VII-F, Table IX] The scalability claim of a 100% success rate for 5, 10, and 20 sessions is weakened by the binary success criterion. The definition given, 'correct alignment of each session with all its adjacent sessions that shares sufficient map overlap,' does not state a quantitative threshold, and no trajectory or map-quality metric is reported for these runs. Please report per-session ATE/RMSE or a quantitative alignment-error threshold for the three scalability cases, so that the 'success' claim is falsifiable and comparable with the other experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-B] There is a typo: 'limitted' should be 'limited.'
  2. [Section VII-A and Table II] The layout of Table II and the caption do not clearly separate the dataset name from the number of robots; consider a more explicit table structure.
  3. [Section VII-C, Table IV] The formatting of Table IV appears corrupted in places (e.g., the spacing between values and the '×' entries); please ensure the table typesets correctly.
  4. [Section VII-D, Table V] The MapEval metrics are reported for only three sequences of MARS-LVIG; it would be helpful to state explicitly whether the remaining MARS-LVIG sequences were omitted because of missing ground-truth maps or runtime constraints.
  5. [Section V-A, Eq. (9)] The covariance expression in Eq. (9) would benefit from an explicit index of summation over j and from a sentence explaining why the cross terms between different feature clusters vanish or are neglected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the derivation and evaluation are self-contained against external data and baselines, with the invalid Lemma 3 proof being a correctness concern rather than a circularity. The sole overlapping self-citation is peripheral and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular. The spatial DBA rests on an explicit statistical assumption, Assumption 1, that inner poses have significantly smaller measurement noise covariance than outer poses; the refinement rates r_H and r_J in Eq. 7 are defined as ratios of coupling contributions and are used to show that under that assumption the fast DBA update approximates the joint update. This is a stated assumption used as an input, not a quantity fitted to the reported outputs, and the comparison between DBA and joint BA is a mathematical derivation rather than a renamed prediction. Lemma 3 attempts to prove a stronger covariance ordering without the assumption, but the appendix proof contains an invalid matrix identity and an invalid Schur-complement step; if the lemma is false, the practical safety of freezing inner poses depends on Assumption 1, which is an unvalidated domain assumption. That is a correctness and empirical-validation weakness, not circularity: the paper does not obtain the lemma by assuming its conclusion or by fitting to benchmarks. The experimental evaluation is also self-contained: it is run on public datasets (S3E, GEODE, MARS-LVIG, R3LIVE) and a self-collected dataset, against external baselines (BALM2, HBA, DCL-SLAM, LAMM), using external metrics such as ATE RMSE, AWD, CD, SCS, and MME with ground-truth maps or established MapEval metrics. Hyperparameters such as the 2 m loop-recall distance are chosen heuristically and are not fitted to the reported outcomes in a way that would force the comparisons. The only overlapping self-citation is reference [34], which appears as one entry among offline map-fusion techniques in the related-work survey and plays no role in the derivation, the theoretical claims, or the benchmark results. It is therefore not load-bearing. For these reasons, no circular step is identifiable, and the appropriate circularity score is 0; the invalid proof of Lemma 3 and the unverified Assumption 1 should be treated as correctness risks rather than as circular reasoning. The 100% success-rate claim in Table IX is an evaluation outcome under an explicit success criterion, not a predication that reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework depends on several user-set thresholds and the domain assumption that plane-based BA transfers across robots. The paper's key theoretical claim that DBA is no worse than joint BA is not proven, leaving Assumption 1 as the main load-bearing premise.

free parameters (6)
  • Loop recall distance threshold = 2 m
    Loops whose poses are within 2 m after the first PGO are re-added; set by hand, it controls how many false negatives are recovered.
  • Loop clustering radius
    Predefined BFS region-growing radius for classifying loops as clustered or isolated; not specified numerically.
  • Spatial BA window radius
    Radius of the spherical window around each loop used to select poses for BA; affects local optimization scope and is not quantified.
  • Outlier rejection thresholds
    Inlier-count threshold and GICP fitness thresholds for accepting loops; not fully specified.
  • BA constraint sparsification threshold
    Minimum eigenvalue λ_min of the registration covariance for keeping a same-robot BA constraint; threshold not given.
  • Odometry constraint weights (high/low)
    Weights in the last PGO for BA-adjacent vs non-optimized pose pairs; chosen manually and influence the global-local tradeoff.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: inner poses in a diffusion group have significantly smaller measurement noise covariance than outer poses
    Introduced in Section V-A to justify freezing inner poses in DBA. The paper's Lemma 3 tries to remove this assumption, but the proof fails.
  • domain assumption Plane features are reliable geometric primitives for the environments tested
    BALM2-style plane-based BA underlies DBA and HBA; in unstructured environments with few planes the constraints weaken.
  • domain assumption RING++ provides sufficiently good initial loop pose estimates for GICP refinement
    Section IV-A initializes GICP with the RING++ transformation; if loop detection is inaccurate, outlier rejection may remove valid loops or accept bad ones.
  • standard math Standard mathematical results: spectral theorem, continuity of eigenvalues, Schur complement, PSD inverse ordering
    Used in the appendix proofs of Lemmas 1-3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LEMON-Mapping: Loop-Enhanced Large-Scale Multi-Session Point Cloud Merging and Optimization for Globally Consistent Mapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EDKIZ7K2

@misc{pith2026250510018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LEMON-Mapping: Loop-Enhanced Large-Scale Multi-Session Point Cloud Merging and Optimization for Globally Consistent Mapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EDKIZ7K2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10018}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-robot collaboration is becoming increasingly critical and presents significant challenges in modern robotics, especially for building a globally consistent, accurate map. Traditional multi-robot pose graph optimization (PGO) methods ensure basic global consistency but ignore the geometric structure of the map, and only use loop closures as constraints between pose nodes, leading to divergence and blurring in overlapping regions. To address this issue, we propose LEMON-Mapping, a loop-enhanced framework for large-scale, multi-session point cloud fusion and optimization. We re-examine the role of loops for multi-robot mapping and introduce three key innovations. First, we develop a robust loop processing mechanism that rejects outliers and a loop recall strategy to recover mistakenly removed but valid loops. Second, we introduce spatial bundle adjustment for multi-robot maps, reducing divergence and eliminating blurring in overlaps. Third, we design a PGO-based approach that leverages refined bundle adjustment constraints to propagate local accuracy to the entire map. We validate LEMON-Mapping on several public datasets and a self-collected dataset. The experimental results show superior mapping accuracy and global consistency of our framework compared to traditional merging methods. Scalability experiments also demonstrate its strong capability to handle scenarios involving numerous robots.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10018 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The merging map of our framework in island sequence of MARS-LVIG [1] dataset, the details in the figure are framed and shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of our method. Our framework takes multi-robot submaps ,odometry and loop closures as input, and generates accurate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of loop classification in S3E Campus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The red and green nodes in the left part show the trajectories of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) shows the multi-robot poses in a spatial window. (b) shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Result of single-robot study in our Garage dataset. (a) shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The map merging result of S3E library. The local maps generated by three methods are selected for comparison. Our method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The optimized trajectory, position, and position error for proposed method in MARS-LVIG Island ((a)-(c)) and Town ((d)-(f)). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of multi-robot trajectories and error between our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visualization of Wasserstein distance errors on the Island [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (a) shows the global map in Laboratory with loop recall. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Result of ablation study in our Flying Arena dataset. (a) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The map comparison of coarse registration (a) and fine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: The map merging result of the five-session dataset in R [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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. Konget al., “Mars-lvig dataset: A multi-sensor aerial robots slam dataset for lidar-visual-inertial-gnss fusion,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1114–1127, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Safety-assured high-speed navigation for mavs,

    Y . Ren, F. Zhu, G. Lu, Y . Cai, L. Yin, F. Kong, J. Lin, N. Chen, and F. Zhang, “Safety-assured high-speed navigation for mavs,”Science Robotics, vol. 10, no. 98, p. eado6187, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    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,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Swarm-lio2: Decentralized efficient lidar-inertial odometry for aerial swarm systems,

    F. Zhu, Y . Ren, L. Yin, F. Kong, Q. Liu, R. Xue, W. Liu, Y . Cai, G. Lu, H. Li, and F. Zhang, “Swarm-lio2: Decentralized efficient lidar-inertial odometry for aerial swarm systems,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Deep learning for image and point cloud fusion in autonomous driving: A review,

    Y . Cui, R. Chen, W. Chu, L. Chen, D. Tian, Y . Li, and D. Cao, “Deep learning for image and point cloud fusion in autonomous driving: A review,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Rog-map: An efficient robocentric occupancy grid map for large-scene and high- resolution lidar-based motion planning,

    Y . Ren, Y . Cai, F. Zhu, S. Liang, and F. Zhang, “Rog-map: An efficient robocentric occupancy grid map for large-scene and high- resolution lidar-based motion planning,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    iplanner: Imperative path planning,

    F. Yang, C. Wang, C. Cadena, and M. Hutter, “iplanner: Imperative path planning,”Proceedings of Robotics: Science and System XIX, p. 064, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Viplanner: Visual semantic imperative learning for local navigation,

    P. Roth, J. Nubert, F. Yang, M. Mittal, and M. Hutter, “Viplanner: Visual semantic imperative learning for local navigation,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2024, pp. 5243–5249

    work page 2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    An autonomous multi-uav system for search and rescue,

    J. Scherer, S. Yahyanejad, S. Hayat, E. Yanmaz, T. Andre, A. Khan, V . Vukadinovic, C. Bettstetter, H. Hellwagner, and B. Rinner, “An autonomous multi-uav system for search and rescue,” inProceedings of the first workshop on micro aerial vehicle networks, systems, and applicat...

    2015

  2. [10]

    A multi- drone system proof of concept for forestry applications,

    A. G. Ara ´ujo, C. A. Pizzino, M. S. Couceiro, and R. P. Rocha, “A multi- drone system proof of concept for forestry applications,”Drones, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 80, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Darpa subterranean challenge: Multi-robotic exploration of underground environments,

    T. Rou ˇcek, M. Pecka, P. ˇC´ıˇzek, T. Pet ˇr´ıˇcek, J. Bayer, V . ˇSalansk`y, D. He ˇrt, M. Petrl ´ık, T. B ´aˇca, V . Spurn `yet al., “Darpa subterranean challenge: Multi-robotic exploration of underground environments,” in Modelling and Simulation for Autonomous Systems: 6t...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Loam: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time

    J. Zhang, S. Singhet al., “Loam: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time.” inRobotics: Science and systems, vol. 2, no. 9. Berkeley, CA, 2014, pp. 1–9

    2014

  5. [13]

    Slict: Multi- input multi-scale surfel-based lidar-inertial continuous-time odometry and mapping,

    T.-M. Nguyen, D. Duberg, P. Jensfelt, S. Yuan, and L. Xie, “Slict: Multi- input multi-scale surfel-based lidar-inertial continuous-time odometry and mapping,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2102–2109, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar- inertial odometry,

    W. Xu, Y . Cai, D. He, J. Lin, and F. Zhang, “Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar- inertial odometry,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2053–2073, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Faster-lio: Lightweight tightly coupled lidar-inertial odometry using parallel sparse incremental voxels,

    C. Bai, T. Xiao, Y . Chen, H. Wang, F. Zhang, and X. Gao, “Faster-lio: Lightweight tightly coupled lidar-inertial odometry using parallel sparse incremental voxels,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4861–4868, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    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,” in2023 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 3983–3989

    2023

  9. [17]

    Point-lio: Robust high-bandwidth light detection and ranging inertial odometry,

    D. He, W. Xu, N. Chen, F. Kong, C. Yuan, and F. Zhang, “Point-lio: Robust high-bandwidth light detection and ranging inertial odometry,” Advanced Intelligent Systems, vol. 5, no. 7, p. 2200459, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    G2o: A general framework for graph optimization,

    R. K ¨ummerle, G. Grisetti, H. Strasdat, K. Konolige, and W. Burgard, “G2o: A general framework for graph optimization,” in2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2011, pp. 3607– 3613

    2011

  11. [19]

    Std: Stable triangle descriptor for 3d place recognition,

    C. Yuan, J. Lin, Z. Zou, X. Hong, and F. Zhang, “Std: Stable triangle descriptor for 3d place recognition,” in2023 IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 1897–1903

    2023

  12. [20]

    Btc: A binary and triangle combined descriptor for 3-d place recognition,

    C. Yuan, J. Lin, Z. Liu, H. Wei, X. Hong, and F. Zhang, “Btc: A binary and triangle combined descriptor for 3-d place recognition,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 1580–1599, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Ring++: Roto-translation invariant gram for global localization on a sparse scan map,

    X. Xu, S. Lu, J. Wu, H. Lu, Q. Zhu, Y . Liao, R. Xiong, and Y . Wang, “Ring++: Roto-translation invariant gram for global localization on a sparse scan map,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 4616–4635, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Overlapnet: Loop closing for lidar-based slam,

    X. Chen, T. L ¨abe, A. Milioto, T. R ¨ohling, O. Vysotska, A. Haag, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Overlapnet: Loop closing for lidar-based slam,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.11344, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Balm: Bundle adjustment for lidar mapping,

    Z. Liu and F. Zhang, “Balm: Bundle adjustment for lidar mapping,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3184–3191, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Efficient and consistent bundle adjustment on lidar point clouds,

    Z. Liu, X. Liu, and F. Zhang, “Efficient and consistent bundle adjustment on lidar point clouds,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 4366–4386, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Large-scale lidar consistent mapping using hierarchical lidar bundle adjustment,

    X. Liu, Z. Liu, F. Kong, and F. Zhang, “Large-scale lidar consistent mapping using hierarchical lidar bundle adjustment,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1523–1530, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Pss-ba: Lidar bundle adjustment with progressive spatial smoothing,

    J. Li, T.-M. Nguyen, S. Yuan, and L. Xie, “Pss-ba: Lidar bundle adjustment with progressive spatial smoothing,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2024, pp. 1124–1129

    2024

  19. [27]

    Dcl-slam: A distributed collaborative lidar slam framework for a robotic swarm,

    S. Zhong, Y . Qi, Z. Chen, J. Wu, H. Chen, and M. Liu, “Dcl-slam: A distributed collaborative lidar slam framework for a robotic swarm,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 4786–4797, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Disco-slam: Distributed scan context-enabled multi-robot lidar slam with two-stage global-local graph optimization,

    Y . Huang, T. Shan, F. Chen, and B. Englot, “Disco-slam: Distributed scan context-enabled multi-robot lidar slam with two-stage global-local graph optimization,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1150–1157, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Large-scale multi-session point-cloud map merging,

    H. Wei, R. Li, Y . Cai, C. Yuan, Y . Ren, Z. Zou, H. Wu, C. Zheng, S. Zhou, K. Xue, and F. Zhang, “Large-scale multi-session point-cloud map merging,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    2025

  22. [30]

    Automerge: A framework for map assembling and smoothing in city- scale environments,

    P. Yin, S. Zhao, H. Lai, R. Ge, J. Zhang, H. Choset, and S. Scherer, “Automerge: A framework for map assembling and smoothing in city- scale environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Pairwise consistent measurement set maximization for robust multi- robot map merging,

    J. G. Mangelson, D. Dominic, R. M. Eustice, and R. Vasudevan, “Pairwise consistent measurement set maximization for robust multi- robot map merging,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Group-kconsistent measurement set maximization for robust outlier detection,

    B. Forsgren, R. Vasudevan, M. Kaess, T. W. McLain, and J. G. Mangelson, “Group-kconsistent measurement set maximization for robust outlier detection,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Group-k consistent measurement set maximization via maximum clique over k-uniform hypergraphs for robust multi-robot map merging,

    B. Forsgren, M. Kaess, R. Vasudevan, T. W. McLain, and J. G. Mangel- son, “Group-k consistent measurement set maximization via maximum clique over k-uniform hypergraphs for robust multi-robot map merging,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 43, no. 14, pp. 22...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Lidar-vggt: Cross-modal coarse-to-fine fusion for globally consistent and metric- scale dense mapping,

    L. Wang, L. Guo, Z. Xu, Q. Wang, F. Gao, and X. Chen, “Lidar-vggt: Cross-modal coarse-to-fine fusion for globally consistent and metric- scale dense mapping,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01186, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Towards a robust back-end for pose graph slam,

    N. S ¨underhauf and P. Protzel, “Towards a robust back-end for pose graph slam,” in2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2012, pp. 1254–1261

    2012

  28. [36]

    Icp-based pose-graph slam,

    E. Mendes, P. Koch, and S. Lacroix, “Icp-based pose-graph slam,” in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), 2016, pp. 195–200

    2016

  29. [37]

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

    T. Shan, B. Englot, D. Meyers, W. Wang, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, “Lio-sam: Tightly-coupled lidar inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 5135–5142

    2020

  30. [38]

    Robust second-order lidar bundle adjustment algorithm using mean squared group metric,

    T. Ma, B. Xia, Y . Ou, J. Wang, and S. Xu, “Robust second-order lidar bundle adjustment algorithm using mean squared group metric,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Smmr- explore: Submap-based multi-robot exploration system with multi-robot multi-target potential field exploration method,

    J. Yu, J. Tong, Y . Xu, Z. Xu, H. Dong, T. Yang, and Y . Wang, “Smmr- explore: Submap-based multi-robot exploration system with multi-robot multi-target potential field exploration method,” in2021 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, p...

    2021

  32. [40]

    Mr-gmmexplore: Multi-robot exploration system in unknown environ- ments based on gaussian mixture model,

    Y . Wu, Q. Gu, J. Yu, G. Ge, J. Wang, Q. Liao, C. Zhang, and Y . Wang, “Mr-gmmexplore: Multi-robot exploration system in unknown environ- ments based on gaussian mixture model,” in2022 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1198–1203

    2022

  33. [41]

    Segmap: 3d segment mapping using data-driven descriptors,

    R. Dub ´e, A. Cramariuc, D. Dugas, J. Nieto, R. Siegwart, and C. Cadena, “Segmap: 3d segment mapping using data-driven descriptors,” inRobotics: Science and Systems XIV, ser. RSS2018. Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, Jun. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/1...

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Moving event detection from lidar point streams,

    H. Wu, Y . Li, W. Xu, F. Kong, and F. Zhang, “Moving event detection from lidar point streams,”nature communications, vol. 15, no. 1, p. 345, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,

    M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,”Commun. ACM, 1981

    1981

  36. [44]

    S3e: A multi-robot multimodal dataset for collaborative slam,

    D. Feng, Y . Qi, S. Zhong, Z. Chen, Q. Chen, H. Chen, J. Wu, and J. Ma, “S3e: A multi-robot multimodal dataset for collaborative slam,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Generalized-icp

    A. Segal, D. Haehnel, and S. Thrun, “Generalized-icp.” inRobotics: science and systems, vol. 2, no. 4. Seattle, W A, 2009, p. 435

    2009

  38. [46]

    Towards 3d point cloud based object maps for household environments,

    R. B. Rusu, Z. C. Marton, N. Blodow, M. Dolha, and M. Beetz, “Towards 3d point cloud based object maps for household environments,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 927–941, 2008

    2008

  39. [47]

    Principal components analysis (pca),

    A. Ma ´ckiewicz and W. Ratajczak, “Principal components analysis (pca),” Computers & Geosciences, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 303–342, 1993

    1993

  40. [48]

    Graph optimality-aware stochastic lidar bundle adjustment with progressive spatial smoothing,

    J. Li, T.-M. Nguyen, M. Cao, S. Yuan, T.-Y . Hung, and L. Xie, “Graph optimality-aware stochastic lidar bundle adjustment with progressive spatial smoothing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14565, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Ros: an open-source robot operating system,

    M. Quigley, K. Conley, B. Gerkey, J. Faust, T. Foote, J. Leibs, R. Wheeler, A. Y . Nget al., “Ros: an open-source robot operating system,” inICRA workshop on open source software, vol. 3, no. 3.2. Kobe, 2009, p. 5

    2009

  42. [50]

    Heterogeneous lidar dataset for benchmarking robust localization in diverse degenerate scenarios,

    Z. Chen, Y . Qi, D. Feng, X. Zhuang, H. Chen, X. Hu, J. Wu, K. Peng, and P. Lu, “Heterogeneous lidar dataset for benchmarking robust localization in diverse degenerate scenarios,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04961, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    R3live: A robust, real-time, rgb-colored, lidar- inertial-visual tightly-coupled state estimation and mapping package,

    J. Lin and F. Zhang, “R3live: A robust, real-time, rgb-colored, lidar- inertial-visual tightly-coupled state estimation and mapping package,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 10 672–10 678

    2022

  44. [52]

    Mapeval: Towards unified, robust and efficient slam map evaluation framework,

    X. Hu, J. Wu, M. Jia, H. Yan, Y . Jiang, B. Jiang, W. Zhang, W. He, and P. Tan, “Mapeval: Towards unified, robust and efficient slam map evaluation framework,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 4228–4235, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.