Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 45 references

UAV See, UGV Do: Aerial Imagery and Virtual Teach Enabling Zero-Shot Ground Vehicle Repeat

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A ground robot can learn a route purely from drone imagery and a simulated driving pass, then repeat it in the real world with roughly 19 cm lateral error, without GPS or a human-led teach run.

desk verdict A real zero-shot teach-and-repeat system with an honest write-up, but the headline comparison to LiDAR T&R rests on an internal benchmark that cancels the very error it claims to measure. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16912 v2 pith:6FLZLLOR submitted 2025-05-22 cs.RO

Desiree Fisker , Alexander Krawciw , Sven Lilge , Melissa Greeff , Timothy D. Barfoot This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords virtualteachandrepeatneuralradiancefieldsaerialimagerymappingGPS-deniednavigationLiDARlocalizationzero-shotsim-to-realtransfergroundrobotpathfollowing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that a ground robot can be taught a route it has never driven, using only aerial photographs of the area and a simulated driving pass. A Neural Radiance Field (NeRF) built from drone images yields both a textured mesh, in which a human pilot steers a simulated robot to define the route, and a dense point cloud, which the real robot uses to localize itself by matching its LiDAR scans. Over more than 12 km of autonomous repeats on four outdoor routes, the measured lateral errors were 19.5 cm and 18.4 cm root mean square in the two environments equipped with physical markings, slightly under one tire width. The point would matter because it removes the human teach run and GPS from route following, allowing one aerial survey to support many later ground missions in remote or hazardous places.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing pair of objects is the NeRF-derived mesh and point cloud produced from one aerial image set. The mesh provides a visually faithful simulation in which an operator pilots the ground vehicle to record the desired path as relative transformations; the point cloud is cut into cylindrical submaps attached to path vertices and serves as the localization layer, against which live LiDAR scans are registered with point-to-plane ICP. The evaluation is carried by spray-paint markings: marks placed beside the real tire appear in the drone imagery, the reconstruction, and the mesh, so any reconstruction drift is applied equally to the markings, the virtual path, and the localization cloud, and therefore cancels in the hand-measured lateral offsets.

What would settle it

Survey a test loop with ground-control points of known absolute position, run VirT&R, and compare the executed path against surveyed truth rather than reconstructed markings; if the absolute error is substantially larger than the reported 19 cm, the drift-cancellation premise fails. A supporting check is to align a LiDAR survey of the same scene with the NeRF point cloud and measure where their local separation exceeds the reported error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that VirT&R achieves closed-loop path-following performance similar to LiDAR Teach and Repeat while eliminating the manual teach phase. The repeated route is defined entirely in a simulator built from a NeRF reconstruction of the target environment, and execution in the real world relies solely on NeRF-derived point-cloud submaps for LiDAR localization. The paper reports measured lateral RMSE of 19.5 cm and 18.4 cm and maximum errors of 47.6 cm and 39.4 cm on two marked loops, with repeat-to-repeat deviations that stay mostly small and grow in tight turns, and it interprets these numbers as evidence that NeRF-generated localization layers are a viable replacement for LiDAR-built ones in the Teach and Repeat framework.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical result depends on the assumption that distortion from the aerial-image-to-NeRF reconstruction shifts the spray-paint marks, the simulated path, and the localization point cloud by the same amount, so that the error cancels in the measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One aerial survey can support multiple independently piloted routes in the same environment without new data capture or any physical presence on site.
  • VirT&R preserves the GPS-denied, topometric character of Teach and Repeat, so global metric accuracy of the NeRF model is not required as long as the submaps are locally consistent enough for ICP.
  • The under-10 cm spread across repeated measurements at each mark indicates the robot returns to the same lateral lane repeatedly, even with moving cars, pedestrians, and snow banks present.
  • Tight turns and feature-poor, flat terrain are the cases where lateral error grows most, pointing to the localization layer, not the control stack, as the limiting component.
  • The 12.4 km of autonomous repeats across four routes supports the paper's claim that the approach is consistent enough for repeated missions, not just a single demonstration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the marking-based metric measures control-and-localization error under the drift-cancellation assumption, not the absolute geometric accuracy of the NeRF reconstruction; a surveyed ground-truth comparison would separate these.
  • Beyond the paper: since the online repeat is unchanged from LiDAR Teach and Repeat, the virtual-teaching idea should transfer to any scene representation that supplies both a drivable mesh and a LiDAR-like dense point cloud, such as classic photogrammetry.
  • Beyond the paper: the reported failure on a flat grassy loop suggests an explicit, testable texture threshold below which point-to-plane ICP on NeRF submaps stops being reliable; sweeping that threshold would give future deployments a principled pre-flight check.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes VirT&R, a pipeline that uses UAV-captured aerial imagery to train a NeRF model, extracts a textured mesh for virtual teaching in Gazebo and a dense point cloud for LiDAR-based localization, and then executes the virtually taught path with the existing LT&R stack. The authors report 35 autonomous repeats totaling 12.4 km over four routes, with measured lateral RMSE values of 18.4 cm and 19.5 cm and maximum errors of 47.6 cm and 39.4 cm on two routes marked with spray paint. These are compared with LT&R baseline values of 8.9 cm and 10.9 cm RMSE and 24.1 cm and 27.9 cm maximum error. The central claim is that VirT&R achieves similar closed-loop path-tracking performance to LT&R without requiring a human to physically teach the path.

Significance. If the quantitative claim were fully supported, this would be a valuable step toward zero-shot route following from aerial imagery, with practical relevance in GPS-denied, hazardous, or hard-to-reach environments. The paper's strengths include the extensive field deployment, the integration of NeRF-generated point clouds with an existing topometric teach-and-repeat framework, and the candid reporting of failure modes such as the Grassy Loop and the abandoned pseudo-GPS evaluation. However, the headline quantitative comparison is currently supported only through a cancellation assumption about reconstruction drift that is not independently validated, and the reported numbers themselves show VirT&R errors roughly double those of LT&R. The contribution is therefore real but the central claim is not yet established at the strength stated in the abstract.

major comments (5)
  1. [II.C] The physical-marking benchmark rests on the statement in Section II.C that 'any drift or distortion from scene reconstruction is applied equally to the markings, the virtual teach path, and the point cloud used for localization.' This cancellation is only valid for a rigid, global transformation. NeRF and Colmap reconstruction errors are typically spatially nonuniform, and the spray-paint markings are 2D textures on the mesh, while the UGV localizes against dense point-cloud geometry (curbs, walls, ground structure). A local warp can displace the rendered mark relative to the geometry used for ICP, in which case the measured offset is not the real-world lateral path-tracking error. The paper itself states that pseudo-GPS evaluation was 'deemed impractical,' which makes this assumption load-bearing. I recommend either adding an independent validation (for example, surveyed ground control points, fiducial tags, or post-processed GNSS with a consistent mounting frame) or explicitly re-scoping the claim to repeatability relative to the virtual teach map rather than absolute real-world path-tracking error.
  2. [Table II] The numerical comparison in the abstract and conclusion is overstated. Measured LT&R lateral RMSE is 8.9 cm on UTIAS Parking and 10.9 cm on Mars Dome, whereas VirT&R is 18.4 cm and 19.5 cm—roughly double. Maximum errors are 24.1 cm and 27.9 cm for LT&R versus 47.6 cm and 39.4 cm for VirT&R. The paper says 'similar closed-loop path-tracking performance,' but the data support a more modest statement such as 'worse, but in the same order of magnitude.' Please provide confidence intervals, per-mark standard deviations, or a statistical test, and adjust the wording of the central claim accordingly.
  3. [II.C] The correction for virtual-pilot imprecision is measured in Gazebo against the same reconstructed spray-paint mark, and its uncertainty is not reported. This correction is used to subtract human piloting error from the VirT&R field measurements, but if the rendered mark is locally displaced from the physical mark by reconstruction warp, the correction is biased in the same way as the measurement it is meant to correct. The manuscript does not state how many simulated measurements were taken, what the distribution of the correction was, or how this uncertainty was propagated into the RMSE values. Please report these details, or alternatively present the raw offsets without the subtraction and discuss the bias separately.
  4. [III.B] Only two of the four routes contribute to the absolute quantitative benchmark; the UTP routes are evaluated only through relative repeat-to-repeat deviation. In addition, the Mars Dome route had a shoveled snow path with less than 30 cm lateral clearance and was described as particularly difficult, so it is not representative of a generic unstructured environment. The abstract's phrase 'two different environments' is accurate, but the conclusion's generalization to 'various environments' should be tempered, and the paper should state plainly that the headline RMSE numbers rest on one paved lot and one partially snow-covered route.
  5. [II.A.3] There is a tension between the topometric map philosophy, which the paper explicitly embraces by saying global metric accuracy of the NeRF model is 'not critical,' and the absolute lateral-error benchmark used to compare with LT&R. If the system is intended only for local topometric repeat, then the comparison with LT&R's absolute path-tracking error is not the right metric; if absolute accuracy is claimed, then reconstruction error must be measured rather than assumed to cancel. The manuscript should resolve this tension by defining which claim is being made and choosing the corresponding evaluation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 7] The caption calls the figure a 'distribution' of measurements, but the figure appears to show box-and-whisker or similar summary plots; please state explicitly what is plotted (e.g., boxplots over five repeats) and whether all five measurements per mark are shown.
  2. [Table II] The column header 'T&R-Estimated' is ambiguous; use 'LT&R-Estimated' and 'VirT&R-Estimated' to make clear which modality each estimated column refers to.
  3. [IV.B] There is a typo: 'the affect that non-stationary objects ... have' should be 'the effect.'
  4. [V] The discussion of the Grassy Loop failure is valuable, but the conclusion should also mention this limitation rather than only stating that VirT&R 'performed well in the tested environments.'
  5. [II.A.1] The paper says GPS scaling of the NeRF model is optional, but the pseudo-GPS evaluation section refers to 'the GPS data from the UAV that gave the accurate scale to the NeRF model.' Please clarify whether the evaluated scenes used GPS scaling and how this affects the physical-marking measurements.
  6. [IV.A] The ±4 cm measurement uncertainty is stated, but no uncertainty is propagated into the RMSE or maximum-error values in Table II. A simple sensitivity analysis or error bar on the RMSE values would help the reader judge the significance of the difference between VirT&R and LT&R.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spray-paint tape measurements are an external physical benchmark; the reconstruction-drift cancellation claim is a validity assumption, not a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claim is the measured lateral RMSE of VirT&R (about 19 cm) versus LT&R. That number comes from physical tape-measurements of the distance between the UGV tire and spray-paint marks on the ground, which are independent of the NeRF model. Section II.C's statement that 'any drift or distortion from scene reconstruction is applied equally to the markings, the virtual teach path driven alongside them, and the point cloud used for localization' is a common-mode-rejection assumption rather than a definitional identity: the real-world mark positions are not generated by the NeRF, and a non-rigid reconstruction warp would change the physical offset relative to the simulated offset. Thus the cancellation claim is an unverified modeling assumption that threatens the validity of the LT&R comparison, and the paper itself concedes that GPS-based evaluation was 'deemed impractical' and that the measurement methodology has 'inherent errors.' But this is a correctness/validity risk, not circularity: no parameter is fitted and then reported as a prediction, the VirT&R repeat is not defined in terms of its own error, and the system is tested against a physically external reference. The LT&R baseline is run in this paper, so the citation to the authors' prior work [5] is only a sanity check and is not load-bearing. No imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz-by-citation appears. The claimed cancellation could be wrong, but the derivation chain is not circular.

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

No free parameters are fit to the path-tracking results; the system is built from existing tools (Colmap, Nerfacto, Gazebo, VTR3, ICP). The central claim rests on domain assumptions about NeRF fidelity and on an internal marking-based evaluation that cancels reconstruction error. Design choices such as submap save thresholds are not reported numerically, and are treated as unvalidated assumptions.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Aerial monocular drone imagery yields a NeRF point cloud and mesh with sufficient local geometric accuracy and density for point-to-plane ICP localization of a ground LiDAR scanner.
    The whole pipeline depends on this: submap localization uses ICP between UGV LiDAR scans and NeRF-derived point clouds (Sec. II.A.3, II.B). Section V reports failure on flat grassy terrain, showing this assumption does not always hold.
  • domain assumption Spray-paint markings used for PTE measurement are reconstructed consistently in drone imagery, Colmap, NeRF model, and mesh, so that reconstruction error cancels equally in the virtual teach path and the localization submaps.
    This is the basis of the quantitative benchmark in Sec. II.C; if drift is spatially nonuniform, the measured RMSE is not the true path error.
  • domain assumption The topometric pose graph localization approach only needs local metric consistency, not global metric accuracy, of the NeRF point cloud.
    Stated in Sec. II.A.3: it is not critical that the NeRF model is globally metrically accurate. The path is taught in the same inconsistent frame, so local repeats work.
  • ad hoc to paper Human virtual-pilot error when aligning the simulated path to the physical markings can be estimated with a Gazebo ruler model and subtracted from field measurements.
    Sec. II.C introduces the ruler model to separate pilot imprecision from localization and control error; its accuracy is not independently validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UAV See, UGV Do: Aerial Imagery and Virtual Teach Enabling Zero-Shot Ground Vehicle Repeat." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6FLZLLOR

@misc{pith2026250516912,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UAV See, UGV Do: Aerial Imagery and Virtual Teach Enabling Zero-Shot Ground Vehicle Repeat},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6FLZLLOR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16912}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents Virtual Teach and Repeat (VirT&R): an extension of the Teach and Repeat (T&R) framework that enables GPS-denied, zero-shot autonomous ground vehicle navigation in untraversed environments. VirT&R leverages aerial imagery captured for a target environment to train a Neural Radiance Field (NeRF) model so that dense point clouds and photo-textured meshes can be extracted. The NeRF mesh is used to create a high-fidelity simulation of the environment for piloting an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) to virtually define a desired path. The mission can then be executed in the actual target environment by using NeRF-generated point cloud submaps associated along the path and an existing LiDAR Teach and Repeat (LT&R) framework. We benchmark the repeatability of VirT&R on over 12 km of autonomous driving data using physical markings that allow a sim-to-real lateral path-tracking error to be obtained and compared with LT&R. VirT&R achieved measured root mean squared errors (RMSE) of 19.5 cm and 18.4 cm in two different environments, which are slightly less than one tire width (24 cm) on the robot used for testing, and respective maximum errors were 39.4 cm and 47.6 cm. This was done using only the NeRF-derived teach map, demonstrating that VirT&R has similar closed-loop path-tracking performance to LT&R but does not require a human to manually teach the path to the UGV in the actual environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16912 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Step 1: UAV NeRF Model, involves flying a drone to capture aerial imagery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of all NeRF-generated components that make up the pipeline for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the UAV-based mapping and UGV navigation pipeline. Offline Mapping (magenta): A UAV captures images and GPS data, which are processed using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A visualization of a desired real world path with spray paint markings, an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Use of the jig to repeatedly make spray paint marks on the ground next [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualizations of all four loops VirT&R was evaluated on, consisting of urban [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Lateral path-tracking error distribution for measurements of each spray paint [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: VirT&R repeatability is assessed by comparing two repeats made using virtual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Visual teach and repeat for long-range rover autonomy,

    P. Furgale and T. D. Barfoot, “Visual teach and repeat for long-range rover autonomy,” JFR, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 534–560, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Along similar lines: Local obstacle avoidance for long-term autonomous path following,

    J. Sehn, Y . Wu, and T. D. Barfoot, “Along similar lines: Local obstacle avoidance for long-term autonomous path following,” in 2023 20th CRV. IEEE, 2023, pp. 81–88

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Are we ready for radar to replace lidar in all-weather mapping and localization?

    K. Burnett, Y . Wu, D. J. Yoon, A. P. Schoellig, and T. D. Barfoot, “Are we ready for radar to replace lidar in all-weather mapping and localization?” IEEE RAL , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 10 328–10 335, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Driving on point clouds: Motion planning, trajectory optimization, and terrain assess- ment in generic nonplanar environments,

    P. Kr ¨usi, P. Furgale, M. Bosse, and R. Siegwart, “Driving on point clouds: Motion planning, trajectory optimization, and terrain assess- ment in generic nonplanar environments,” JFR, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 940–984, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Radar Teach and Repeat: Architecture and Initial Field Testing

    X. Qiao, A. Krawciw, S. Lilge, and T. D. Barfoot, “Radar teach and repeat: Architecture and initial field testing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10491, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    UA V localization using autoencoded satellite images,

    M. Bianchi and T. D. Barfoot, “UA V localization using autoencoded satellite images,” IEEE RAL , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1761–1768, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Visual localization with google earth images for robust global pose estimation of UA Vs,

    B. Patel, T. D. Barfoot, and A. P. Schoellig, “Visual localization with google earth images for robust global pose estimation of UA Vs,” in IEEE ICRA , 2020, pp. 6491–6497

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    NeRF: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoor- thi, and R. Ng, “NeRF: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” CACM, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    NeRF-LiDAR: Gener- ating realistic lidar point clouds with neural radiance fields,

    J. Zhang, F. Zhang, S. Kuang, and L. Zhang, “NeRF-LiDAR: Gener- ating realistic lidar point clouds with neural radiance fields,” in Proc. of the AAAI Conf. on AI , vol. 38, no. 7, 2024, pp. 7178–7186

    2024

  2. [10]

    Block-NeRF: Scalable Large Scene Neural View Synthesis,

    M. Tancik, V . Casser, X. Yan, S. Pradhan, B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, J. T. Barron, and H. Kretzschmar, “Block-NeRF: Scalable Large Scene Neural View Synthesis,” inProc. of the IEEE/CVF CVPR , 2022, pp. 8248–8258

    2022

  3. [11]

    Mega-NeRF: Scal- able Construction of Large-Scale NeRFs for Virtual Fly-Throughs,

    H. Turki, D. Ramanan, and M. Satyanarayanan, “Mega-NeRF: Scal- able Construction of Large-Scale NeRFs for Virtual Fly-Throughs,” in Proc. of the IEEE/CVF CVPR , 2022, pp. 12 922–12 931

    2022

  4. [12]

    Nerfstudio: A Modular Frame- work for Neural Radiance Field Development,

    M. Tancik, E. Weber, E. Ng, R. Li, B. Yi, T. Wang, A. Kristoffersen, J. Austin, K. Salahi, A. Ahuja, et al., “Nerfstudio: A Modular Frame- work for Neural Radiance Field Development,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 conference proceedings , 2023, pp. 1–12

    2023

  5. [13]

    Loc-NeRF: Monte Carlo Localization using Neural Radiance Fields,

    D. Maggio, M. Abate, J. Shi, C. Mario, and L. Carlone, “Loc-NeRF: Monte Carlo Localization using Neural Radiance Fields,” in IEEE ICRA, 2023, pp. 4018–4025

    2023

  6. [14]

    (2020) Warthog Unmanned Ground Vehicle

    Clearpath Robotics. (2020) Warthog Unmanned Ground Vehicle. [Online]. Available: https://clearpathrobotics.com/ %20warthog-unmanned-ground-vehicle-robot/

    2020

  7. [15]

    Support for Phantom 4 Pro

    DJI, “Support for Phantom 4 Pro.” [Online]. Available: https: //www.dji.com/ca/support/product/phantom-4-pro

  8. [16]

    Ouster OS1 LiDAR,

    “Ouster OS1 LiDAR,” Available Online [https://ouster.com/products/ scanning-lidar/os1-sensor]

  9. [17]

    Self-Supervised Feature Learning for Long-Term Metric Visual Localization,

    Y . Chen and T. D. Barfoot, “Self-Supervised Feature Learning for Long-Term Metric Visual Localization,” IEEE RAL , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 472–479, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Keeping an Eye on Things: Deep Learned Features for Long-Term Visual Localization,

    M. Gridseth and T. D. Barfoot, “Keeping an Eye on Things: Deep Learned Features for Long-Term Visual Localization,” IEEE RAL , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1016–1023, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

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

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

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Flynerf: Nerf-based aerial mapping for high-quality 3d scene reconstruction,

    M. Dronova, V . Cheremnykh, A. Kotcov, A. Fedoseev, and D. Tset- serukou, “Flynerf: Nerf-based aerial mapping for high-quality 3d scene reconstruction,” in 2024 ICUAS. IEEE, 2024, pp. 1050–1055

    2024

  13. [21]

    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/RSJ IROS, 2023, pp. 3437–3444

    2023

  14. [22]

    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 Proc. of the IEEE/CVF CVPR , 2022, pp. 12 786–12 796

    2022

  15. [23]

    NICER-SLAM: Neural Implicit Scene Encoding for RGB SLAM,

    Z. Zhu, S. Peng, V . Larsson, Z. Cui, M. R. Oswald, A. Geiger, and M. Pollefeys, “NICER-SLAM: Neural Implicit Scene Encoding for RGB SLAM,” in Int. Conf. on 3D Vision . IEEE, 2024, pp. 42–52

    2024

  16. [24]

    Towards Open World NeRF- Based SLAM,

    D. Lisus, C. Holmes, and S. Waslander, “Towards Open World NeRF- Based SLAM,” in 2023 20th CRV . IEEE, 2023, pp. 37–44

    2023

  17. [25]

    NeRF-LOAM: Neural Implicit Representation for Large- Scale Incremental LiDAR Odometry and Mapping,

    J. Deng, Q. Wu, X. Chen, S. Xia, Z. Sun, G. Liu, W. Yu, and L. Pei, “NeRF-LOAM: Neural Implicit Representation for Large- Scale Incremental LiDAR Odometry and Mapping,” in Proc. of the IEEE/CVF Int. Conf. on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 8218–8227

    2023

  18. [26]

    NeRF-VINS: A Real-time Neural Radiance Field Map-based Visual-Inertial Navigation System,

    S. Katragadda, W. Lee, Y . Peng, P. Geneva, C. Chen, C. Guo, M. Li, and G. Huang, “NeRF-VINS: A Real-time Neural Radiance Field Map-based Visual-Inertial Navigation System,” in IEEE ICRA , 2024, pp. 10 230–10 237

    2024

  19. [27]

    NVINS: Ro- bust Visual Inertial Navigation Fused with NeRF-augmented Camera Pose Regressor and Uncertainty Quantification,

    J. Han, L. L. Beyer, G. V . Cavalheiro, and S. Karaman, “NVINS: Ro- bust Visual Inertial Navigation Fused with NeRF-augmented Camera Pose Regressor and Uncertainty Quantification,” in IEEE/RSJ IROS , 2024, pp. 12 601–12 608

    2024

  20. [28]

    Rapid-Mapping: LiDAR- Visual Implicit Neural Representations for Real-Time Dense Map- ping,

    H. Zhang, Y . Zou, Z. Yan, and H. Cheng, “Rapid-Mapping: LiDAR- Visual Implicit Neural Representations for Real-Time Dense Map- ping,” IEEE RAL , vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 8154–8161, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    LocNDF: Neural Distance Field Mapping for Robot Localization,

    L. Wiesmann, T. Guadagnino, I. Vizzo, N. Zimmerman, Y . Pan, H. Kuang, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “LocNDF: Neural Distance Field Mapping for Robot Localization,” IEEE RAL , vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 4999–5006, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    NeuRAD: Neural Rendering for Autonomous Driving,

    A. Tonderski, C. Lindstr ¨om, G. Hess, W. Ljungbergh, L. Svensson, and C. Petersson, “NeuRAD: Neural Rendering for Autonomous Driving,” in IEEE/CVF CVPR , 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Relative Drone-Ground Vehicle Localization using LiDAR and Fisheye Cam- eras through Direct and Indirect Observations,

    J. Hausberg, R. Ishikawa, M. Roxas, and T. Oishi, “Relative Drone-Ground Vehicle Localization using LiDAR and Fisheye Cam- eras through Direct and Indirect Observations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.07008, 2020

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Localization of UGV Guided by UA V Using Visual Inertia Sensors and UWB,

    S. Qian, L. Cheng, X. Xu, and M. Ren, “Localization of UGV Guided by UA V Using Visual Inertia Sensors and UWB,” in IEEE 18th Int. Conf. on Control & Automation , 2024, pp. 906–911

    2024

  25. [33]

    Autonomous Exploration and Mapping System Using Heterogeneous UA Vs and UGVs in GPS-Denied Environments,

    H. Qin, Z. Meng, W. Meng, X. Chen, H. Sun, F. Lin, and M. H. Ang, “Autonomous Exploration and Mapping System Using Heterogeneous UA Vs and UGVs in GPS-Denied Environments,” IEEE Trans. on V ehicular Tech., vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 1339–1350, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Bird’s eye view: Cooperative exploration by UGV and UA V,

    S. Hood, K. Benson, P. Hamod, D. Madison, J. M. O’Kane, and I. Rekleitis, “Bird’s eye view: Cooperative exploration by UGV and UA V,” in Int. Conf. on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) , 2017, pp. 247–255

    2017

  27. [35]

    Multi-UA V-based stereo vision system without GPS for ground obstacle mapping to assist path planning of UGV,

    J. H. Kim, J.-W. Kwon, and J. Seo, “Multi-UA V-based stereo vision system without GPS for ground obstacle mapping to assist path planning of UGV,” Elec Letters, vol. 50, no. 20, pp. 1431–1432, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    A Framework for a Cooperative UA V-UGV System for Path Discovery and Planning,

    A. Lakas, B. Belkhouche, O. Benkraouda, A. Shuaib, and H. J. Alas- mawi, “A Framework for a Cooperative UA V-UGV System for Path Discovery and Planning,” in Int. Conf. on Innovations in Information Tech., 2018, pp. 42–46

    2018

  29. [37]

    Neural Radiance Maps for Extraterres- trial Navigation and Path Planning,

    A. Dai, S. Gupta, and G. Gao, “Neural Radiance Maps for Extraterres- trial Navigation and Path Planning,” in Proc. of the 36th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Naviga- tion, 2023, pp. 1606–1620

    2023

  30. [38]

    Robotic Coverage for Continuous Mapping Ahead of a Moving Vehicle,

    B. Gilhuly and S. L. Smith, “Robotic Coverage for Continuous Mapping Ahead of a Moving Vehicle,” inIEEE 58th Conf. on Decision and Control, 2019, pp. 8224–8229

    2019

  31. [39]

    Aerial-Ground Col- laborative Continuous Risk Mapping for Autonomous Driving of Unmanned Ground Vehicle in Off-Road Environments,

    R. Wang, K. Wang, W. Song, and M. Fu, “Aerial-Ground Col- laborative Continuous Risk Mapping for Autonomous Driving of Unmanned Ground Vehicle in Off-Road Environments,” IEEE Trans. on Aerospace and Elec. Systems , vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 9026–9041, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Guidance Drone: Navigating Perception-Failure UGV with UA V Assistance in Cluttered Environ- ments,

    P. Yang, Z. Li, H. Yan, and K. Rao, “Guidance Drone: Navigating Perception-Failure UGV with UA V Assistance in Cluttered Environ- ments,” in 14th Asian Control Conference , 2024, pp. 332–337

    2024

  33. [41]

    Structure-from-Motion Revis- ited,

    J. L. Sch ¨onberger and J.-M. Frahm, “Structure-from-Motion Revis- ited,” in CVPR, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,

    T. M ¨uller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller, “Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,” ACM Trans. on Graphics, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Available: https://classic.gazebosim.org/

    Gazebo, “Gazebo.” [Online]. Available: https://classic.gazebosim.org/

  36. [44]

    Object modeling by registration of multiple range images,

    Y . Chen and G. Medioni, “Object modeling by registration of multiple range images,” Image and Vision Computing , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 145– 155, 1992

    1992

  37. [45]

    NovAtel SMART6 GPS,

    “NovAtel SMART6 GPS,” Available Online [https: //novatel.com/support/previous-generation-products-drop-down/ previous-generation-products/smart6-smart-antenna]

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.