Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

IRS: Instance-Level 3D Scene Graphs via Room Prior Guided LiDAR-Camera Fusion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 IRS builds instance-level 3D scene graphs in minutes rather than hours by using LiDAR-derived room priors to make instance fusion parallel and room-local.

desk verdict The room-prior idea is real and the speedup is substantial, but the paper's own ablation shows the room prior hurts top5 accuracy, and the headline 40-50x speedup rests on an apples-to-oranges comparison with HOV-SG. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06804 v1 pith:3H3SQBKO submitted 2025-06-07 cs.RO

Hongming Chen , Yiyang Lin , Ziliang Li , Biyu Ye , Yuying Zhang , Ximin Lyu This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords 3Dscenegraphinstance-levelsemanticmappingLiDAR-camerafusionroomsegmentationopen-vocabularyqueryingvisualfoundationmodelsparallelinstancelanguage-guidednavigation
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 claims that room-level geometry, recovered cheaply from LiDAR's 360-degree scans, can serve as a prior to organize instance-level semantic fusion, and that this makes 3D scene graph construction far faster than prior vision-foundation-model approaches. In benchmark scenes, IRS builds graphs in 118 and 80 seconds while HOV-SG takes 5,221 and 4,263 seconds, with top-5 semantic accuracy and class-agnostic instance AP staying competitive. The practical significance is that open-vocabulary, queryable 3D scene graphs could shift from an offline, hours-long process to something a robot can construct during a single traversal. The authors also demonstrate language-guided cross-room navigation in a real office-laboratory environment, suggesting the graph is usable for semantic robotics tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is room-bounded instance fusion. LiDAR point clouds are segmented with OneFormer3D, and wall segments are merged using overlap ratio, normal-vector cosine similarity, and ceiling/floor height alignment to produce rooms with dynamically maintained axis-aligned bounding boxes. Every reconstructed point is pre-classified to a room, assuming reliable instance observations come from within the same room, which lets fusion run per room in parallel. Matching uses a mask-query strategy so each new mask is compared against a compact instance memory rather than all prior masks, and every merge is gated by two thresholds: geometric overlap $\tau_g = 0.3$ and semantic cosine similarity $\tau_s = 0.8$.

What would settle it

Take a scene with a long table spanning two rooms or an object visible through an open doorway, build the map with IRS, and check whether both viewpoints fuse into one instance; if the cross-room observations are split or absent, the room-bounded assumption is the cause. Alternatively, compare instance AP on open-plan layouts versus closed rooms: if AP drops sharply in open plans, the assumption carries the accuracy cost.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the bottleneck in instance-level 3D scene graph construction is search, not perception: fusing object masks across frames requires matching every new observation against a growing set of existing instances. IRS removes most of that search by first segmenting the environment into rooms from LiDAR point clouds and then fusing instances only within the same room, in parallel. A dual-criteria fusion rule, requiring geometric overlap above 0.3 and CLIP cosine similarity above 0.8 for any merge, prevents the over-merging that pure geometric overlap causes. Removing the room prior slows construction from 118 to 517 seconds on one scene and from 80 to 515 on another, a 78.2% time increase attributed to losing room-parallel fusion, while semantic accuracy changes only slightly.

Load-bearing premise

The whole speedup rests on the assumption that reliable instance observations originate inside the room where an object is first placed; objects seen through doorways or from neighboring rooms are treated as unreliable and omitted, and the paper gives no quantitative measure of how often that happens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Scene graph construction time becomes roughly linear in the number of rooms rather than quadratic in the number of instances, because matching is room-local and parallel.
  • Open-vocabulary retrieval works in cluttered real environments, as shown by the successful recovery of an uncommon object (a drone) that standard datasets rarely label.
  • The room prior supports incremental mapping: rooms are finalized as they are observed, so a robot could query a partially built graph during traversal rather than after an offline pass.
  • The cross-room navigation experiment shows that a natural-language command can resolve to a target through the building-room-instance hierarchy plus CLIP matching, without relying on metric coordinates.
  • The 78.2% speed gap between the full system and the no-room ablation localizes the benefit to the room prior itself, suggesting the speedup is structural rather than incidental to the choice of network.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: the open-door problem is the natural stress test. If an object is visible from two adjacent rooms, the room-bounded assumption will split or drop it; allowing overlapping room buffers while keeping fusion parallel would reveal whether the speed-accuracy tradeoff is real.
  • Extension: the room-prior idea is independent of the specific VFMs, so any mask generator plus any language-aligned feature should slot into this per-room parallel fusion; the reported speedup should transfer across backbones.
  • Extension: the paper evaluates two HM3D scenes and one real office floor; scenes with wide doorways, open-plan layouts, or objects spanning rooms would show where the same-room assumption starts to cost accuracy.
  • Extension: a direct measurement of how many instance points fall outside their assigned room's bounding box would quantify the cross-room observation loss the paper currently handles qualitatively.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents IRS, a pipeline for constructing instance-level 3D scene graphs from LiDAR point clouds and RGB images. It first builds a room-level segmentation on an accumulated point-cloud map using OneFormer3D semantic labels and geometric merging, then extracts open-vocabulary instance masks via a RAM-Grounding DINO-SAM pipeline and CLIP feature fusion. Instance fusion is restricted to room partitions, enabling parallel processing, and uses both geometric overlap and semantic cosine similarity thresholds. The resulting building-room-instance graph is queried with an LLM for downstream navigation. Experiments compare IRS with HOV-SG on two HM3D scenes, report qualitative real-world results, and demonstrate a language-guided cross-room navigation task.

Significance. If the reported efficiency is reproducible, the room-prior parallel fusion idea is practically valuable for robotics: the paper directly times full pipelines, compares against an external baseline, and includes a real-world navigation demonstration, which are concrete strengths. The core contribution is a systems integration rather than a new theoretical model, and the paper is generally clearly organized. However, the evidence for the central accuracy claim is weakened by the paper's own ablation, and the headline order-of-magnitude speedup is not cleanly isolated from the baseline's pipeline scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-A, Table I; Section III-C] The room-prior ablation contradicts the claim of maintaining high semantic precision and the assertion in Section III-C that discarding cross-room observations has 'minimal impact'. On HM3D scene 00824, top-5 accuracy drops from 28.13 (IRS w/o room) to 25.53 (IRS); on scene 00829 it drops from 25.37 to 24.19. Because the room prior is the mechanism claimed to preserve accuracy while accelerating fusion, the paper must either provide quantitative cross-room observation statistics, report threshold sensitivity for tau_1-tau_3 and tau_g/tau_s, or revise the claim to state that the room prior trades a small, measured accuracy loss for a large speed gain.
  2. [Section IV-A, Table I; Section III-A] The comparison with HOV-SG is not controlled on pipeline scope. IRS consumes an already-accumulated point-cloud map and odometry (Section III-A), whereas HOV-SG, as cited, is an online SLAM-coupled RGB-D system; the reported 5221s and 4263s likely include mapping, loop closure, and incremental optimization that IRS does not perform. The paper should provide a stage-level timing breakdown or run HOV-SG's fusion-only component so that the claimed order-of-magnitude speedup reflects algorithmic fusion speed rather than the difference between offline and online pipelines.
  3. [Section IV-A] The quantitative evaluation is limited to two HM3D scenes, each with a single run and no error bars, despite the text claiming experiments on HM3D and MP3D and 'extensive experiments in both simulated and real-world environments'. The MP3D results are mentioned but never reported. At minimum, the authors should provide per-scene results over more scenes with variance estimates, so the top-5 and AP differences are not read as noise.
  4. [Section III-A and Section III-C] The paper does not report values for the room segmentation thresholds tau_1, tau_2, tau_3, or the fusion weights alpha_1, alpha_2, alpha_3 in Eq. (4), and it provides no sensitivity analysis for tau_g=0.3 and tau_s=0.8. Since the central accuracy and speed claims depend on these parameters, the authors should state the chosen values and show that the results are not brittle to reasonable perturbations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1 and Eq. (6)] There are typos that should be corrected: 'kdtree cute' in Algorithm 1 should be 'kdtree cut', and 'consine' in Eq. (6) should be 'cosine'.
  2. [Section III-C] The text says 'see Experiment IV-A for analysis' regarding the impact of discarding cross-room observations, but Experiment IV-A does not contain any such quantitative analysis; please either add it or remove the pointer.
  3. [Section IV-A] The text states that evaluations were performed on 'the HM3D and MP3D datasets', but no MP3D results are shown; please clarify which dataset the reported numbers correspond to and report the missing MP3D results.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The weights alpha_1, alpha_2, alpha_3 are described as 'predefined' but their numerical values are never given; please specify them.
  5. [Section III-D] The room category prototypes are listed as Kitchen, Office, Dining room, Bedroom, and Bathroom, but the real-world experiment in Fig. 1 includes a 'laboratory' room; please clarify how the prototype set covers such rooms or how the label is assigned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the speed and precision claims are measured on external benchmarks against an external baseline, and the one author-overlapping citation is background only.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical rather than derived. Construction time (118/80 s vs. HOV-SG's 5221/4263 s) and semantic top5/AP values in Table I are measurements on HM3D/MP3D and real-world data, and the 78.2% speed gain from the room-prior ablation is an implemented effect, not an equation whose output equals its input. The fusion criteria in Eqs. (4)-(6) use hand-set thresholds (tau_g=0.3, tau_s=0.8) and predefined weights alpha_i; these are free parameters, not fits to the reported top5/AP, so no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction. The room-prior assumption in Sec. III-C, 'We assume that reliable instance observations originate from within the same room,' is an explicit modeling assumption, and the paper itself flags the limitation that it may 'omit a small number of cross-room observations'; that is a stated modeling tradeoff, not a self-referential definition. The only self-citation is reference [1] in the introduction's background list: 'human-like environmental perception and semantic understanding [1]-[4]'; it is the authors' motion-planning paper and is not load-bearing for the room-prior fusion, speed comparison, or semantic accuracy. The skeptical concerns, namely that HOV-SG may include SLAM scope while IRS consumes an accumulated map, and that Table I shows top5 decreasing when the room prior is added (25.53 vs. 28.13 on scene 00824), are external-validity and internal-consistency risks, not circularity: they question whether the comparison is fair or whether the tradeoff is favorable, not whether a claimed result reduces by construction to its inputs. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-smuggled-via-citation, or renaming-of-known-result pattern is present. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks, warranting a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central speedup claim rests on hand-set thresholds, pretrained models, and the same-room assumption, not on a derivation. No new physical or representational entities are introduced beyond the software system itself.

free parameters (9)
  • N = not stated
    Algorithm 1 defines N as the side length of the segmentation block around the robot; the value is not reported, and it affects which points are fed to OneFormer3D and thus the room segmentation.
  • tau_1 = not stated
    Eq. (1): overlap threshold for merging wall segments; hand-set, value not given.
  • tau_2 = not stated
    Eq. (2): cosine similarity threshold for wall orientation; hand-set, value not given.
  • tau_3 = not stated
    Eq. (3): height difference threshold for merging ceiling/floor segments; hand-set, value not given.
  • alpha_1, alpha_2, alpha_3 = sum to 1, individual values not stated
    Eq. (4): predefined weights for fusing CLIP features from RGB, mask, and boundary-enhanced regions; no values reported.
  • tau_g = 0.3
    Section III-C: geometric overlap threshold for instance fusion; set by hand without sensitivity analysis.
  • tau_s = 0.8
    Section III-C: semantic similarity threshold for instance fusion; set by hand without sensitivity analysis.
  • DBSCAN parameters = not stated
    Section III-B: DBSCAN clustering is used to filter outliers, but eps and min_samples are not specified.
  • Room category prototypes = Kitchen, Office, Dining room, Bedroom, Bathroom
    Section III-D: room labels are assigned by matching aggregated CLIP features against this fixed set; the set is not open-vocabulary.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Reliable instance observations originate from within the same room
    Stated in Section III-C; this enables room-based parallel instance fusion and the reported speedup. The paper admits it discards cross-room observations but gives no quantitative analysis of the failure rate.
  • domain assumption OneFormer3D provides accurate instance-level semantics on accumulating point cloud maps
    Section III-A: room segmentation relies on OneFormer3D predictions for walls, doors, windows, ceilings, and floors. If the model fails in unstructured or unseen environments, the room priors degrade.
  • domain assumption The VFM pipeline (RAM, Grounding DINO, SAM, CLIP) yields robust open-vocabulary masks and features
    Section III-B: instance segmentation and semantic embeddings depend on these pretrained models. The paper's claimed improvement over direct SAM is based on this specific stack.
  • domain assumption FAST-LIVO2 provides sufficiently accurate LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry for point cloud alignment
    Section IV-B: scene graph construction assumes synchronized and aligned RGB and LiDAR. Poor odometry would corrupt mask-to-point association and fusion.
  • ad hoc to paper Geometric and semantic thresholds (tau_g=0.3, tau_s=0.8) generalize across scenes without tuning
    Section III-C: thresholds are fixed by hand and no sensitivity analysis is provided. The accuracy and fusion behavior depend on these values.
  • domain assumption The room prototype set (Kitchen, Office, Dining room, Bedroom, Bathroom) is sufficient for room labeling
    Section III-D: room categories are predefined, so the system cannot label room types outside this set in open-vocabulary fashion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of IRS: Instance-Level 3D Scene Graphs via Room Prior Guided LiDAR-Camera Fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3H3SQBKO

@misc{pith2026250606804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: IRS: Instance-Level 3D Scene Graphs via Room Prior Guided LiDAR-Camera Fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3H3SQBKO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06804}
}
read the original abstract

Indoor scene understanding remains a fundamental challenge in robotics, with direct implications for downstream tasks such as navigation and manipulation. Traditional approaches often rely on closed-set recognition or loop closure, limiting their adaptability in open-world environments. With the advent of visual foundation models (VFMs), open-vocabulary recognition and natural language querying have become feasible, unlocking new possibilities for 3D scene graph construction. In this paper, we propose a robust and efficient framework for instance-level 3D scene graph construction via LiDAR-camera fusion. Leveraging LiDAR's wide field of view (FOV) and long-range sensing capabilities, we rapidly acquire room-level geometric priors. Multi-level VFMs are employed to improve the accuracy and consistency of semantic extraction. During instance fusion, room-based segmentation enables parallel processing, while the integration of geometric and semantic cues significantly enhances fusion accuracy and robustness. Compared to state-of-the-art methods, our approach achieves up to an order-of-magnitude improvement in construction speed while maintaining high semantic precision. Extensive experiments in both simulated and real-world environments validate the effectiveness of our approach. We further demonstrate its practical value through a language-guided semantic navigation task, highlighting its potential for real-world robotic applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06804 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Real-world 3D scene graph query results. We use a large language [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart of our scene graph construction pipeline. Subfigure A illustrates the preprocessing of the input point cloud to extract room-level geometric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Room segmentation results. (A) shows the semantic segmentation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison between SAM-only segmentation and our proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Result of scene construction. The first row is rebuilt by HOV-SG [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Data collection setups used in our real-world experiments. (A) shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Real-world cross-room semantic navigation experiment. The robot is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Whole-body integrated motion planning for aerial manipulators,

    W. Deng, H. Chen, B. Ye, H. Chen, and X. Lyu, “Whole-body integrated motion planning for aerial manipulators,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06493, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    An efficient spatial-temporal trajectory planner for autonomous vehicles in unstructured environments,

    Z. Han, Y . Wu, T. Li, L. Zhang, L. Pei, L. Xu, C. Li, C. Ma, C. Xu, S. Shen, et al. , “An efficient spatial-temporal trajectory planner for autonomous vehicles in unstructured environments,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1797–1814, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Navigating to objects in the real world,

    T. Gervet, S. Chintala, D. Batra, J. Malik, and D. S. Chaplot, “Navigating to objects in the real world,” Science Robotics , vol. 8, no. 79, p. eadf6991, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Scenegraph- fusion: Incremental 3d scene graph prediction from rgb-d sequences,

    S.-C. Wu, J. Wald, K. Tateno, N. Navab, and F. Tombari, “Scenegraph- fusion: Incremental 3d scene graph prediction from rgb-d sequences,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 7515–7525

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Collab- orative dynamic 3d scene graphs for automated driving,

    E. Greve, M. B ¨uchner, N. V¨odisch, W. Burgard, and A. Valada, “Collab- orative dynamic 3d scene graphs for automated driving,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 11 118–11 124

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Sam3d: Segment anything in 3d scenes,

    Y . Yang, X. Wu, T. He, H. Zhao, and X. Liu, “Sam3d: Segment anything in 3d scenes,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2306.03908

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Kimera: an open- source library for real-time metric-semantic localization and mapping,

    A. Rosinol, M. Abate, Y . Chang, and L. Carlone, “Kimera: an open- source library for real-time metric-semantic localization and mapping,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1689–1696

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Fusion++: V olumetric object-level slam,

    J. McCormac, R. Clark, M. Bloesch, A. Davison, and S. Leutenegger, “Fusion++: V olumetric object-level slam,” in2018 international confer- ence on 3D vision (3DV) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 32–41

    work page 2018

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Semanticfu- sion: Dense 3d semantic mapping with convolutional neural networks,

    J. McCormac, A. Handa, A. Davison, and S. Leutenegger, “Semanticfu- sion: Dense 3d semantic mapping with convolutional neural networks,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2017, pp. 4628–4635

    2017

  2. [10]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, P. Doll´ar, and R. Girshick, “Segment anything,” arXiv:2304.02643, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre- training for open-set object detection,

    S. Liu, Z. Zeng, T. Ren, F. Li, H. Zhang, J. Yang, C. Li, J. Yang, H. Su, J. Zhu, et al., “Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre- training for open-set object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05499, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hi- erarchical open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for language-grounded robot navigation,

    A. Werby, C. Huang, M. B ¨uchner, A. Valada, and W. Burgard, “Hi- erarchical open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for language-grounded robot navigation,” in First Workshop on Vision-Language Models for Navigation and Manipulation at ICRA 2024 , 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Kimera: From slam to spatial perception with 3d dynamic scene graphs,

    A. Rosinol, A. Violette, M. Abate, N. Hughes, Y . Chang, J. Shi, A. Gupta, and L. Carlone, “Kimera: From slam to spatial perception with 3d dynamic scene graphs,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 40, no. 12-14, pp. 1510–1546, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Goat: Go to any thing,

    M. Chang, T. Gervet, M. Khanna, S. Yenamandra, D. Shah, S. Y . Min, K. Shah, C. Paxton, S. Gupta, D. Batra, R. Mottaghi, J. Malik, and D. S. Chaplot, “Goat: Go to any thing,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.06430

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Learning to explore using active neural slam,

    D. S. Chaplot, D. Gandhi, S. Gupta, A. Gupta, and R. Salakhutdinov, “Learning to explore using active neural slam,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.05155

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Semantics- aware receding horizon planner for object-centric active mapping,

    L. Lu, Y . Zhang, P. Zhou, J. Qi, Y . Pan, C. Fu, and J. Pan, “Semantics- aware receding horizon planner for object-centric active mapping,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Elasticfusion: Real-time dense slam and light source estimation,

    T. Whelan, R. F. Salas-Moreno, B. Glocker, A. J. Davison, and S. Leutenegger, “Elasticfusion: Real-time dense slam and light source estimation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 35, no. 14, pp. 1697–1716, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Fm-fusion: Instance- aware semantic mapping boosted by vision-language foundation mod- els,

    C. Liu, K. Wang, J. Shi, Z. Qiao, and S. Shen, “Fm-fusion: Instance- aware semantic mapping boosted by vision-language foundation mod- els,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2232– 2239, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Graph r-cnn for scene graph generation,

    J. Yang, J. Lu, S. Lee, D. Batra, and D. Parikh, “Graph r-cnn for scene graph generation,” in Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV) , 2018, pp. 670–685

    2018

  12. [20]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, G. Krueger, and I. Sutskever, “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Vlfm: Vision- language frontier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation,

    N. Yokoyama, S. Ha, D. Batra, J. Wang, and B. Bucher, “Vlfm: Vision- language frontier maps for zero-shot semantic navigation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 42–48

    2024

  14. [22]

    Sg-nav: Online 3d scene graph prompting for llm-based zero-shot object navigation,

    H. Yin, X. Xu, Z. Wu, J. Zhou, and J. Lu, “Sg-nav: Online 3d scene graph prompting for llm-based zero-shot object navigation,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08189

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    3d scene graph: A structure for unified semantics, 3d space, and camera,

    I. Armeni, Z.-Y . He, J. Gwak, A. R. Zamir, M. Fischer, J. Malik, and S. Savarese, “3d scene graph: A structure for unified semantics, 3d space, and camera,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2019, pp. 5664–5673

    2019

  16. [24]

    Slideslam: Sparse, lightweight, decentral- ized metric-semantic slam for multi-robot navigation,

    X. Liu, J. Lei, A. Prabhu, Y . Tao, I. Spasojevic, P. Chaudhari, N. Atanasov, and V . Kumar, “Slideslam: Sparse, lightweight, decentral- ized metric-semantic slam for multi-robot navigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17249, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Hydra: A real-time spatial perception system for 3d scene graph construction and optimization,

    N. Hughes, Y . Chang, and L. Carlone, “Hydra: A real-time spatial perception system for 3d scene graph construction and optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.13360 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Room segmentation: Survey, implementation, and analysis,

    R. Bormann, F. Jordan, W. Li, J. Hampp, and M. H ¨agele, “Room segmentation: Survey, implementation, and analysis,” in 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 1019–1026

    2016

  19. [27]

    Predicting the layout of par- tially observed rooms from grid maps,

    M. Luperto, V . Arcerito, and F. Amigoni, “Predicting the layout of par- tially observed rooms from grid maps,” in2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 6898–6904

    2019

  20. [28]

    Robust structure identification and room segmentation of cluttered indoor environments from occupancy grid maps,

    M. Luperto, T. P. Kucner, A. Tassi, M. Magnusson, and F. Amigoni, “Robust structure identification and room segmentation of cluttered indoor environments from occupancy grid maps,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 7974–7981, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Hierarchical topometric representation of 3d robotic maps,

    Z. He, H. Sun, J. Hou, Y . Ha, and S. Schwertfeger, “Hierarchical topometric representation of 3d robotic maps,” Autonomous Robots , vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 755–771, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Automatic room segmentation from unstructured 3-d data of indoor environments,

    R. Ambrus ¸, S. Claici, and A. Wendt, “Automatic room segmentation from unstructured 3-d data of indoor environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 749–756, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Topomap: Topological mapping and navigation based on visual slam maps,

    F. Blochliger, M. Fehr, M. Dymczyk, T. Schneider, and R. Siegwart, “Topomap: Topological mapping and navigation based on visual slam maps,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA). IEEE, 2018, pp. 3818–3825

    2018

  24. [32]

    Fast 3d sparse topological skeleton graph generation for mobile robot global planning,

    X. Chen, B. Zhou, J. Lin, Y . Zhang, F. Zhang, and S. Shen, “Fast 3d sparse topological skeleton graph generation for mobile robot global planning,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 10 283–10 289

    2022

  25. [33]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

  26. [34]

    A review of deep learning- based semantic segmentation for point cloud,

    J. Zhang, X. Zhao, Z. Chen, and Z. Lu, “A review of deep learning- based semantic segmentation for point cloud,” IEEE access, vol. 7, pp. 179 118–179 133, 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Oneformer3d: One transformer for unified point cloud segmentation,

    M. Kolodiazhnyi, A. V orontsova, A. Konushin, and D. Rukhovich, “Oneformer3d: One transformer for unified point cloud segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 20 943–20 953

    2024

  28. [36]

    Structures of mental spaces: How people think about space,

    B. Tversky, “Structures of mental spaces: How people think about space,” Environment and behavior, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 66–80, 2003

    2003

  29. [37]

    Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks,

    T. Ren, S. Liu, A. Zeng, J. Lin, K. Li, H. Cao, J. Chen, X. Huang, Y . Chen, F. Yan,et al., “Grounded sam: Assembling open-world models for diverse visual tasks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14159 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

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

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

    2024

  31. [39]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat, et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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