Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Joint Optimization-based Targetless Extrinsic Calibration for Multiple LiDARs and GNSS-Aided INS of Ground Vehicles

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Treating the GINS installation height as a noisy measurement restores vertical observability for planar-driving ground vehicles, giving centimeter-level multi-LiDAR calibration without targets or overlapping views.

desk verdict Useful height-prior calibration idea, but the headline vertical accuracy matches the prior's uncertainty, so the observability claim is not yet demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08349 v1 pith:5EKOBOZA submitted 2025-07-11 cs.RO

Junhui Wang , Yan Qiao , Chao Gao , Naiqi Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords targetlessextrinsiccalibrationmulti-LiDARLiDAR-GINSGNSS-aidedINSplanarmotionobservabilityinstallationheightobservationmodeljointoptimizationgroundvehicles
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 aims to establish that extrinsic calibration of multiple LiDARs to a GNSS-aided inertial navigation system (GINS) no longer needs artificial targets, overlapping sensor views, or per-LiDAR odometry, even when a ground vehicle's motion is nearly planar. The enabling idea is an observation model that treats the measured installation height of the GINS above the ground, $h_G$, as a noisy constraint inside a joint optimization of extrinsics and GINS poses. If the paper is right, mining trucks and similar vehicles can be calibrated in flat, unstructured sites by driving normally, with reported simulated base-LiDAR-to-GINS accuracy of 0.056 deg and 0.031 m, and real multi-LiDAR RMSE of 0.293 deg and 0.081 m. The load-bearing premise is that the manually measured height and the locally planar ground it refers to are both accurate; if that premise gives way, the vertical components of the extrinsics inherit the error.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ground-aligned virtual LiDAR frame $\{VL\}$ together with the installation-height observation model $y = {}^{VL}_G T\,\mathrm{Exp}(\xi)$, where $h_G$ is the measured height of the GINS above the ground and the covariance $Q$ in Eq. (2) makes the height direction the only tightly constrained component ($c_s = 10^{-3}$). This model injects information in the one direction that planar motion never excites, and the residual $\mathbf{1}_r = \mathrm{Log}(y\,{}^{VL}_G T^{-1})$ becomes the first factor of the joint cost in Eq. (23). The other factors are generalized matching factors built from nearest-neighbor point correspondences with covariance-scaled distances, plus a motion-consistency factor that ties base-LiDAR poses to GINS poses through the VLiDAR transform. A terrain-analysis stage selects the flattest local ground segment to define $\{VL\}$, and the whole cost is solved with Levenberg-Marquardt, producing refined VLiDAR-GINS and multi-LiDAR extrinsics together with optimized GINS poses.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline twice on the same dataset with $h_G$ shifted by $+5$ cm and $-5$ cm while all other data and settings stay fixed, then compare the estimated vertical translation of the base-LiDAR-to-GINS transform. If the estimate moves by almost exactly the shift, the height prior rather than the point-cloud constraints is controlling vertical accuracy, which would show that the reported 0.031 m vertical error is set by the prior and not by the joint optimization over sensor data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single extra geometric fact—the known height of the GINS frame above the ground—restores observability of the vertical translation direction that planar vehicle motion removes. The paper defines a virtual LiDAR frame $\{VL\}$ whose $xy$-plane coincides with the ground, writes the height measurement as $y = {}^{VL}_G T\,\mathrm{Exp}(\xi)$ with a tight height variance $c_s = 10^{-3}$, and folds the residual $\mathbf{1}_r = \mathrm{Log}(y\,{}^{VL}_G T^{-1})$ into the joint cost of Eq. (23) together with generalized matching factors and a motion-consistency factor. Minimizing that cost simultaneously refines the VLiDAR-to-GINS transform, the transforms from the base LiDAR to the other LiDARs, and the GINS trajectory, with the base-LiDAR-to-GINS extrinsic obtained by composition. On simulated data the base-LiDAR-GINS rotation error is 0.056 deg and translation error 0.031 m; on real five-LiDAR truck data the multi-LiDAR RMSE is 0.293 deg and 0.081 m.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the manually measured height of the GINS unit above the ground is accurate to within a few centimeters and that the ground is locally flat at the place where that height was measured; if either condition fails, the vertical component of every estimated transform inherits the error and the LiDAR data alone cannot correct it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near-planar driving no longer forces a degenerate vertical calibration; the height factor supplies the missing constraint, so ordinary mining-vehicle trajectories are sufficient.
  • A LiDAR fleet with non-overlapping views and mixed sensor types (solid-state and mechanical) can be calibrated in one joint run, removing the need for targets or scene-specific features.
  • Because GINS poses are optimized alongside the extrinsics, errors from terrain-induced vehicle vibration are absorbed during estimation rather than propagated as calibration bias.
  • The same pipeline transfers to unstructured outdoor sites, with reported real-world multi-LiDAR RMSE of 0.293 deg and 0.081 m across four transforms on a five-LiDAR truck.
  • No per-LiDAR laser odometry is required for calibration, which removes a common failure mode for solid-state LiDARs whose odometry can be unstable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the simulated translation error (0.031 m) is nearly identical to the standard deviation of the height prior ($\sqrt{10^{-3}} \approx 0.032$ m), suggesting that in the unobservable vertical direction the prior, not the point-cloud geometry, may determine the advertised accuracy.
  • Editorial extension: a sensitivity analysis over $h_G$ is the natural next check; if a 5 cm bias in the height measurement shifts the estimated vertical extrinsics by roughly 5 cm, users would know the method requires an accurate tape measurement rather than relying on LiDAR data to correct it.
  • Editorial extension: because the prior is anchored to a locally planar ground plane, extending the method to sloping or undulating terrain likely requires referencing the height to an absolute vertical datum instead of the nearest ground plane.
  • Editorial extension: the same joint-cost structure could transfer to camera or radar extrinsics by replacing the point-to-distribution matching residual with photometric or range residuals, giving targetless multi-modal calibration for planar-motion vehicles.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a targetless extrinsic calibration method for multiple LiDARs and a GNSS-aided INS on ground vehicles. The method introduces an installation-height observation model that adds a soft constraint on the LiDAR-GINS vertical translation, estimates a virtual LiDAR frame from the flattest local ground, and refines all extrinsics together with the GINS trajectory in a batch optimization. Experiments on a simulated ground-truth dataset and on a real five-LiDAR mining truck are reported; the simulated results show the proposed method outperforming HECalib and LiDAR-align, and the real-world results are evaluated with map-consistency metrics.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper would provide a practical, target-free, non-overlapping-FoV calibration pipeline for heterogeneous LiDARs in flat mining environments, with a simple external height measurement addressing the planar-motion observability problem. The paper has several strengths: the simulated evaluation uses ground truth and includes a no-overlap heterogeneous LiDAR setup; the installation height is a real external measurement rather than a fitted parameter, so the constraint is not circular; the Ours* experiment shows sensitivity to the virtual-frame extrinsic, although its construction is problematic; and the authors state that code is publicly available. The main weakness is that the load-bearing evidence for the vertical-accuracy claim needs strengthening: the simulated vertical error is consistent with the height prior's standard deviation, and the real-world metrics are insensitive to vertical offsets.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III-B/IV-G, Eq. (2), Table II] The reported simulated translation error for G_L0 T (0.031 m) is essentially equal to the standard deviation sqrt(cs) = sqrt(1e-3) ≈ 0.032 m of the height prior. The paper does not report the x/y/z decomposition of t_err, nor does it provide a sensitivity analysis over hG or cs. Since the vertical component is unobservable under planar motion, the posterior in that direction is determined predominantly by the prior; the current evidence therefore does not demonstrate that the joint optimization, rather than the manually measured height, produces the advertised vertical accuracy. Please report component-wise errors and repeat the simulation with perturbed hG and varied cs.
  2. [Sec. V-C, Table II (Ours*)] The ablation labeled Ours* is not a valid ablation of terrain analysis. The text states that noise is injected into the estimated base-LiDAR-to-VLiDAR extrinsic parameter to 'simulate the impact of not using terrain analysis.' This confounds the effect of the terrain-analysis module with the arbitrarily chosen noise level and does not rerun the pipeline without the terrain-selection step. A proper ablation should execute the whole pipeline with the single global ground or a non-selected local ground, rather than perturbing the output.
  3. [Sec. V-B/V-D.1, Table I] The mean map entropy (MME) and mean plane variance (MPV) metrics are local map-consistency measures that are invariant to a global vertical translation of a point-cloud map. A constant error in the z component of the LiDAR-GINS extrinsic shifts the entire stitched map vertically and does not change local entropy or plane variance. Table I therefore provides no evidence about the vertical accuracy that the height observation model is designed to improve; it can only validate horizontal and rotational consistency. The real-world evaluation of the central claim is thus unsupported.
  4. [Sec. V-D.2, Table III] The reference solution for the multi-LiDAR extrinsics is described only as 'rigorously verified,' with no verification procedure, independent measurements, or numerical results given. Since all RMSE values in Table III are computed against this reference, its accuracy directly determines the claimed 0.081 m translation RMSE. Please document the construction and validation of the reference, or report alternative consistency metrics that do not depend on an unverified reference solution.
  5. [Sec. IV-G, Eq. (23)] As written, the joint cost function contains no measurement factor for the GINS poses. The GINS data appear only as initial values and in the motion-consistency factor Eq. (22), where the GINS poses are themselves optimization variables. This means the GINS measurements do not directly constrain the solution in the joint optimization, which is inconsistent with the claim that the method 'tightly couples' LiDAR and GINS data and jointly optimizes the GINS trajectory. Please either add explicit GINS measurement factors to Eq. (23) or clarify that the GINS data are used only for initialization; otherwise the description of the optimization should be revised.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including 'covirance' in Eq. (2), 'despicted' in Sec. V-A.2, 'algin' in Sec. V-D.1, 'mthod' in Sec. IV-F, 'continously' in Sec. III-D, and 'an method' in Sec. II-B. A thorough copyedit is needed.
  2. [Sec. III-B, Eq. (2)] The text says that cb = 10^8 indicates significant uncertainty 'in one dimension,' but cb is applied to the first five diagonal entries of Q; this should be clarified to 'in five dimensions.'
  3. [Sec. III-A and IV-G] The notation for the GINS-to-virtual-LiDAR transform is inconsistent: the paper defines G_VL T in Sec. III-A but uses VL_G T in Eq. (19), Eq. (20), and Eq. (24). Please standardize to a single convention.
  4. [Sec. III-D] The sentence 'The selection of keyframes helps reduce computational costs and increases the excitation of motion between frames' is misleading: keyframe selection does not increase the motion actually present; it only selects frames with larger relative motion. Please reword.
  5. [Tables II and III] All reported results are single-run point estimates with no standard deviations or repeated trials. Given the stochasticity of the DIRECT initialization and of the nonlinear optimization, this limits the significance of the comparisons; please add multiple runs or at least state whether the reported numbers are representative.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The vertical-translation output is the installation-height prior returned by the constraint, so the headline vertical-accuracy claim partially reduces to its own input.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III-B Eqs. (1)-(2); Sec. IV-G Eq. (19); Eq. (24); Table II]
    "y = VL_G T Exp(ξ) (1) where y = Exp([0, 0, 0, 0, 0, hG]^T) represents the measurement for the GINS installation height ... cs = 10^-3 represents small uncertainty ... 1r = Log(y VL_G T^-1) (19) ... L0_G T = L0_VL T VL_G T (24) ... Table II: Ours 0.056 0.031"

    The height factor in Eq. (19) minimizes Log(y (VL_G T)^-1) with cs = 10^-3, so the optimizer pins the z-translation of VL_G T to the manually measured hG to within the prior standard deviation sqrt(10^-3) ≈ 0.032 m. Equation (24) then passes this z-translation directly into the reported base-LiDAR-to-GINS extrinsic. The simulated translation error reported as 0.031 m is consistent with this prior uncertainty, meaning the vertical component of the output is not inferred from LiDAR or GINS data but is essentially a return of the input hG.

full rationale

There is no self-citation chain or imported uniqueness argument: the method's other factors (point-to-point/plane matching, motion consistency, ground alignment) are external geometric constraints, and the non-vertical outputs are compared against simulated ground truth and external baselines such as HECalib, LiDAR-align, VGICP, GICP, and NDT. Rotations, horizontal translations, and multi-LiDAR extrinsics therefore have independent content. The circularity is confined to the vertical-translation degree of freedom that the paper's central observation model is designed to constrain. Because Eq. (19) drives that component to the measured installation height, and the reported vertical accuracy is consistent with the prior's standard deviation, the paper's headline claim of resolving planar-motion vertical unobservability is partially a return of the input rather than a data-driven result. This is a partial circularity affecting the vertical-accuracy claim, while the rest of the calibration pipeline remains non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method rests on one measured constant (hG), two hand-chosen covariance weights, data-selection thresholds, and domain assumptions about planar-motion degeneracy, local ground planarity, synchronization, and the unverified real-world reference. None of these are fitted to the evaluation targets, so the ledger is moderate for this class of calibration work. The paper would be stronger with a sensitivity analysis over hG error, an ablation without the height factor, and a stated procedure for verifying the 64-channel reference.

free parameters (4)
  • GINS installation height hG = not reported (manual tape measurement)
    Input to the height observation model (Eq. 1-2); the vertical calibration accuracy is inherited from this measurement, and the paper gives no sensitivity analysis.
  • Height prior covariance cs = 10^-3 (std about 0.032 m)
    Hand-chosen weight (Eq. 2) that determines how strongly the measured height is enforced; the reported translation error 0.031 m closely matches this value.
  • Unconstrained-dimension covariance cb = 10^8
    Hand-chosen large variance (Eq. 2) that effectively disables constraints on the five non-height directions.
  • Keyframe thresholds = 2 m distance / 30 deg rotation
    Hand-chosen data selection thresholds (Sec. III-D) that define the optimization window and motion excitation; no sensitivity study is given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Under planar motion, only the vertical translation of the LiDAR-GINS extrinsic is unobservable, per the cited analysis [39].
    Adopted without re-derivation in Sec. IV-D and Fig. 4; the height prior only works if no additional degenerate directions exist.
  • domain assumption The ground is locally planar and the virtual LiDAR frame can be represented by a single ground plane.
    Used in Sec. IV-F Eqs. (17)-(18) and in the height model; terrain analysis picks the flattest patch but still assumes a plane.
  • domain assumption The measured height hG is accurate to about the standard deviation implied by cs (about 3 cm) and is constant during the run.
    Sec. III-B Eqs. (1)-(2); suspension motion and measurement error would bias the vertical components, and no error, sensitivity, or robustness analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption Hardware timestamps synchronize GINS and LiDAR data with negligible time offset.
    Stated in Sec. III-D without evaluation; time misalignment would bias the motion-consistency residuals in Eqs. (20)-(22).
  • domain assumption The 64-channel LiDAR registration that serves as real-world ground truth for multi-LiDAR extrinsics is accurate.
    Sec. V-A2 says the reference is rigorously verified but gives no procedure, metrics, or error bounds.
  • standard math The nonconvex optimization converges near the global solution given the LiDAR-align style initialization and DIRECT global search.
    Sec. IV-B and IV-G rely on standard global-to-local optimization; no convergence certificate is provided.
invented entities (1)
  • Virtual LiDAR frame {VL}
    purpose: Auxiliary coordinate frame whose xy-plane coincides with the ground; it connects the ground-plane estimate from the base LiDAR (Eq. 17-18) to the GINS height measurement (Eq. 1) and the joint optimization residuals (Eq. 19-22).
    An algorithmic construct, not a physical sensor; it has no falsifiable handle outside the paper, but it is a coordinate frame rather than a new physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Joint Optimization-based Targetless Extrinsic Calibration for Multiple LiDARs and GNSS-Aided INS of Ground Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5EKOBOZA

@misc{pith2026250708349,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Joint Optimization-based Targetless Extrinsic Calibration for Multiple LiDARs and GNSS-Aided INS of Ground Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5EKOBOZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08349}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate extrinsic calibration between multiple LiDAR sensors and a GNSS-aided inertial navigation system (GINS) is essential for achieving reliable sensor fusion in intelligent mining environments. Such calibration enables vehicle-road collaboration by aligning perception data from vehicle-mounted sensors to a unified global reference frame. However, existing methods often depend on artificial targets, overlapping fields of view, or precise trajectory estimation, which are assumptions that may not hold in practice. Moreover, the planar motion of mining vehicles leads to observability issues that degrade calibration performance. This paper presents a targetless extrinsic calibration method that aligns multiple onboard LiDAR sensors to the GINS coordinate system without requiring overlapping sensor views or external targets. The proposed approach introduces an observation model based on the known installation height of the GINS unit to constrain unobservable calibration parameters under planar motion. A joint optimization framework is developed to refine both the extrinsic parameters and GINS trajectory by integrating multiple constraints derived from geometric correspondences and motion consistency. The proposed method is applicable to heterogeneous LiDAR configurations, including both mechanical and solid-state sensors. Extensive experiments on simulated and real-world datasets demonstrate the accuracy, robustness, and practical applicability of the approach under diverse sensor setups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08349 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the calibration workflow. LiDAR-GINS and multi-LiDAR extrinsic parameters are calibrated jointly. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of the coordinate system used in this work. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pipeline for parameter initialization. by setting a corresponding projection matrix. In this work, the covariance matrix is computed based on the covariance matrices of points. The forms of these covariance matrices are detailed in Sec. IV. D. Data Collection and Preprocessing During the data collection process, all GINS data is con￾tinously recorded. In contrast, keyframes of LiDAR data are captured when the vehicl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the unobservable case in LiDAR-GINS calibration. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Process of terrain analysis aimed at finding the most accurate extrinsic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The data is collected by a truck equipped with five LiDARs and a GINS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Maps generated using base LiDAR data and the LiDAR-GINS extrinsic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of the calibration results for multiple LiDARs in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Smart mining with autonomous driving in industry 5.0: Architectures, platforms, operating systems, foundation models, and applications,

    L. Chen, Y . Li, W. Silamu, Q. Li, S. Ge, and F.-Y . Wang, “Smart mining with autonomous driving in industry 5.0: Architectures, platforms, operating systems, foundation models, and applications,” IEEE Trans. Intell. V eh., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 4383–4393, Mar. 2024. 10

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Cooperative camera–lidar extrinsic calibration for vehicle-infrastructure systems in urban intersections,

    Y . Xiong, X. Zhang, X. Gao, Q. Qu, C. Duan, R. Wang, J. Liu, and J. Li, “Cooperative camera–lidar extrinsic calibration for vehicle-infrastructure systems in urban intersections,” IEEE Internet Things J. , pp. 1–1, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Edge– cloud framework for vehicle–road cooperative traffic signal control in augmented internet of things,

    L. Zhang, Z. Zhou, B. Yi, J. Wang, C.-M. Chen, and C. Shi, “Edge– cloud framework for vehicle–road cooperative traffic signal control in augmented internet of things,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 5488–5499, Mar. 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    A cooperative vehicle–road system for anomaly detection on vehicle tracks with augmented intelligence of things,

    Y . Zhang, L. Lin, Y . Huang, X. Wang, S.-Y . Hsieh, T. R. Gadekallu, and M. J. Piran, “A cooperative vehicle–road system for anomaly detection on vehicle tracks with augmented intelligence of things,” IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 11, no. 22, pp. 35 975–35 988, Nov. 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    On the road to aiot: A framework for vehicle road cooperation,

    D. Annunziata, D. Chiaro, P. Qi, and F. Piccialli, “On the road to aiot: A framework for vehicle road cooperation,” IEEE Internet Things J. , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 5783–5791, Mar. 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Opencalib: A multi- sensor calibration toolbox for autonomous driving,

    G. Yan, Z. Liu, C. Wang, C. Shi, P. Wei, X. Cai, T. Ma, Z. Liu, Z. Zhong, Y . Liu, M. Zhao, Z. Ma, and Y . Li, “Opencalib: A multi- sensor calibration toolbox for autonomous driving,” Software Impacts , vol. 14, p. 100393, Dec. 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Online calibration of lidar and gps/ins using multi-feature adaptive optimization in unstructured environments,

    H. Li, G. Yu, Z. Wang, F. Zhao, and P. Chen, “Online calibration of lidar and gps/ins using multi-feature adaptive optimization in unstructured environments,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , vol. 74, pp. 1–15, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    An extrinsic calibration method between lidar and gnss/ins for autonomous driving,

    J. Pi, G. Yan, C. Wang, X. Cai, and B. Shi, “An extrinsic calibration method between lidar and gnss/ins for autonomous driving,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA) . IEEE, May 2024, pp. 14 520– 14 526

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Gril-calib: Targetless ground robot imu-lidar extrinsic calibration method using ground plane motion con- straints,

    T. Kim, G. Pak, and E. Kim, “Gril-calib: Targetless ground robot imu-lidar extrinsic calibration method using ground plane motion con- straints,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , p. 1–8, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    A flexible targetless lidar–gnss/ins–camera calibration method for uav platforms,

    Q. Pentek, P. Kennel, T. Allouis, C. Fiorio, and O. Strauss, “A flexible targetless lidar–gnss/ins–camera calibration method for uav platforms,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 166, pp. 294–307, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Calibration and orientation of airborne image and laser scanner data using gps and ins,

    H. Burman, “Calibration and orientation of airborne image and laser scanner data using gps and ins,” Ph.D. dissertation, Institutionen f ¨or geodesi och fotogrammetri, 2000

    2000

  4. [12]

    Calibration of airborne laser scanners,

    K. W. Morin, “Calibration of airborne laser scanners,” University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada , 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    Alternative methodologies for lidar system calibration,

    A. Habib, K. I. Bang, A. P. Kersting, and J. Chow, “Alternative methodologies for lidar system calibration,” Remote Sensing , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 874–907, 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    Toward a rigorous methodology for airborne laser mapping,

    P. Friess, “Toward a rigorous methodology for airborne laser mapping,” Proceedings EuroCOW, pp. 25–27, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Rigorous approach to bore-sight self- calibration in airborne laser scanning,

    J. Skaloud and D. Lichti, “Rigorous approach to bore-sight self- calibration in airborne laser scanning,” ISPRS journal of photogram- metry and remote sensing , vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 47–59, 2006

    2006

  8. [16]

    Simultaneous calibration of als systems and alignment of multiview lidar scans of urban areas,

    M. Hebel and U. Stilla, “Simultaneous calibration of als systems and alignment of multiview lidar scans of urban areas,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 2364–2379, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    Capture and evaluation of airborne laser scanner data,

    J. Kilian, N. Haala, M. Englich et al. , “Capture and evaluation of airborne laser scanner data,” International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 31, pp. 383–388, 1996

    1996

  10. [18]

    Calibration of range sensor pose on mobile platforms,

    J. Underwood, A. Hill, and S. Scheding, “Calibration of range sensor pose on mobile platforms,” in 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, Oct. 2007

    2007

  11. [19]

    Rigorous strip adjustment of uav-based laserscanning data including time-dependent correction of trajectory errors,

    P. Glira, N. Pfeifer, and G. Mandlburger, “Rigorous strip adjustment of uav-based laserscanning data including time-dependent correction of trajectory errors,” Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing , vol. 82, no. 12, pp. 945–954, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Automatic data selection and boresight adjustment of lidar systems,

    R. Keyetieu and N. Seube, “Automatic data selection and boresight adjustment of lidar systems,” Remote sensing , vol. 11, no. 9, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Hand-eye calibration,

    R. Horaud and F. Dornaika, “Hand-eye calibration,” The international journal of robotics research , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 195–210, 1995

    1995

  14. [22]

    lidar align,

    Z. Taylor and A. Millane, “lidar align,” https://github.com/ethz-asl/ lidar align, Dec. 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    An extrinsic calibration method between lidar and gnss/ins for autonomous driving,

    G. Yan, J. Pi, C. Wang, X. Cai, and Y . Li, “An extrinsic calibration method between lidar and gnss/ins for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07694, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    On-line calibration of multiple lidars on a mobile vehicle platform,

    C. Gao and J. R. Spletzer, “On-line calibration of multiple lidars on a mobile vehicle platform,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Anchorage, AK, USA, 2010, pp. 279–284

    2010

  17. [25]

    Accurate calibration of lidar-camera systems using ordinary boxes,

    Z. Pusztai and L. Hajder, “Accurate calibration of lidar-camera systems using ordinary boxes,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Computer Vision Workshops, Venice, Italy, 2017, pp. 394–402

    2017

  18. [26]

    Infrastructure based calibration of a multi-camera and multi-lidar system using apriltags,

    Y . Xie, R. Shao, P. Guli, B. Li, and L. Wang, “Infrastructure based calibration of a multi-camera and multi-lidar system using apriltags,” in Proc. IEEE Intelligent V ehicles Symposium, Changshu, China, 2018, pp. 605–610

    2018

  19. [27]

    Extrinsic calibration of 2-d lidars using two orthogonal planes,

    D.-G. Choi, Y . Bok, J.-S. Kim, and I. S. Kweon, “Extrinsic calibration of 2-d lidars using two orthogonal planes,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 83–98, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    A novel dual-lidar calibration algorithm using planar surfaces,

    J. Jiao, Q. Liao, Y . Zhu, T. Liu, Y . Yu, R. Fan, L. Wang, and M. Liu, “A novel dual-lidar calibration algorithm using planar surfaces,” in Proc. IEEE Intelligent V ehicles Symposium , Paris, France, 2019, pp. 1499– 1504

    2019

  21. [29]

    Extrinsic multi-sensor calibration for mobile robots using the gauss-helmert model,

    K. Huang and C. Stachniss, “Extrinsic multi-sensor calibration for mobile robots using the gauss-helmert model,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems , Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2017, pp. 1490–1496

    2017

  22. [30]

    Unified motion-based calibration of mobile multi-sensor platforms with time delay estimation,

    B. Della Corte, H. Andreasson, T. Stoyanov, and G. Grisetti, “Unified motion-based calibration of mobile multi-sensor platforms with time delay estimation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 902–909, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Ver- satile multi-lidar accurate self-calibration system based on pose graph optimization,

    D. Chang, R. Zhang, S. Huang, M. Hu, R. Ding, and X. Qin, “Ver- satile multi-lidar accurate self-calibration system based on pose graph optimization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 4839–4846, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Observability- aware online multi-lidar extrinsic calibration,

    S. Das, L. af Klinteberg, M. Fallon, and S. Chatterjee, “Observability- aware online multi-lidar extrinsic calibration,” IEEE Robotics and Au- tomation Letters , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2860–2867, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Automatic calibration of multiple 3d lidars in urban environments,

    J. Jiao, Y . Yu, Q. Liao, H. Ye, R. Fan, and M. Liu, “Automatic calibration of multiple 3d lidars in urban environments,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems , Macau, China, 2019, pp. 15– 20

    2019

  26. [34]

    Croon: Automatic multi-lidar calibration and refinement method in road scene,

    P. Wei, G. Yan, Y . Li, K. Fang, X. Cai, J. Yang, and W. Liu, “Croon: Automatic multi-lidar calibration and refinement method in road scene,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems , Kyoto, Japan, 2022, pp. 12 857–12 863

    2022

  27. [35]

    Extrinsic calibration of multiple lidars of small fov in targetless environments,

    X. Liu and F. Zhang, “Extrinsic calibration of multiple lidars of small fov in targetless environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2036–2043, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Targetless extrinsic calibration of multiple small fov lidars and cameras using adaptive voxelization,

    X. Liu, C. Yuan, and F. Zhang, “Targetless extrinsic calibration of multiple small fov lidars and cameras using adaptive voxelization,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 71, pp. 1–12, 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Generalized-icp,

    A. Segal, D. Haehnel, and S. Thrun, “Generalized-icp,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , vol. 2, no. 4, 2009

    2009

  30. [38]

    Lipschitzian optimization without the lipschitz constant,

    D. R. Jones, C. D. Perttunen, and B. E. Stuckman, “Lipschitzian optimization without the lipschitz constant,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , vol. 79, no. 1, p. 157–181, October 1993

    1993

  31. [39]

    Observability- aware intrinsic and extrinsic calibration of lidar-imu systems,

    J. Lv, X. Zuo, K. Hu, J. Xu, G. Huang, and Y . Liu, “Observability- aware intrinsic and extrinsic calibration of lidar-imu systems,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3734–3753, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Patchwork++: Fast and robust ground segmentation solving partial under-segmentation using 3d point cloud,

    S. Lee, H. Lim, and H. Myung, “Patchwork++: Fast and robust ground segmentation solving partial under-segmentation using 3d point cloud,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, Oct. 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Hand-eye calibration using dual quaternions,

    K. Daniilidis, “Hand-eye calibration using dual quaternions,” The Inter- national Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 18, no. 3, p. 286–298, Mar. 1999

    1999

  34. [42]

    Evaluation of registration methods for sparse 3d laser scans,

    J. Razlaw, D. Droeschel, D. Holz, and S. Behnke, “Evaluation of registration methods for sparse 3d laser scans,” in Proc. European Conference on Mobile Robots , Lincoln, UK, 2015, pp. 1–7

    2015

  35. [43]

    Direct li- dar odometry: Fast localization with dense point clouds,

    K. Chen, B. T. Lopez, A.-a. Agha-mohammadi, and A. Mehta, “Direct li- dar odometry: Fast localization with dense point clouds,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, p. 2000–2007, Apr. 2022

    2000

  36. [44]

    V oxelized gicp for fast and accurate 3d point cloud registration,

    K. Koide, M. Yokozuka, S. Oishi, and A. Banno, “V oxelized gicp for fast and accurate 3d point cloud registration,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . Xi’an, China: IEEE, May 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

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

    P. Biber and W. Strasser, “The normal distributions transform: a new approach to laser scan matching,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . Las Vegas, NV , USA: IEEE, Jan. 2003

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.