Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 31 references

DLBAcalib: Robust Extrinsic Calibration for Non-Overlapping LiDARs Based on Dual LBA

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dual LiDARs without overlapping views can be calibrated to 5 mm accuracy using bundle adjustment on a reference map built from one sensor's scans.

desk verdict Promising non-overlapping LiDAR calibration, but the 'joint LBA' claim is overstated and the accuracy numbers need stronger support. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09176 v1 pith:YMTCETMB submitted 2025-07-12 cs.RO cs.CL

Han Ye , Yuqiang Jin , Jinyuan Liu , Tao Li , Wen-An Zhang , Minglei Fu This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.CL
keywords LiDARextrinsiccalibrationnon-overlappingfieldofviewtargetlessbundleadjustmentadaptivevoxelizationpoint-to-planeregistrationrobustoptimizationmulti-Lisystem
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

This paper claims that two LiDARs with non-overlapping fields of view can be extrinsically calibrated without artificial targets, precise initial guesses, or manual tuning. The key move is to first build a geometrically accurate reference map from one LiDAR using sliding-window LiDAR bundle adjustment, then align the other LiDAR's frames to that map with point-to-plane residuals. The authors report average translational errors of 5 mm and rotational errors of 0.2 degrees, while tolerating initial extrinsic errors up to 0.4 m and 30 degrees. If the claim holds, multi-LiDAR systems can be deployed in arbitrary configurations with only coarse installation knowledge, which would simplify sensor setup for autonomous driving and 3D reconstruction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a dual LiDAR bundle adjustment (LBA) pipeline: sliding-window LBA (using the BALM-style optimization) refines the target LiDAR's pose trajectory to build a clean reference map, adaptive voxelization extracts planar features with confidence weights, and a Levenberg-Marquardt optimizer minimizes the weighted point-to-plane residuals parameterized through se(3) Lie algebra. This frame-to-map alignment substitutes for direct overlap, while the adaptive weighting suppresses outliers and the LBA step reduces cumulative odometry drift.

What would settle it

Run the calibration in an environment with weak planar structure (e.g., an open field with bushes) or with several moving vehicles, and measure whether the translation and rotation errors stay near 5 mm and 0.2 degrees; if the errors grow proportionally to the map's planarity index or outlier ratio, the assumption that point-to-plane residuals reflect extrinsic error rather than map error is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that extrinsic calibration for non-overlapping LiDARs can be recast as a frame-to-map alignment problem in which one LiDAR's accumulated point cloud serves as a fixed reference, eliminating the need for simultaneous field-of-view overlap. The paper argues that by optimizing the target LiDAR's poses through sliding-window LBA, the reference map becomes accurate enough that point-to-plane residuals between the other LiDAR's frames and the map mostly capture extrinsic error rather than map distortion. A robust iterative refinement with adaptive voxel weighting then yields convergence from coarse initial estimates, achieving a translational error of 5 mm and a rotational error of 0.2 degrees in dual-LiDAR setups.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the bundle-adjusted reference map built from one LiDAR is accurate enough that misalignment between the second LiDAR's frames and the map is mostly due to extrinsic error, not map warping or dynamic objects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Multi-LiDAR vehicles could be calibrated in minutes from a short drive, without placing targets or measuring mounting offsets by hand.
  • The method removes the constraint that all LiDARs must observe a common region, permitting flexible sensor placement such as one forward-facing and one rear-facing unit.
  • Accuracies around 5 mm and 0.2 degrees would make the calibrated extrinsics usable directly in downstream mapping and localization, where sub-centimeter errors are typically required.
  • Since the reference map is built from the target LiDAR alone, the approach can be extended to any number of secondary LiDARs as long as each observes the same environment as the map at some time.
  • The tolerance to initial errors of 0.4 m and 30 degrees means a rough manual measurement of the sensor mount is sufficient to start the calibration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The accuracy ceiling is set by the quality of the LBA-optimized reference map; if the scene lacks strong planar structure or contains many moving objects, the reported 5 mm/0.2° figures would likely degrade, so the method is best suited to structured static environments.
  • A natural testable extension is to use the calibrated extrinsic to check map consistency between the two LiDARs (e.g., by re-aligning a map built from LiDAR B back to LiDAR A's map), which would expose any residual bias that the point-to-plane residual alone may not reveal.
  • The sliding-window LBA step implicitly assumes the IMU-based odometry poses are good enough to bootstrap window optimization; in GNSS-denied or highly dynamic trajectories, the reference map could warp, introducing a proportional bias into the extrinsic estimate.
  • Because the residual is purely geometric, the method could be extended to calibrate a LiDAR against a camera's structure-from-motion map or against an offline 3D model, provided corresponding planar features exist.
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

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DLBAcalib, a targetless extrinsic calibration method for dual LiDARs with non-overlapping fields of view. LiDAR A scans are deskewed, processed by FastLIO2, and refined by sliding-window LiDAR bundle adjustment to construct a reference map C_map_A. Adaptive voxelization extracts planar features with confidence weights. LiDAR B frames are then aligned to this map by minimizing weighted point-to-plane residuals over the extrinsic transform T_AB via Levenberg-Marquardt. Experiments in the CARLA simulator across five configurations and in three real-world backpack-mounted scenes report an average translation error of 5 mm and rotation error of 0.2 deg, with tolerance to initial errors up to 0.4 m and 30 deg, compared against MLCC and PCDcalib.

Significance. If the claimed performance holds, the method is practically valuable: it removes the need for overlapping fields of view and precise initialization, uses only LiDAR data plus IMU, and is released as open-source code. The simulation study uses ground-truth extrinsics and multiple sensor configurations, and the comparison against two existing calibration methods is useful. However, the central 'joint LBA' claim is broader than the implemented optimization, and Algorithm 1 as written is internally inconsistent. These issues must be resolved before the accuracy and robustness claims can be accepted. The open-source release and reproducible simulation pipeline are strengths that make the required revisions feasible.

major comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section III-F, Eq. (7)] The abstract and the contribution list state that extrinsic calibration is formulated as a joint LBA optimization and that the method 'jointly refines intra-source and inter-source point cloud frames'. The objective in Eq. (7), however, depends only on T_AB; C_map_A is built once in Eq. (3) and held fixed during extrinsic optimization. The sliding-window LBA in Section III-D optimizes only LiDAR A's poses, not the extrinsics. As written, the method is a two-stage pipeline: LBA-refined mapping followed by frame-to-map extrinsic optimization. This mismatch with the central claim is load-bearing. Please either revise the claims to describe a two-stage method, or extend the optimization to jointly refine the map poses and T_AB and report the corresponding objective and Jacobians.
  2. [Section III-F, Algorithm 1 and Eq. (9)] Algorithm 1 does not implement the optimization described by Eqs. (6)-(9). It runs a separate BA per frame starting from Tprev (line 4), averages the resulting transforms (line 6), and returns Tavg * Tguess (line 13). If each T_local is already the result of the iterative update in Eq. (9) initialized at Tprev, then line 13 applies the initial guess a second time. If T_local is instead an incremental correction, that is never stated. The averaging of SE(3) transforms is also undefined. Moreover, optimizing each frame independently from the same initial value and averaging the results is not equivalent to minimizing the global objective in Eq. (7) over all frames. The actual estimated quantity is therefore ambiguous. Please specify the exact per-frame optimization, the averaging operation, the final composition, and how the convergence test relates to Eq. (9).
  3. [Section III-D and Section III-F, Eq. (6)] The headline accuracy depends on C_map_A being an unbiased geometric reference. The sliding-window LBA in Section III-D enforces local consistency within each window but does not provide global loop closure, so residual drift or warping in C_map_A is fixed during the extrinsic stage. Since the residual in Eq. (6) measures the distance to planes extracted from this map, map error is indistinguishable from extrinsic error and will bias T_AB. Figure 6 reports trajectory degradation but does not report the resulting T_AB error conditioned on map accuracy. Please provide quantitative results showing T_AB error under controlled map perturbation or on trajectories without loop closure, or otherwise show that the 5 mm / 0.2 deg result is robust to this dominant error channel.
  4. [Tables III and IV] Tables III and IV report only mean translation and rotation errors over trials. The claims of 'consistent performance' and 'initial error tolerance up to 0.4 m and 30 deg' require standard deviations, medians, maxima, and failure rates over the 50 runs. Without these, the reader cannot assess whether the mean is driven by a few good runs or whether all runs converge. Please report the full error distributions and also provide the exact values used for the thresholds and hyperparameters: window size w, step d, convergence threshold delta, maximum iterations N, LM damping mu, and the voxel parameters tau_eta, tau_theta, tau_d, and gamma.
  5. [Section III-K, Real-World Experiment Results] The real-world evaluation reports no ground-truth extrinsics and only qualitative visual comparisons in Figs. 7 and 8. This cannot support the claim that DLBAcalib 'consistently outperformed' MLCC and PCDcalib in real scenes. Please provide quantitative metrics, such as point-to-plane residuals on held-out scans, plane-fit consistency, or independent motion-based ground truth, and report per-scene numbers for each method.
  6. [Section III-E and Eq. (5)] The phrase 'outlier-resistant parameter estimation' is not supported by Eqs. (5) and (7) as written. The confidence weight omega_v depends on point count, eigenvalue spread, and planarity, but not on residual magnitude. There is no robust loss function, no residual-based reweighting, and no explicit outlier rejection step described. Scenario 2 is only shown qualitatively. Please specify the mechanism that makes the estimator robust to outliers and evaluate it quantitatively, for example by injecting outliers into simulated scans and reporting T_AB error.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-B] The sentence beginning 'To intuitively explain how precise calibration is achieved without overlapping FoVs,one forward-facing (LiDAR A) and one rear-facing (LiDAR B), with non-overlapping FoVs.' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 6] The averaging expression uses 't=n to t=0' while the loop in line 3 runs 't=1 to n'; use consistent index ranges and define the SE(3) averaging operation explicitly.
  3. [Section III-F, Eq. (8)] The Jacobian in Eq. (8) is consistent with the right-perturbation update in Eq. (9), but the sign and the use of (p_i)^wedge versus (R p_i)^wedge are not derived; a one-sentence derivation would prevent confusion.
  4. [Figure 6] Figure 6 does not define how 'trajectory error' is measured or how the degraded trajectories with 5 cm and 10 cm error were generated; please add this information to the caption or text.
  5. [Section III-E] The adaptive voxelization thresholds tau_eta, tau_theta, tau_d, gamma, and the maximum recursion depth are not given; provide these values for reproducibility, especially since the paper claims no manual parameter tuning.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the calibration is a fixed-map frame-to-map alignment evaluated against independent ground truth.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. LiDAR A's reference map C_map_A is built from LiDAR A scans and FastLIO2 poses refined by sliding-window LBA (Eq. 3); planar features are extracted from that map (Eqs. 4-5); and the extrinsic T_AB is estimated by minimizing point-to-plane residuals against the fixed map (Eqs. 6-9). No parameter entering the extrinsic optimization is fitted to the ground-truth T_AB or to the reported error metrics; the CARLA evaluation uses independent ground-truth extrinsics (Table II and Eqs. 10-11), so the 5 mm / 0.2 degree claim is an empirical result rather than a construction. The abstract's phrase 'joint LBA optimization' overstates Eq. (7), which optimizes only T_AB while holding C_map_A fixed, and the map-drift concern raised by the skeptic is a real accuracy/robustness limitation because map error can bias T_AB; however, that is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. Algorithm 1's final 'T_AB <- Tavg * Tguess' update is ambiguous and possibly inconsistent with Eq. (9), but this is an implementation-level ambiguity, not a definitional equivalence between input and output. The cited building blocks (FastLIO2, BALM, adaptive voxelization, target-free BA) are external technical tools, not author-specific uniqueness theorems, and no load-bearing premise rests on a self-citation. The initial-error experiments randomly perturb the known ground-truth extrinsics and then measure convergence to that same ground truth; this measures robustness but does not force the reported accuracy. Overall, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or citations.

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

The method relies on several hand-set hyperparameters and domain assumptions. These are not fitted to the accuracy claim, but the paper gives no sensitivity analysis, so the robustness of the reported numbers to these choices is unknown.

free parameters (5)
  • voxel planarity threshold τη = 0.1
    Used in Section III-E to decide if a voxel is planar; affects which points generate constraints.
  • voxel merging thresholds τθ and τd = not specified numerically
    Predefined thresholds for merging neighboring voxels; exact values not given in the paper.
  • weight attenuation coefficient γ = not specified
    In Eq. (5), controls how strongly planarity affects the confidence weight; set by hand.
  • window size w and step d = not specified
    Define the sliding-window LBA granularity in Section III-D; no quantitative justification provided.
  • LM damping factor μ = not specified
    Standard Levenberg-Marquardt parameter; details not provided.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math SE(3) parameterization and Lie algebra se(3) for extrinsics
    Used in Eq. (8) and (9), standard in robotics.
  • domain assumption Planar features can be extracted reliably from LiDAR point clouds via eigenvalue decomposition
    The method relies on environments with planar surfaces; Section III-E.
  • domain assumption FastLIO2 provides pose estimates accurate enough for initial map construction
    Front-end odometry is used in Section III-D; degraded trajectories are tested, but it remains an assumption.
  • domain assumption The two LiDARs are synchronized and have one-to-one frame correspondence
    Section III-F assumes corresponding frames between LiDAR A and B.
  • domain assumption The scene is static during data collection
    Dynamic objects would violate point-to-plane constraints; not addressed in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DLBAcalib: Robust Extrinsic Calibration for Non-Overlapping LiDARs Based on Dual LBA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMTCETMB

@misc{pith2026250709176,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DLBAcalib: Robust Extrinsic Calibration for Non-Overlapping LiDARs Based on Dual LBA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMTCETMB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09176}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate extrinsic calibration of multiple LiDARs is crucial for improving the foundational performance of three-dimensional (3D) map reconstruction systems. This paper presents a novel targetless extrinsic calibration framework for multi-LiDAR systems that does not rely on overlapping fields of view or precise initial parameter estimates. Unlike conventional calibration methods that require manual annotations or specific reference patterns, our approach introduces a unified optimization framework by integrating LiDAR bundle adjustment (LBA) optimization with robust iterative refinement. The proposed method constructs an accurate reference point cloud map via continuous scanning from the target LiDAR and sliding-window LiDAR bundle adjustment, while formulating extrinsic calibration as a joint LBA optimization problem. This method effectively mitigates cumulative mapping errors and achieves outlier-resistant parameter estimation through an adaptive weighting mechanism. Extensive evaluations in both the CARLA simulation environment and real-world scenarios demonstrate that our method outperforms state-of-the-art calibration techniques in both accuracy and robustness. Experimental results show that for non-overlapping sensor configurations, our framework achieves an average translational error of 5 mm and a rotational error of 0.2{\deg}, with an initial error tolerance of up to 0.4 m/30{\deg}. Moreover, the calibration process operates without specialized infrastructure or manual parameter tuning. The code is open source and available on GitHub (\underline{https://github.com/Silentbarber/DLBAcalib})

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Multi-sensor fusion in automated driving: A survey,

    Y . Wang, Q. Zhang, and Y . Zhu, “Multi-sensor fusion in automated driving: A survey,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 2847–2868, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Joint calibration of multiple LiDARs and cameras using a laser plane,

    J. Domhof, J. F. P. Kooij, and D. M. Gavrila, “Joint calibration of multiple LiDARs and cameras using a laser plane,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 3456–3467, Jun. 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Calibration of multi-LiDAR systems using a planar target,

    E. S. Kim, J. H. Park, and S. Y . Park, “Calibration of multi-LiDAR systems using a planar target,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2017, pp. 5641–5646

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Robust targetless calibration for multi-LiDAR systems in autonomous vehicles,

    Y . Chang, J. Zhang, and Z. Chen, “Robust targetless calibration for multi-LiDAR systems in autonomous vehicles,” IEEE Trans. V eh. Tech- nol., vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 1234–1245, Mar. 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    A method for multi-LiDAR calibration using a planar target with circular holes,

    W. Liu, Z. Wang, and X. Zhang, “A method for multi-LiDAR calibration using a planar target with circular holes,” IEEE Sensors J. , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 4567–4578, Mar. 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Robust 3D target-based calibration for multi-LiDAR systems,

    J. Kim, J. Lee, and S. Park, “Robust 3D target-based calibration for multi-LiDAR systems,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 4321–4332, Jul. 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Automatic calibration of multiple LiDARs using two poles with retro-reflective tape,

    G. Xue, J. Li, and S. Wang, “Automatic calibration of multiple LiDARs using two poles with retro-reflective tape,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 3765–3774, Oct. 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Generalized-ICP,

    A. Segal, D. Haehnel, and S. Thrun, “Generalized-ICP,” in Proc. Robot.: Sci. Syst. , 2009, pp. 1–8

    work page 2009

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Automatic feature-based calibration for multi-LiDAR systems,

    Y . Nie, B. Zhang, and X. Zhao, “Automatic feature-based calibration for multi-LiDAR systems,” IEEE Sensors J. , vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 10567– 10578, Jun. 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    GMMCalib: Semantic alignment for multi-LiDAR calibration,

    I. Tahiraj, M. Weinmann, and B. Jutzi, “GMMCalib: Semantic alignment for multi-LiDAR calibration,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 62, pp. 1–12, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Automatic plane-matching for multi-LiDAR cali- bration in structured environments,

    J. Kim and S. Kim, “Automatic plane-matching for multi-LiDAR cali- bration in structured environments,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1234–1245, Aug. 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    Croon: Automatic multi-LiDAR cali- bration and refinement method in urban areas,

    Z. Wei, X. Liu, and Y . Zhang, “Croon: Automatic multi-LiDAR cali- bration and refinement method in urban areas,” IEEE Trans. Intell. V eh., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 345–356, Jun. 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    PCR-CG: Point cloud registration via color and geometric features,

    J. Zhang, M. Ding, and L. Wang, “PCR-CG: Point cloud registration via color and geometric features,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 6789–6802, Oct. 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    PEAL: Prior-embedded explicit attention learning for low-overlap point cloud registration,

    H. Yu, J. Li, and Z. Zhang, “PEAL: Prior-embedded explicit attention learning for low-overlap point cloud registration,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. , 2023, pp. 1234–1243

    2023

  7. [15]

    Observability-aware extrinsic calibration of LiDARs on vehicles,

    A. Das, S. L. Waslander, and J. Grizzle, “Observability-aware extrinsic calibration of LiDARs on vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 2345–2356, Jun. 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Extrinsic calibration of multiple LiDARs using motion constraints,

    A. Das, J. Zhang, and S. L. Waslander, “Extrinsic calibration of multiple LiDARs using motion constraints,” IEEE Sensors J. , vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 11567–11578, Jun. 2022. YE et al.: ROBUST EXTRINSIC CALIBRATION OF NON-OVERLAPPING LIDARS 9

    2022

  9. [17]

    VINS-Mono: A robust and versatile monocular visual-inertial state estimator,

    T. Qin, P. Li, and S. Shen, “VINS-Mono: A robust and versatile monocular visual-inertial state estimator,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1004–1020, Aug. 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    LOAM-Livox: A fast, robust, high-precision LiDAR odometry and mapping package for Livox LiDARs,

    J. Lin and F. Zhang, “LOAM-Livox: A fast, robust, high-precision LiDAR odometry and mapping package for Livox LiDARs,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. , 2020, pp. 4567–4574

    2020

  11. [19]

    Versatile graph optimization frame- work for multi-LiDAR extrinsic calibration,

    Y . Chang, J. Zhang, and Z. Chen, “Versatile graph optimization frame- work for multi-LiDAR extrinsic calibration,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 5678–5689, May 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    High-precision extrinsic calibration of multiple LiDARs using ICP,

    M. A. De Miguel, D. Garcia, and F. Garcia, “High-precision extrinsic calibration of multiple LiDARs using ICP,” IEEE Sensors J. , vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 8765–8776, Apr. 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Targetless extrinsic calibration for multi-LiDAR systems using adaptive voxelization and bundle adjust- ment,

    W. Liu, Z. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Targetless extrinsic calibration for multi-LiDAR systems using adaptive voxelization and bundle adjust- ment,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , vol. 71, pp. 1–12, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Fast-LIO2: Fast direct LiDAR-inertial odometry,

    W. Xu, Y . Cai, and F. Zhang, “Fast-LIO2: Fast direct LiDAR-inertial odometry,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 3123–3143, Oct. 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Efficient bundle adjustment for LiDAR SLAM with BALM,

    W. Liu, Z. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Efficient bundle adjustment for LiDAR SLAM with BALM,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 1456–1467, Apr. 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Efficient adaptive voxelization for LiDAR point cloud processing,

    W. Yuan, X. Liu, and Y . Zhang, “Efficient adaptive voxelization for LiDAR point cloud processing,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. , vol. 60, pp. 1–10, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    CARLA: An open urban driving simulator,

    A. Dosovitskiy, G. Ros, F. Codevilla, A. Lopez, and V . Koltun, “CARLA: An open urban driving simulator,” in Proc. Conf. Robot Learn., 2017, pp. 1–16

    2017

  18. [26]

    A micro Lie theory for state estimation in robotics,

    J. Sol `a, J. Deray, and D. Atchuthan, “A micro Lie theory for state estimation in robotics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.01537 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm: Implementation and theory,

    J. J. Mor ´e, “The Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm: Implementation and theory,” in Numerical Analysis , G. A. Watson, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1978, pp. 105–116

    1978

  20. [28]

    Siciliano, L

    B. Siciliano, L. Sciavicco, L. Villani, and G. Oriolo, Robotics: Mod- elling, Planning and Control , 1st ed. London, U.K.: Springer, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    T. D. Barfoot, State Estimation for Robotics , 1st ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    PointNet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,

    C. R. Qi, L. Yi, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas, “PointNet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,” in Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. , 2017, pp. 5099–5108

    2017

  23. [31]

    DeepVCP: An end-to-end deep neural network for point cloud registration,

    W. Lu, G. Wan, Y . Zhou, X. Fu, P. Yuan, and S. Song, “DeepVCP: An end-to-end deep neural network for point cloud registration,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. , 2019, pp. 12–21. Han Ye received the B.Eng. degree in automa- tion from the Zhejiang University of Technolog...

    2019

Pith tools

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