Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 40 references

AF-RLIO: Adaptive Fusion of Radar-LiDAR-Inertial Information for Robust Odometry in Challenging Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 AF-RLIO claims that adaptively switching between LiDAR-inertial and radar-inertial odometry, with radar-assisted dynamic-point removal and GPS outlier gating, keeps pose estimation accurate in smoke, tunnels, and dynamic scenes.

desk verdict A clean, plausible adaptive LiDAR/radar switching odometry with large tunnel gains, but the closest adaptive baselines are missing and the key thresholds are unreported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18317 v1 pith:25G62H7E submitted 2025-07-24 cs.RO

Chenglong Qian , Yang Xu , Xiufang Shi , Jiming Chen , Liang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords 4Dmillimeter-waveradarLiDAR-inertialodometryradar-inertialmulti-sensorfusionadaptiveswitchingGPSoutlierrejectionfactorgraphoptimizationdynamicobstacleremoval
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 tries to establish that a robot can keep accurate odometry in environments that defeat individual sensors by adaptively choosing which exteroceptive sensor to trust. The authors claim that when LiDAR point clouds lose features, the system switches from tight LiDAR-inertial fusion to tight radar-inertial fusion, and that radar-derived dynamic-point removal improves LiDAR registration in busy scenes. They further claim that a chi-square check on GPS against odometry and radar velocity lets the system down-weight or drop bad GPS fixes instead of diverging. If these claims hold, robots could navigate smoke-filled buildings, tunnels, and dense urban canyons without losing track of where they are, which is exactly where LiDAR-only and GPS-dependent systems currently fail. The supporting experiments report large error reductions, such as tunnel absolute pose error falling from 21.67 m with FAST-LIO2 to 2.59 m with AF-RLIO.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the degradation-triggered switch between two tightly coupled odometry streams inside the Iterative Error State Kalman Filter (IESKF), a filter that iteratively solves a prior-regularized least-squares problem to fuse IMU propagation with point-cloud scan-to-map residuals. Radar supports the system in three roles: its Doppler-based ego-velocity and DBSCAN clustering isolate dynamic points, which are removed from LiDAR scans by a kd-tree Euclidean-distance check; its static points supply the velocity used in GPS outlier tests; and its point clouds replace LiDAR for matching inside tunnels or smoke. The switch itself is guarded by pre-constructed radar and LiDAR submaps, and the GPS factor is weighted by a chi-square decision rule with a smoothing transition that avoids jumps when GPS reappears.

What would settle it

Run the system in an open field or long straight corridor where LiDAR naturally returns few feature points; if AF-RLIO switches to radar and drifts more than LiDAR-inertial odometry would, the degradation detector is triggering on scene geometry rather than true sensor degradation. A threshold sweep across such scenes, comparing APE against the 1% default, would settle the question directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that robustness comes from selection, not from averaging: instead of always fusing radar and LiDAR, AF-RLIO detects when LiDAR is degraded and hands odometry to radar, then hands it back when the environment recovers. Degradation is judged by the proportion of feature points in the LiDAR cloud, with a sustained value below one percent triggering the switch. Before switching, the system pre-constructs a radar submap so radar scan-to-submap matching can continue in the iterative error-state Kalman filter without a jump; LiDAR submaps are likewise pre-built for the return. In the back end, GPS residuals are formed against odometry and radar-estimated velocity, tested with a chi-square statistic, and either used fully, smoothed as an intermediate transition, or dropped entirely. The reported consequence is that the method outperforms FAST-LIO2, radar-only RIO, and always-on LRIO on tunnel, smoke, and dynamic sequences, while matching LiDAR-inertial accuracy in benign scenes.

Load-bearing premise

The whole system depends on the heuristic that a sustained feature-point proportion below one percent of the LiDAR cloud means the environment is degraded for LiDAR, and the paper does not justify this threshold or analyze how sensitive the switching behavior is to it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the MSC tunnel sequence UB0, absolute pose error drops from 21.67 m for FAST-LIO2 and 5.05 m for LRIO to 2.59 m for AF-RLIO, showing the radar switch prevents LiDAR failure from destroying localization.
  • On the Snail 81R highway-and-tunnel sequence, APE falls to 24.9 m versus 168.0 m for LRIO and 203.3 m for FAST-LIO2, so the selective strategy beats always-on radar fusion.
  • Radar-assisted dynamic-point removal improves registration in dynamic scenes: on UD0, APE goes from 1.31 m (FAST-LIO2) to 1.04 m, and on UF0 from 2.20 m (LRIO) to 1.48 m.
  • In a real smoke environment, AF-RLIO reports APE of 0.55 m, compared with 12.8 m for FAST-LIO2 and 0.63 m for LRIO.
  • Adaptive GPS weighting turns the tunnel crossing from a failure (constant GPS) or a 22.82 m divergence (threshold-based GPS) into a 2.26 m trajectory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the 1% feature threshold is likely sensor- and scene-dependent; a natural extension would be to calibrate it online against radar-visible features or IMU consistency rather than fixing it.
  • The GPS outlier detector depends on radar-estimated velocity, so in environments where radar also degrades (e.g., heavy rain with clutter) the system would lose its GPS gate; a stereo-camera or wheel-odometry velocity source could provide redundancy.
  • The pre-constructed submap handover suggests that the reported gains may come as much from avoiding switch-induced jumps as from the radar measurement itself; isolating the two effects would be a clean ablation.
  • Because the smoke experiment used one platform and one radar model, the robustness claim would be strengthened by testing on other 4D radar sensors and in fog or rain, which the paper motivates but does not evaluate.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes AF-RLIO, a multi-sensor odometry system that adaptively couples 4D millimeter-wave radar, LiDAR, and IMU in an IESKF framework and fuses GPS in a factor graph. The preprocessing module uses radar Doppler information and DBSCAN to segment dynamic, static, and noise points, uses radar dynamic points to filter LiDAR dynamic points via a Euclidean distance threshold, and detects LiDAR degradation via a feature-point ratio. The system switches between LiDAR-inertial and radar-inertial scan-to-map matching, and the backend adaptively weights GPS measurements via chi-square residual thresholds. Evaluation on the MSC and Snail datasets and in a real smoke environment reports headline results such as UB0 APE 2.59 m versus 5.05 m for LRIO and 81R APE 24.9 m versus 168.0 m for LRIO. The code is open-sourced.

Significance. If the reported performance is reproducible, the adaptive switching mechanism and GPS outlier gating are of practical value for tunnels, smoke, and dynamic scenes. The paper contributes a complete system with open-source code and results on public datasets plus a real-world smoke test. However, the magnitude of the central claims is not fully supported as presented: several thresholds that determine switching and dynamic-point removal are unspecified, and the experimental suite omits the closest adaptive comparison methods. These issues are fixable within the scope of a revision, but they currently block acceptance.

major comments (4)
  1. [III-C] The degradation detector is load-bearing: the sentence 'When the proportion of feature points consistently drops below one percent of the total point cloud, the robot is considered to enter a degraded environment' determines when the system abandons LiDAR matching and switches to radar. The paper neither defines how feature points are extracted nor specifies the number of frames implied by 'consistently', and it reports no sensitivity analysis for the 1% threshold. In scenes with naturally low feature density this heuristic could switch prematurely, while a slowly degrading LiDAR could cross the threshold too late; if so, the tunnel and smoke gains in Tables I and III would not transfer. Please specify the feature extraction method and the consistency window, and provide a threshold sweep (e.g., 0.5%, 1%, 2%) with APE/RPE on at least UB0, 81R, and the smoke sequence.
  2. [III-B, Eq. (2)] The dynamic-point removal pipeline is underspecified: the DBSCAN parameters (eps, minPts), the Doppler-consistency thresholds for dynamic/static segmentation, and the Euclidean distance threshold epsilon in Eq. (2) are not reported. These parameters control how many LiDAR points are culled, and they directly affect the dynamic-scene results in Tables I and II: UD0 improves from 1.31 (FAST-LIO2) to 1.04, and IAF improves from 41.2 to 38.7, but without a parameter sweep it is unclear whether these gains are robust or the output of one tuned configuration. Please report all parameters and an ablation/sensitivity study over the dynamic-point removal settings on UD0, UF0, and IAF.
  3. [IV-A, IV-B] The baseline set does not include the closest prior adaptive methods. RIO is a self-ablation (the authors' system with LiDAR disabled), and the adaptive LiDAR-radar fusion method of [37], which is cited in Related Work, is not evaluated; DR-LRIO [36] is also cited but not compared. Without these comparisons, the claimed advantage of adaptive switching over non-adaptive or always-fusion methods is not established. Please add [37] (and DR-LRIO if feasible) on the smoke sequence and at least UB0 and 81R, or explain why these comparisons are not possible.
  4. [IV-D, Eqs. (7)-(9)] The GPS-adaptive weighting relies on thresholds Tmin and Tmax and smoothing coefficient alpha, but no values are given, and Table IV reports only the tunnel sequence. The distinction between 'Threshold-GPS' and 'Adaptive-GPS' is central to the claim that smooth weighting outperforms hard gating, but the reader cannot judge whether the result depends on a narrow tuning of these parameters. Please provide the threshold values, a plot of lambda_k over the tunnel run, and a sensitivity analysis for Tmin, Tmax, and alpha.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I] The asterisk in the UB0 row for RPE is not explained; please clarify whether RPE is unavailable or was not computed for that sequence.
  2. [Tables I and II] The RPE entries have inconsistent spacing and punctuation (e.g., '1.28/ 0.672', '2.20/ 1.201', '16.4 /0.373'); please harmonize the formatting.
  3. [IV-C] The smoke experiment appears to be based on a single run. Please state the number of runs or trials and report per-run APE/RPE or error bars to support the claimed robustness.
  4. [III-B] The coordinate alignment step mentions spatial calibration and time synchronization but does not describe the extrinsic calibration procedure or its accuracy; a brief protocol or reference would improve reproducibility.
  5. [III-C] The text says that radar submaps are pre-constructed before switching; the submap construction procedure and its update frequency should be described more precisely.
  6. [References] Reference [6] (Wang et al., a scheduling paper) does not appear relevant to GPS outlier handling in odometry; please verify that citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: AF-RLIO's adaptive switching and GPS gating are mechanisms evaluated against external RTK ground truth and external baselines, not quantities derived from the system's own outputs.

full rationale

AF-RLIO is an empirical system paper rather than a derivation, and I found no load-bearing circularity. The central robustness claim—that adaptive switching between LiDAR-inertial and radar-inertial odometry maintains accuracy in tunnels, smoke, and dynamic scenes—is a measured outcome, not a quantity derived from the system's own outputs. The tunnel result follows from the degradation detector (feature-point proportion below 1%, Section III-C) triggering a hand-designed switch to radar, which is the intended mechanism; the paper does not present this as a first-principles prediction. The GPS outlier gate (Eqs. 5–9) compares GPS against two independent references, the RLIO pose change and the radar-estimated velocity, and its effect is isolated by ablations (Constant-GPS vs. Threshold-GPS vs. Adaptive-GPS, Table IV) against RTK ground truth. All headline error numbers (Tables I–III) are evaluated against external RTK ground truth and external baselines (FAST-LIO2, LRIO), so they cannot reduce to the system's own fitted inputs by construction. The RIO baseline is honestly labeled as an ablation ('RIO is derived from our method with LiDAR disabled'), which is transparency, not circularity. The only self-citation is reference [6] (co-author Jiming Chen) in a background sentence on GPS failure modes; it is not load-bearing for any derivation. The 1% degradation threshold, the DBSCAN parameters, and the epsilon in Eq. 2 are unspecified hyperparameters, and the paper gives no sensitivity analysis; this is a parameter-justification and reproducibility weakness that could affect robustness, but it is not circular reasoning, since no claimed result is equivalent to its inputs by definition. Overall score 1 reflects no circularity, with the minor non-load-bearing self-citation noted for completeness.

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

The central claim rests on five hand-set or assumed parameters and several domain assumptions about sensor behavior. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • epsilon (LiDAR-radar dynamic point distance threshold) = not reported
    Eq. 2 removes LiDAR points within distance epsilon of radar dynamic points; no value or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • feature-ratio degradation threshold = 1% of total point cloud
    Section III-C switches from LiDAR to radar when feature proportion consistently drops below one percent; the threshold is chosen by hand and not justified.
  • Tmin and Tmax GPS chi-square thresholds = not reported
    Eq. 7 classifies GPS as normal, uncertain, or abnormal based on Tmin and Tmax; the values are not provided.
  • alpha smoothing coefficient = not reported
    Eq. 8 uses alpha in (0,1) to smooth GPS residuals in the uncertain region; no value is given.
  • DBSCAN parameters = not reported
    Radar dynamic-point clustering uses DBSCAN in Section III-B1, but eps and minPts are not given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Radar Doppler and least-squares ego-velocity estimation can reliably separate dynamic from static radar points.
    Section III-B1; the entire dynamic removal pipeline relies on this separation being correct.
  • domain assumption Radar dynamic points correspond spatially to LiDAR dynamic points after calibration, so Euclidean nearest-neighbor removal is valid.
    Eq. 2; no validation of cross-sensor detection agreement is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper LiDAR degradation is detected by feature ratio dropping below one percent.
    Section III-C; no evidence that this threshold generalizes across scenes, and no sensitivity analysis.
  • domain assumption The GPS residual follows a zero-mean Gaussian distribution with known covariance A.
    Eqs. 5-6; this underpins the chi-square outlier test, but the covariance is never specified.
  • domain assumption Pre-constructed radar submaps provide reliable scan-to-map matching during subsystem transitions.
    Section III-C; submap construction details and validation are not given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AF-RLIO: Adaptive Fusion of Radar-LiDAR-Inertial Information for Robust Odometry in Challenging Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/25G62H7E

@misc{pith2026250718317,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AF-RLIO: Adaptive Fusion of Radar-LiDAR-Inertial Information for Robust Odometry in Challenging Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/25G62H7E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18317}
}
read the original abstract

In robotic navigation, maintaining precise pose estimation and navigation in complex and dynamic environments is crucial. However, environmental challenges such as smoke, tunnels, and adverse weather can significantly degrade the performance of single-sensor systems like LiDAR or GPS, compromising the overall stability and safety of autonomous robots. To address these challenges, we propose AF-RLIO: an adaptive fusion approach that integrates 4D millimeter-wave radar, LiDAR, inertial measurement unit (IMU), and GPS to leverage the complementary strengths of these sensors for robust odometry estimation in complex environments. Our method consists of three key modules. Firstly, the pre-processing module utilizes radar data to assist LiDAR in removing dynamic points and determining when environmental conditions are degraded for LiDAR. Secondly, the dynamic-aware multimodal odometry selects appropriate point cloud data for scan-to-map matching and tightly couples it with the IMU using the Iterative Error State Kalman Filter. Lastly, the factor graph optimization module balances weights between odometry and GPS data, constructing a pose graph for optimization. The proposed approach has been evaluated on datasets and tested in real-world robotic environments, demonstrating its effectiveness and advantages over existing methods in challenging conditions such as smoke and tunnels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18317 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The test platform of the proposed system: a Jackal car with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Framework overview of AF-RLIO. This method can adaptively switch between LiDAR and radar fusion. The multi-modal fusion strategy employs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LiDAR and 4D radar point clouds before and after preprocessing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The dynamic perception multi-modal odometry proposed in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trajectory comparison of no GPS outlier detection (Constant-GPS), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [37]

    Adaptive lidar-radar fusion for outdoor odometry across dense smoke conditions,

    C. Noh and A. Kim, “Adaptive lidar-radar fusion for outdoor odometry across dense smoke conditions,” 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [36]

    Degradation Resilient LiDAR-Radar-Inertial Odometry

    M. Nissov, N. Khedekar, and K. Alexis, “Degradation resilient lidar- radar-inertial odometry,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05332 , 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Present and future of slam in extreme underground environments,

    K. Ebadi, L. Bernreiter, H. Biggie, G. Catt, Y . Chang, A. Chatterjee, C. E. Denniston, S.-P. Desch ˆenes, K. Harlow, S. Khattak, et al. , “Present and future of slam in extreme underground environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01787 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  4. [2]

    Lidar odometry survey: recent advancements and remaining challenges,

    D. Lee, M. Jung, W. Yang, and A. Kim, “Lidar odometry survey: recent advancements and remaining challenges,” Intelligent Service Robotics , vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 95–118, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [3]

    A benchmark for lidar sensors in fog: Is detection breaking down?,

    M. Bijelic, T. Gruber, and W. Ritter, “A benchmark for lidar sensors in fog: Is detection breaking down?,” in 2018 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV) , pp. 760–767, IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [4]

    Optimization-based visual-inertial slam tightly coupled with raw gnss measurements,

    J. Liu, W. Gao, and Z. Hu, “Optimization-based visual-inertial slam tightly coupled with raw gnss measurements,” in 2021 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 11612– 11618, IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [5]

    Graph-based multi-sensor fusion for consistent localization of autonomous construction robots,

    J. Nubert, S. Khattak, and M. Hutter, “Graph-based multi-sensor fusion for consistent localization of autonomous construction robots,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 10048–10054, IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [6]

    End-to-end multi-target flexible job shop scheduling with deep reinforcement learning,

    R. Wang, Y . Jing, C. Gu, S. He, and J. Chen, “End-to-end multi-target flexible job shop scheduling with deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    A new wave in robotics: Survey on recent mmwave radar applications in robotics,

    K. Harlow, H. Jang, T. D. Barfoot, A. Kim, and C. Heckman, “A new wave in robotics: Survey on recent mmwave radar applications in robotics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01135 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Lins: A lidar-inertial state estimator for robust and efficient navigation,

    C. Qin, H. Ye, C. E. Pranata, J. Han, S. Zhang, and M. Liu, “Lins: A lidar-inertial state estimator for robust and efficient navigation,” in 2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp. 8899–8906, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  3. [9]

    Fast-lio: A fast, robust lidar-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated kalman filter,

    W. Xu and F. Zhang, “Fast-lio: A fast, robust lidar-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated kalman filter,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3317–3324, 2021

    2021

  4. [10]

    Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry,

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

    2022

  5. [11]

    Lio-ekf: High frequency lidar-inertial odometry using extended kalman filters,

    Y . Wu, T. Guadagnino, L. Wiesmann, L. Klingbeil, C. Stachniss, and H. Kuhlmann, “Lio-ekf: High frequency lidar-inertial odometry using extended kalman filters,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 13741–13747, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  6. [12]

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

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

    2022

  7. [13]

    Tightly coupled 3d lidar inertial odometry and mapping,

    H. Ye, Y . Chen, and M. Liu, “Tightly coupled 3d lidar inertial odometry and mapping,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 3144–3150, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  8. [14]

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

    T. Shan, B. Englot, D. Meyers, W. Wang, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, “Lio-sam: Tightly-coupled lidar inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) , pp. 5135–5142, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  9. [15]

    Towards high-performance solid-state-lidar-inertial odometry and mapping,

    K. Li, M. Li, and U. D. Hanebeck, “Towards high-performance solid-state-lidar-inertial odometry and mapping,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 5167–5174, 2021

    2021

  10. [16]

    Super odometry: Imu-centric lidar-visual-inertial estimator for challenging environments,

    S. Zhao, H. Zhang, P. Wang, L. Nogueira, and S. Scherer, “Super odometry: Imu-centric lidar-visual-inertial estimator for challenging environments,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 8729–8736, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  11. [17]

    Present and future of slam in extreme environments: The darpa subt challenge,

    K. Ebadi, L. Bernreiter, H. Biggie, G. Catt, Y . Chang, A. Chatterjee, C. E. Denniston, S.-P. Desch ˆenes, K. Harlow, S. Khattak, et al. , “Present and future of slam in extreme environments: The darpa subt challenge,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2023

    2023

  12. [18]

    4d radar-based pose graph slam with ego-velocity pre-integration factor,

    X. Li, H. Zhang, and W. Chen, “4d radar-based pose graph slam with ego-velocity pre-integration factor,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2023

    2023

  13. [19]

    Orora: Outlier-robust radar odometry,

    H. Lim, K. Han, G. Shin, G. Kim, S. Hong, and H. Myung, “Orora: Outlier-robust radar odometry,” in 2023 IEEE International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 2046–2053, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  14. [20]

    Do we need to compensate for motion distortion and doppler effects in spinning radar navigation?,

    K. Burnett, A. P. Schoellig, and T. D. Barfoot, “Do we need to compensate for motion distortion and doppler effects in spinning radar navigation?,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 771–778, 2021

    2021

  15. [21]

    Snail-radar: A large-scale diverse dataset for the evaluation of 4d- radar-based slam systems,

    J. Huai, B. Wang, Y . Zhuang, Y . Chen, Q. Li, Y . Han, and C. Toth, “Snail-radar: A large-scale diverse dataset for the evaluation of 4d- radar-based slam systems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11705 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Msc-rad4r: Ros-based automotive dataset with 4d radar,

    M. Choi, S. Yang, S. Han, Y . Lee, M. Lee, K. H. Choi, and K.-S. Kim, “Msc-rad4r: Ros-based automotive dataset with 4d radar,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2023

    2023

  17. [23]

    Precise ego-motion estimation with millimeter-wave radar under diverse and challenging conditions,

    S. H. Cen and P. Newman, “Precise ego-motion estimation with millimeter-wave radar under diverse and challenging conditions,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 6045–6052, IEEE, 2018

    2018

  18. [24]

    Radar-only ego-motion estimation in dif- ficult settings via graph matching,

    S. H. Cen and P. Newman, “Radar-only ego-motion estimation in dif- ficult settings via graph matching,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 298–304, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  19. [25]

    See through smoke: robust indoor mapping with low-cost mmwave radar,

    C. X. Lu, S. Rosa, P. Zhao, B. Wang, C. Chen, J. A. Stankovic, N. Trigoni, and A. Markham, “See through smoke: robust indoor mapping with low-cost mmwave radar,” in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Ser- vices, pp. 14–27, 2020

    2020

  20. [26]

    Through fog high-resolution imaging using millimeter wave radar,

    J. Guan, S. Madani, S. Jog, S. Gupta, and H. Hassanieh, “Through fog high-resolution imaging using millimeter wave radar,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition, pp. 11464–11473, 2020

    2020

  21. [27]

    Do we need scan-matching in radar odometry?,

    V . Kubelka, E. Fritz, and M. Magnusson, “Do we need scan-matching in radar odometry?,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 13710–13716, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  22. [28]

    Tightly-coupled ekf-based radar-inertial odometry,

    J. Michalczyk, R. Jung, and S. Weiss, “Tightly-coupled ekf-based radar-inertial odometry,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 12336–12343, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  23. [29]

    An ekf based approach to radar inertial odometry,

    C. Doer and G. F. Trommer, “An ekf based approach to radar inertial odometry,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems (MFI) , pp. 152–159, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  24. [30]

    Multi-state tightly-coupled ekf-based radar-inertial odometry with persistent land- marks,

    J. Michalczyk, R. Jung, C. Brommer, and S. Weiss, “Multi-state tightly-coupled ekf-based radar-inertial odometry with persistent land- marks,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 4011–4017, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  25. [31]

    Radar-inertial ego-velocity estimation for visually degraded environments,

    A. Kramer, C. Stahoviak, A. Santamaria-Navarro, A.-A. Agha- Mohammadi, and C. Heckman, “Radar-inertial ego-velocity estimation for visually degraded environments,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 5739–5746, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  26. [32]

    Radar-inertial state estimation and obsta- cle detection for micro-aerial vehicles in dense fog,

    A. Kramer and C. Heckman, “Radar-inertial state estimation and obsta- cle detection for micro-aerial vehicles in dense fog,” in Experimental Robotics: The 17th International Symposium , pp. 3–16, Springer, 2021

    2021

  27. [33]

    Fusing lidar and radar data to perform slam in harsh environments,

    P. Fritsche, S. Kueppers, G. Briese, and B. Wagner, “Fusing lidar and radar data to perform slam in harsh environments,” in Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics: 13th International Conference, ICINCO 2016 Lisbon, Portugal, 29-31 July, 2016 , pp. 175–189, Springer, 2018

    2016

  28. [34]

    Rall: end-to-end radar localization on lidar map using differentiable measurement model,

    H. Yin, R. Chen, Y . Wang, and R. Xiong, “Rall: end-to-end radar localization on lidar map using differentiable measurement model,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 6737–6750, 2021

    2021

  29. [35]

    A comparative analysis of radar and lidar sensing for localization and mapping,

    M. Mielle, M. Magnusson, and A. J. Lilienthal, “A comparative analysis of radar and lidar sensing for localization and mapping,” in 2019 European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR) , pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,

    M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, X. Xu, et al. , “A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,” in kdd, vol. 96, pp. 226–231, 1996

    1996

  31. [39]

    ikd-tree: An incremental kd tree for robotic applications,

    Y . Cai, W. Xu, and F. Zhang, “ikd-tree: An incremental kd tree for robotic applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.10808 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    evo: Python package for the evaluation of odometry and slam

    M. Grupp, “evo: Python package for the evaluation of odometry and slam..” https://github.com/MichaelGrupp/evo, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

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