Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

$S^3$LAM: Surfel Splatting SLAM for Geometrically Accurate Tracking and Mapping

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 S3LAM claims that replacing 3D Gaussian ellipsoids with oriented 2D Gaussian surfels makes RGB-D SLAM both geometrically more accurate and far more robust to large viewpoint changes, with a depth-distortion adaptive rendering rule and an…

desk verdict Solid, relevant Gaussian-surfel SLAM with a genuinely useful convergence-basin analysis and a plausible radial Jacobian, but it overclaims 'state-of-the-art' and needs error bars, a real GauS-SLAM comparison, and a careful look at the asymmetric adaptive-rendering rule before I'd trust the numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20854 v1 pith:OKTUDMQM submitted 2025-07-28 cs.CV

Ruoyu Fan , Yuhui Wen , Jiajia Dai , Tao Zhang , Long Zeng , Yong-jin Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 2DGaussiansurfelsRGB-DSLAMcameraposetrackingadaptivesurfacerenderingdepthdistortionconvergencebasin3Dreconstruction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that replacing 3D Gaussian ellipsoids with oriented 2D Gaussian surfels in an RGB-D SLAM system yields both more geometrically accurate reconstructions and more robust camera tracking, especially when successive frames barely overlap. It proposes two mechanisms for this: an adaptive surface rendering rule that detects unfinished geometry with a depth-distortion term and substitutes the dominant surfel's depth and normal where uncertainty is high, and an analytic pose Jacobian on SE(3) that includes a radial gradient term pulling the estimated orientation into alignment with the reconstructed surface. If the claim holds, SLAM systems can keep tracking through abrupt rotations and teleportations that currently break 3DGS-based trackers, and produce meshes with sharper edges at interactive frame rates. The evidence includes an F1 of 91.9 on Replica geometry, ScanNet++ ATE as low as 0.35 cm, and a convergence-basin analysis showing a wider basin than a representative 3DGS baseline.

What carries the argument

The central object is the 2D Gaussian surfel: a flat, oriented Gaussian primitive defined by a center $p_k$, two tangent vectors $t_u$ and $t_v$ with scales $s_u, s_v$, a normal $t_w = t_u \times t_v$, an opacity $\alpha_k$ and a color $c_k$. Rays intersect its plane to get local $(u,v)$ coordinates, and $\alpha$ blending over these plane intersections produces color, depth, and normal images. Two mechanisms carry the argument: (1) an adaptive mapping rule that computes a depth-distortion term $D_d = \sum_{i,j} \omega_i \omega_j |z_i - z_j|$ over each pixel's surfel stack, and when $D_d$ exceeds a threshold $\tau$ replaces averaged depth and normal with the values of the max-weight surfel (only when the averaged depth is larger), sharpening edges without punching holes in planes; and (2) an analytic pose Jacobian on the Lie algebra of SE(3) that, unlike the 3DGS Jacobian, includes the radial gradient $\partial \hat{t}_r / \partial T_{CW}$ of the center-to-intersection vector, giving the optimizer a rotational signal that aligns camera orientation with the reconstructed surface. The convergence-basin experiment measures how often pose optimization from perturbed initial poses converges within 1 cm to the target, and attributes the wide basin to this radial term.

What would settle it

Run the paper's convergence-basin protocol with the radial-gradient term zeroed out: if the success-rate gap versus 3DGS pose optimization does not collapse, the radial term is not what widens the basin. A second check: on a planar scene with simulated depth noise, measure whether the adaptive $D(x) > D_c(x)$ substitution ever corrupts flat regions, visible as a drop in reconstruction F1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

S3LAM's central discovery is that the geometric nature of the scene primitive matters for both mapping and tracking: oriented surfels carry an explicit normal and a well-defined ray-plane intersection, so depth rendering is no longer a weighted average of Gaussian centers but a blending of per-ray intersection points. The paper derives the full SE(3) Jacobian of this rendering (Eq. 10) and shows it contains an extra radial component, the gradient of the vector from the surfel center to the ray-surfel intersection point, which gives the pose optimizer a direct signal to rotate the camera so its rays hit surfaces at the correct location. On the mapping side, the paper introduces a depth-distortion term (Eq. 6) computed from the blending weights and depths; pixels whose distortion exceeds a threshold are rendered by the dominant surfel rather than by opacity-weighted averaging, and this substitution is applied only when the rendered depth exceeds the dominant-surfel depth, preserving planar regions. The combined system tracks poses on ScanNet++ sequences with very small inter-frame overlap where SplaTAM fails, and reconstructs Replica geometry with precision and recall balanced at an F1 of 91.9, at 8.12 FPS and 4.2 GB memory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a thresholded depth-distortion value reliably flags unfinished geometry in real-time SLAM, so that swapping in the dominant surfel's depth and normal on those pixels sharpens edges without damaging flat regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SLAM systems that adopt oriented surfel primitives can track through abrupt viewpoint changes—rotations and teleportations of the kind in ScanNet++—that force 3DGS-based trackers to fail or to be truncated to short sequences.
  • Geometric reconstruction quality (F1, accuracy, completion) on standard indoor benchmarks reaches parity with NeRF-based SLAM while running at 8 FPS and using a fraction of the memory, removing a main practical obstacle to real-time use.
  • The analytic radial-gradient Jacobian gives a principled route to widen pose convergence basins, which could extend to other splatting-based trackers and to initialization of registration problems in general.
  • The depth-distortion adaptive rendering suggests that treating per-pixel uncertainty during rasterization is a lightweight alternative to denser surfel stores for real-time reconstruction of sharp edges.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A stress test with simulated depth noise on predominantly planar scenes would establish how often the conditional substitution $D(x) > D_c(x)$ corrupts planar geometry, a failure mode the paper does not analyze.
  • The radial-gradient analysis suggests a general principle: any renderer whose depth is defined by ray-primitive intersections, rather than weighted primitive centers, inherits a rotational gradient that can act as a free orientation prior; applying the same derivation to other surface-aware primitives may reproduce the convergence gain.
  • Because the paper only evaluates RGB-D SLAM, the same Jacobian could be ported as an initialization prior for point-cloud registration or visual odometry loops, where the convergence-basin question is the same.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents S3LAM, an RGB-D SLAM system built on 2D Gaussian surfel splatting. The scene is represented by oriented 2D Gaussians, and mapping optimizes color, depth, and normal losses with an adaptive rendering rule that replaces alpha-blended depth and normal with the max-blend-weight surfel's values when a depth-distortion uncertainty term exceeds a threshold and the blended depth is farther. Tracking optimizes the SE(3) pose using an analytic Jacobian derived from the surfel splatting model, including a radial component that the authors argue improves convergence under large viewpoint changes. Experiments on Replica, TUM-RGBD, and ScanNet++ report state-of-the-art or competitive tracking and reconstruction metrics, together with a convergence-basin analysis and ablations of the adaptive mapping and pose Jacobian components.

Significance. The paper targets a genuine limitation of 3DGS-based SLAM: the lack of explicit surface orientation in both mapping and pose optimization. If the stated results hold, the oriented-surfel representation with the analytic pose Jacobian is a meaningful step forward, and the convergence-basin comparison is a concrete, falsifiable test that is more informative than average ATE alone. The adaptive rendering idea is simple and cheap. However, the empirical support is currently weakened by single-run metrics without error bars, a central derivation that is deferred to a supplementary appendix that is not provided, an ablation whose control condition does not match the main result table, and a one-sided substitution rule that may systematically bias occlusion boundaries. These issues prevent me from recommending acceptance in the current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (6)–(7)] The adaptive substitution rule is asymmetric and can systematically relabel occlusion-boundary pixels as foreground. Consider a background pixel whose ray passes through the footprint of a foreground surfel; if that foreground surfel has the largest blending weight, Eq. (7) selects its depth, and because the alpha-blended depth is a weighted average of foreground and background depths, the condition D(x) > D_c(x) holds, so the pixel is replaced by the foreground depth. This expands foreground silhouettes by roughly the surfel footprint and can bias the claimed edge-sharpening improvement in Table 6; since the tracking loss in Eq. (8) uses the same rendered depth, it can also affect pose optimization. The only ablation is a whole-scene evaluation on Replica with no error bars and no second dataset, so a localized error of a few centimeters would not be detected. Please add a per-pixel analysis at occlusion boundaries, evaluate on a second dataset, report error bars, and provide a formal or empirical characterization of when the one-sided rule is safe.
  2. [§4.2, Eq. (9)–(10)] The central tracking contribution relies on the analytic Jacobian of the tangent vectors, but the derivation is only referenced as 'supplementary material,' which is not included with this submission. Without this derivation, the claimed advantage of the radial gradient and the 'w/o radial' ablation in Table 7 cannot be checked. Please include the full derivation in the paper, or at minimum state the exact closed-form expressions used to compute the terms in Eq. (10).
  3. [Table 7] The ablation's 'Ours' row (0.68, 1.21, 1.43, 1.69 cm on S0, S1*, S1, S2) does not match the main ScanNet++ results in Table 5 (0.35, 0.42, 0.51, 1.11 cm). No explanation is given for the discrepancy; if the ablation uses a different protocol, fewer iterations, or a different keyframe setting, the comparison against 'w/o depth loss' and 'w/o radial' is not controlled. Please reconcile the two tables or specify precisely what differs.
  4. [Tables 3–5] All tracking and reconstruction tables report single-run metrics without error bars. Several reported differences are small (e.g., Table 3 Replica average 0.38 vs. 0.39 for SplaTAM; Table 4 fr2/xyz 1.16 vs. 1.24), and ScanNet++ trajectories with teleportations and large rotations may be sensitive to initialization and random seeds. Please report the number of runs and standard deviations, or otherwise justify why single-run evaluation is sufficient for the claims.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 6] The first row of Table 6 appears misaligned: the 3DGS row reads Acc.=2.80, P.=3.71, Comp.=74.8, R.=70.1, F1=72.3, L1=2.21. Precision cannot be 3.71% and completion cannot be 74.8 cm; likely the intended values are Acc.=2.80, P.=74.8, Comp.=3.71, R.=70.1, F1=72.3, L1=2.21. Please fix the column alignment.
  2. [Eq. (7)] The notation D_c(x) = arg max_ω_k z_k is an abuse of notation: arg max returns the surfel index, not a depth value. Define k* = argmax_k ω_k and then D_c = z_{k*}, N_c = t_w^{k*}.
  3. [Experiments, Baselines] There is a typo in the Baselines paragraph: 'performation' should be 'performance'.
  4. [§5.3, Figure 7] The convergence-basin protocol would be easier to interpret if the authors reported the number of sampled initial poses per distance, the exact pose-optimization settings used for MonoGS, and error bars or confidence intervals on the success-rate estimates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: pose Jacobian is analytical, adaptive rendering is a heuristic tested against external benchmarks, and self-cited baselines are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are not circular. The pose Jacobian in Eq. 10 is derived analytically from the forward surfel-splatting rendering model of Eqs. 1-4; it introduces the radial gradient component as a mathematical consequence of ray-surfel intersection, and no fitted constant is forced into the convergence claim. The adaptive surface mapping in Eqs. 6-7 uses a depth-distortion heuristic computed from rendered alpha weights and depths, not from the evaluation targets; its improvement over mean/median depth is an empirical ablation on Replica, and the potential background-edge relabeling failure is a robustness concern, not a definitional reduction. The convergence-basin protocol measures success by proximity to a ground-truth pose, and the ScanNet++/TUM/Replica ATE results are evaluated against external trajectories, so the predictions are not constructed from the method's own outputs. The only author-overlapping citation (RTG-SLAM, Peng et al. 2024, which includes co-author Y. Liu) is used for baseline comparison and for standard surfel addition/deletion and optional ICP integration; it does not justify the core representation or the adaptive rendering claims. The stated limitation about degraded performance with low-quality depth sensors is acknowledged and does not affect the circularity assessment. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained; hyperparameter tuning on the same benchmark family is ordinary practice, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central system relies on standard rendering and Jacobian math, but many quality thresholds are tuned on the evaluation datasets, and the adaptive uncertainty heuristic is ad hoc. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Distortion threshold tau = 5e-6
    Determines which pixels are treated as uncertain and switched to max-weight-surfel depth in the adaptive mapping strategy (Methods, Adaptive Surface Mapping).
  • Mapping loss weights gamma_D and gamma_N = gamma_D=1.0, gamma_N=0.1
    Weights on the depth and normal losses in Eq. 5, chosen by hand on Replica.
  • Surfel addition thresholds delta_T, delta_d, delta_c = delta_T=0.5, delta_d=0.1, delta_c=0.1
    Transmission, depth-error, and color-error thresholds that decide when surfels are added and deleted.
  • Keyframe thresholds delta_r, delta_t = not reported
    Rotation and translation thresholds from Cao et al. 2018 for keyframe insertion; exact values are not given.
  • Optimization schedule = every 6 frames, 50 iterations; final refinement at 10x keyframe iterations
    Computation budget choices that affect the reported tracking and mapping accuracy.
  • Convergence-basin evaluation grid = 3x3 views with 0.1m spacing; success within 1cm
    Chosen evaluation protocol for the convergence-basin claim, not a fitted model parameter but a hand-set benchmark.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Lie algebra SE(3) pose parametrization and the Jacobian chain rule from Sola et al. 2021 are valid for the surfel rendering pipeline.
    Used in Eqs. 9 and 10 to derive the analytic pose Jacobians.
  • domain assumption The normal map computed from spatial gradients of the depth map is a reliable supervision signal.
    The normal loss in Eq. 5 uses this normal, which is questionable under noisy depth input.
  • ad hoc to paper Depth distortion D_d, inherited from Mip-NeRF 360, is a valid uncertainty metric for unfinished surfel regions in real-time SLAM.
    The paper provides only qualitative and ablation support, not a statistical or theoretical justification.
  • ad hoc to paper Replacing blended depth and normal with the max-blend-weight surfel value, conditioned on D > D_c, preserves large planar surfaces while sharpening edges.
    This heuristic drives the adaptive mapping contribution but has no formal error analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $S^3$LAM: Surfel Splatting SLAM for Geometrically Accurate Tracking and Mapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OKTUDMQM

@misc{pith2026250720854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $S^3$LAM: Surfel Splatting SLAM for Geometrically Accurate Tracking and Mapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OKTUDMQM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20854}
}
abstract

We propose $S^3$LAM, a novel RGB-D SLAM system that leverages 2D surfel splatting to achieve highly accurate geometric representations for simultaneous tracking and mapping. Unlike existing 3DGS-based SLAM approaches that rely on 3D Gaussian ellipsoids, we utilize 2D Gaussian surfels as primitives for more efficient scene representation. By focusing on the surfaces of objects in the scene, this design enables $S^3$LAM to reconstruct high-quality geometry, benefiting both mapping and tracking. To address inherent SLAM challenges including real-time optimization under limited viewpoints, we introduce a novel adaptive surface rendering strategy that improves mapping accuracy while maintaining computational efficiency. We further derive camera pose Jacobians directly from 2D surfel splatting formulation, highlighting the importance of our geometrically accurate representation that improves tracking convergence. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets validate that $S^3$LAM achieves state-of-the-art performance. Code will be made publicly available.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20854 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Compared to state-of-the-art 3DGS-based SLAM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed S3LAM System. The scene is represented by 2D Gaussian surfels to achieve geometry￾aligned motion tracking and scene mapping. Both the tracking and mapping phases benefit from our oriented surfel primitives, leveraging the proposed adaptive rendering and surfel-based pose estimation. Our system outputs the motion trajectory and a reconstructed mesh model of the scene after post-processing. He… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between 3DGS-based and 2D￾surfel-based pose optimization. Left: In 3DGS-based ap￾proaches, the optimization relies solely on the Jacobian ∂ω ∂TCW to adjust the projected Gaussian function value, which is constrained to move perpendicular to equipotential surfaces. Right: The 2D-based Jacobian additionally intro￾duces the radial component ∂ˆtr ∂TCW that points directly to￾wards the surfel center. For the c… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative results of color and depth render￾ing in S3LAM compared to representative 3DGS-based methods. Our method exhibits fewer artifacts and clearer borders in the rendered color and depth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results of 3D scene reconstruction for the comparison of S3LAM and RTG-SLAM (Peng et al. 2024). Our method produces smoother surfaces and finer details in the reconstructed meshes. revised the 2D Gaussian splatting CUDA code in (Huang et al. 2024). For the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative ablation results: Depth recon￾struction without the adaptive strategy using mean depth (Left), with our proposed distortion-based adaptive strategy (middle), and the ground-truth depth (right). Seq1 Seq2 Seq3 MonoGS 0.72 0.46 0.55 Ours 0.97 0.77 1.00 [PITH…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison on convergence basin (left) and tracking converging rate (right). good performance. Compared to other coupled methods us￾ing Gaussian gradients, our surfel-based tracking method demonstrates superior performance. For the TUM-RGBD and ScanNet++ datasets, wher…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T.; Mildenhall, B.; Verbin, D.; Srinivasan, P

    Barron, J. T.; Mildenhall, B.; Verbin, D.; Srinivasan, P. P.; and Hedman, P. 2022. Mip-NeRF 360: Unbounded Anti-Aliased Neural Radiance Fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 5470--5479. IEEE

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Cao, Y.-P.; Kobbelt, L.; and Hu, S.-M. 2018. Real-time high-accuracy three-dimensional reconstruction with consumer RGB-D cameras. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 37(5): 1--16

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Curless, B.; and Levoy, M. 1996. A volumetric method for building complex models from range images. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, 303--312

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    Dai, A.; Nie ner, M.; Zoll \"o fer, M.; Izadi, S.; and Theobalt, C. 2017. BundleFusion: Real-time Globally Consistent 3D Reconstruction using On-the-fly Surface Re-integration. ACM Transactions on Graphics 2017 (TOG)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Dai, P.; Xu, J.; Xie, W.; Liu, X.; Wang, H.; and Xu, W. 2024. High-quality surface reconstruction using gaussian surfels. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, 1--11. ACM

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    J.; Reid, I

    Davison, A. J.; Reid, I. D.; Molton, N. D.; and Stasse, O. 2007. MonoSLAM: Real-Time Single Camera SLAM. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 29(6): 1052--1067

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Hu, J.; Chen, X.; Feng, B.; Li, G.; Yang, L.; Bao, H.; Zhang, G.; and Cui, Z. 2025. Cg-slam: Efficient dense rgb-d slam in a consistent uncertainty-aware 3d gaussian field. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 93--112. Springer, Springer

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Huang, B.; Yu, Z.; Chen, A.; Geiger, A.; and Gao, S. 2024. 2d gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 conference papers, 1--11. ACM

    work page 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Huang, J.; Huang, S.-S.; Song, H.; and Hu, S.-M. 2021. Di-fusion: Online implicit 3d reconstruction with deep priors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8932--8941. Computer Vision Foundation / IEEE

    2021

  2. [10]

    M.; Yang, G.; Scherer, S.; Ramanan, D.; and Luiten, J

    Keetha, N.; Karhade, J.; Jatavallabhula, K. M.; Yang, G.; Scherer, S.; Ramanan, D.; and Luiten, J. 2024. SplaTAM: Splat Track & Map 3D Gaussians for Dense RGB-D SLAM. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 21357--21366. IEEE

    2024

  3. [11]

    Kerbl, B.; Kopanas, G.; Leimk \"u hler, T.; and Drettakis, G. 2023. 3D Gaussian Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42(4): 139--1

    2023

  4. [12]

    H.; and Davison, A

    Matsuki, H.; Murai, R.; Kelly, P. H.; and Davison, A. J. 2024. Gaussian splatting slam. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 18039--18048

    2024

  5. [13]

    P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J

    Mildenhall, B.; Srinivasan, P. P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J. T.; Ramamoorthi, R.; and Ng, R. 2021. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1): 99--106

    2021

  6. [14]

    J.; Gelfand, N.; Pottmann, H.; and Guibas, L

    Mitra, N. J.; Gelfand, N.; Pottmann, H.; and Guibas, L. 2004. Registration of point cloud data from a geometric optimization perspective. In Proceedings of the 2004 Eurographics/ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Geometry processing, 22--31

    2004

  7. [15]

    A.; Izadi, S.; Hilliges, O.; Molyneaux, D.; Kim, D.; Davison, A

    Newcombe, R. A.; Izadi, S.; Hilliges, O.; Molyneaux, D.; Kim, D.; Davison, A. J.; Kohi, P.; Shotton, J.; Hodges, S.; and Fitzgibbon, A. 2011. KinectFusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking. In 2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, 127--136

    2011

  8. [16]

    A.; Lovegrove, S

    Newcombe, R. A.; Lovegrove, S. J.; and Davison, A. J. 2011. DTAM: Dense tracking and mapping in real-time. In 2011 international conference on computer vision, 2320--2327. IEEE, IEEE

    2011

  9. [17]

    Peng, Z.; Shao, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, J.; Yang, Y.; Wang, J.; and Zhou, K. 2024. Rtg-slam: Real-time 3d reconstruction at scale using gaussian splatting. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, 1--11

    2024

  10. [18]

    Ruetz, F.; Hernández, E.; Pfeiffer, M.; Oleynikova, H.; Cox, M.; Lowe, T.; and Borges, P. 2019. OVPC Mesh: 3D Free-space Representation for Local Ground Vehicle Navigation. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 8648--8654. IEEE

    2019

  11. [19]

    Sandstr \"o m, E.; Li, Y.; Van Gool, L.; and Oswald, M. R. 2023. Point-slam: Dense neural point cloud-based slam. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 18433--18444. IEEE

    2023

  12. [20]

    Solà, J.; Deray, J.; and Atchuthan, D. 2021. A micro Lie theory for state estimation in robotics. arXiv:1812.01537

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J.; Mur-Artal, R.; Ren, C.; Verma, S.; et al

    Straub, J.; Whelan, T.; Ma, L.; Chen, Y.; Wijmans, E.; Green, S.; Engel, J. J.; Mur-Artal, R.; Ren, C.; Verma, S.; et al. 2019. The Replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05797

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sturm, J.; Engelhard, N.; Endres, F.; Burgard, W.; and Cremers, D. 2012. A benchmark for the evaluation of RGB-D SLAM systems. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 573--580. IEEE, IEEE

    2012

  15. [23]

    Su, Y.; Chen, L.; Zhang, K.; Zhao, Z.; Hou, C.; and Yu, Z. 2025. GauS-SLAM: Dense RGB-D SLAM with Gaussian Surfels. arXiv:2505.01934

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sucar, E.; Liu, S.; Ortiz, J.; and Davison, A. J. 2021. imap: Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 6229--6238. IEEE

    2021

  17. [25]

    Sucar, E.; Wada, K.; and Davison, A. 2020. NodeSLAM: Neural object descriptors for multi-view shape reconstruction. In 2020 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), 949--958. IEEE

    2020

  18. [26]

    Teed, Z.; and Deng, J. 2021. Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 16558--16569

    2021

  19. [27]

    F.; Glocker, B.; Davison, A

    Whelan, T.; Salas-Moreno, R. F.; Glocker, B.; Davison, A. J.; and Leutenegger, S. 2016. ElasticFusion: Real-time dense SLAM and light source estimation. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 35(14): 1697--1716

    2016

  20. [28]

    Yan, C.; Qu, D.; Xu, D.; Zhao, B.; Wang, Z.; Wang, D.; and Li, X. 2024. Gs-slam: Dense visual slam with 3d gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 19595--19604. IEEE

    2024

  21. [29]

    Yang, X.; Li, H.; Zhai, H.; Ming, Y.; Liu, Y.; and Zhang, G. 2022. Vox-Fusion: Dense Tracking and Mapping with Voxel-based Neural Implicit Representation. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), 499--507. IEEE

    2022

  22. [30]

    Yeshwanth, C.; Liu, Y.-C.; Nie ner, M.; and Dai, A. 2023. ScanNet++: A High-Fidelity Dataset of 3D Indoor Scenes. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision ( ICCV ) , 12--22. IEEE

    2023

  23. [31]

    Zhi, S.; Bloesch, M.; Leutenegger, S.; and Davison, A. J. 2019. Scenecode: Monocular dense semantic reconstruction using learned encoded scene representations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 11776--11785. IEEE

    2019

  24. [32]

    R.; and Pollefeys, M

    Zhu, Z.; Peng, S.; Larsson, V.; Xu, W.; Bao, H.; Cui, Z.; Oswald, M. R.; and Pollefeys, M. 2022. Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 12786--12796. IEEE

    2022

  25. [33]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  26. [34]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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