Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Calib3R claims the first joint patternless camera-to-robot calibration and metric-scaled 3D reconstruction in a single optimization, using only RGB images and robot poses.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-04 20:05 UTC pith:3YTI4BKF

load-bearing objection A genuine joint calibration-and-reconstruction method with a coherent loss, but the abstract oversells it and the single-scale assumption needs testing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08813 v1 pith:3YTI4BKF submitted 2025-09-10 cs.RO

Calib3R: A 3D Foundation Model for Multi-Camera to Robot Calibration and 3D Metric-Scaled Scene Reconstruction

Davide Allegro , Matteo Terreran , Stefano Ghidoni This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords camera-to-robot calibrationhand-eye calibration3D reconstructionMASt3Rmulti-camerametric scalefoundation modelmobile robot
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper proposes Calib3R, a patternless calibration and reconstruction pipeline for robots with one or more RGB cameras. Calib3R claims that, by combining dense pairwise pointmaps from MASt3R with robot kinematics or odometry in one joint loss, it can recover both the camera-to-robot transform and a metric-scaled scene aligned with the robot frame, without calibration patterns and with fewer than 10 images per camera. The payoff: a robot can be recalibrated and obtain a physically accurate 3D representation of its workspace directly from ordinary RGB images, on both arms and mobile platforms. The paper validates the claim across synthetic and real datasets and reports accuracy comparable or superior to pattern-based methods, while also being pattern-free.

Core claim

Calib3R jointly solves camera-to-robot calibration and metric-scaled dense 3D reconstruction in a single optimization, using only RGB images and the corresponding robot poses. It replaces calibration patterns with dense pointmaps produced by the 3D foundation model MASt3R, adds an unknown per-camera scale factor to bridge reconstruction scale ambiguity, and ties camera motion to robot motion via the hand-eye constraint AX = XB. The output is a 3D scene expressed in the robot's initial frame with metric units, plus the camera-to-robot transform. Experiments report translation errors below 0.5 cm on manipulator scenes and relative scale errors near 3.7 percent.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the unified loss L_Calib3R = sum_j (L3D,j + L2D,j + Lcal,j) + sum Lcross, combining MASt3R pointmap alignment losses (3D matching and 2D reprojection), a hand-eye calibration loss with a per-camera scale factor lambda_j, and a cross-camera rigidity loss. The lambda_j factor in the camera motion B_{j,i}(lambda_j) converts scale-ambiguous pointmap motion into metric-scaled motion, and the cross-camera loss enforces fixed inter-camera geometry across the trajectory.

Load-bearing premise

The single per-camera scale factor lambda_j assumes each MASt3R pointmap is metrically consistent up to one global scale; if the reconstruction has non-uniform scale errors or drift along the trajectory, no single lambda can absorb them.

What would settle it

Take a long, texture-rich trajectory and split it into segments of equal length. Run Calib3R on each prefix and check whether the recovered checkerboard corner spacing stays within the reported 3.7 percent relative scale error. If scale error grows with trajectory length or varies when the same scene is reconstructed from different subsets, the single-per-camera-scale assumption is violated.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Calibration no longer requires checkerboards or dedicated infrastructure; generic scenes and fewer than 10 RGB images per camera suffice.
  • Multi-camera rigs can be calibrated to the robot frame even when cameras share no visual overlap, using per-camera scale factors and a cross-camera rigidity loss.
  • The metric-scaled reconstruction aligned with the robot frame can be used directly for manipulation planning or navigation, without a separate depth sensor.
  • Joint optimization is more accurate than decoupled reconstruction-then-calibrate pipelines because scene geometry and calibration refine each other.
  • The approach generalizes across single/multi cameras and manipulator/mobile setups within one formulation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural stress test is longer trajectories: if MASt3R pointmaps accumulate non-uniform scale drift, a single global scale per camera may not suffice; detecting per-segment scale changes could extend Calib3R to large environments.
  • The same unified loss could be adapted to other 3D foundation models, suggesting a general recipe for patternless calibration.
  • The VLM-based ground-plane estimation for the z-component on mobile robots could be replaced by geometric plane fitting where the scene is known, trading robustness against prompt dependence.
  • If calibration can be solved online on a stream of images, continuous recalibration during operation becomes possible, addressing drift in long-running robots.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Calib3R, a patternless joint camera-to-robot calibration and metric-scaled dense reconstruction method. It uses MASt3R to produce pairwise pointmaps from RGB images, then optimizes a unified loss (Eq. 11) that combines scene-geometry terms (L3D, L2D), hand-eye calibration terms with per-camera scale factors λ_j (Eqs. 7-8), and optional cross-camera rigidity constraints (Eq. 10). The method is evaluated on manipulator and mobile platforms using Franka Pattern, Franka Object, GraspNet-1Billion, MEMROC, OpenLORIS, and CSE benchmark datasets. The paper claims calibration accuracy with fewer than 10 images, superiority over targetless and marker-based baselines, and metric-scaled reconstructions aligned with the robot frame.

Significance. If the claims hold, Calib3R would be a practically useful step toward fast, patternless multi-camera calibration and metric reconstruction. The formulation is coherent, uses an open foundation model, and the experimental suite spans arms and mobile robots, including real and synthetic data. However, the evidence currently does not fully support the strongest claims: the marker-based comparison is contradicted by the authors' own tables, and the metric-scale claim rests on an unvalidated assumption that each camera's MASt3R pointmaps are metrically consistent up to a single global scale. The mobile-robot variant also relies on an external VLM-based ground-plane stage for the z component, outside the unified optimization.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (8) and Sec. IV] The per-camera scale model B_{j,i}(λ_j)=[R, λ_j t] can absorb exactly one global scale per camera. This is sufficient only if each camera's MASt3R-SfM reconstruction is metrically consistent up to a single similarity. However, MASt3R-SfM optimizes a per-pointmap scale σ_n (Eq. 2), and L3D/L2D do not force those scales to be equal along a trajectory. Pose-dependent scale drift (changing baselines, mixed close/distant content, or repeated non-overlapping motions) would make the hand-eye residuals in Eq. (7) biased and the metric scale wrong. The paper provides no diagnostic: Table II covers one checkerboard scene, and there is no analysis of residual structure in Eq. (7) or comparison with per-pose scale factors. Please add such an analysis or restrict the metric-scale claim.
  2. [Sec. VII, Eq. (14)] For mobile robots, the z component is estimated after the main optimization by a Grounding DINO + SAM 2 floor segmentation pipeline, and averaged via Eq. (14). This is not part of L_Calib3R (Eq. (11)), so the statement that Calib3R performs calibration within a single comprehensive optimization process does not hold for the mobile-robot case. Either integrate the z estimation into the optimization or present the method as a hybrid pipeline and temper the 6DoF claim.
  3. [Abstract; Tables I and III] The abstract's claim that Calib3R outperforms marker-based methods is contradicted by the reported numbers. In Table I, Evangelista [31] achieves 0.781 cm translation on Franka Pattern vs. 1.127 cm for Calib3R. In Table III, Joint-MEMROC achieves 3.325 cm on real MEMROC vs. 3.725 cm for Calib3R. The text in Secs. VI and VII acknowledges these cases, but the abstract and contributions should be reworded to 'comparable to or better than' or should specify the actual subsets.
  4. [Sec. VI, Fig. 7; Sec. VII, Fig. 13] The data-efficiency experiments remove two random images at each step and report a single trajectory. With only one random draw, the 'less than 10 images' claim has no error bars or multiple-seed statistics. Please report means and variances over several random subsets, and state whether the reported curves are typical.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eqs. (5), (7)] The sums run from i=0 to N-1, but A_i and B_i are defined using poses i and i+1, so the last term requires a pose N that does not exist. The sums should run to N-2.
  2. [Table I] The Calib3R row contains duplicated digits (e.g., '0.0140.0140.014'), likely a typesetting/OCR artifact. Please correct the formatting.
  3. [Table III] The SensorX2Car row shows negative values and no translation entries. Please clarify the sign convention and identify which columns are actually filled.
  4. [Table III caption] Typo: 'CSE benchamrk' should be 'CSE benchmark'.
  5. [Sec. V.C] The MEMROC checkerboard is described as 7×6; please verify this against the dataset description and figures, since initial text refers to different checkerboard sizes for the other datasets.
  6. [Sec. V.A and Table II] The metric-scale evaluation reprojects checkerboard corners into 'the reconstructed pointcloud.' Please specify whether this is the raw pointmap or the constrained pointmap χ_n, since this choice can affect the reported scale error.
  7. [General] No code release or reproducibility statement is mentioned. Adding one would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the metric scale is grounded in external robot poses, and the joint optimization is a fitting procedure rather than a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Calib3R takes as input RGB images plus robot poses (kinematics/odometry). MASt3R provides dense local pointmaps; the scene-geometry losses L3D and L2D align them; the calibration loss in Eq. (7), with per-camera scale λ_j in Eq. (8), fits the camera-to-robot transform X and the scale λ_j against the externally supplied robot motions A_i. Thus the metric scale of the reconstruction is not derived from the reconstruction itself: it is constrained by robot poses that are independent of the RGB-based pointmap prediction. The checkerboard-based scale evaluation (Table II) is an external check on that fitted scale, not a restatement of the fitting target. The z-unobservability limitation for mobile robots is explicitly acknowledged in Sec. VII ('we estimate this z-translation component post-calibration using the camera's height from the ground'), and the VLM ground-plane pipeline uses external models (Grounding DINO, SAM 2) plus back-projection; this is a supplemental measurement and a robustness limitation, not a circular step. The authors do cite their own prior work (MEMROC, multi-camera hand-eye papers), but those citations are used as baselines/datasets and related work, not as load-bearing justification for the core derivation. The central risk identified by the skeptic—that a single per-camera scale λ_j may not absorb per-view scale drift in MASt3R pointmaps—is an assumption about the error model and a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity: the method could fail without being self-referential. No prediction or claimed result reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the pretrained MASt3R model and on robot pose ground truth; the only fitted parameter in the calibration loss is the per-camera scale λ_j, plus the post-hoc mobile z estimate.

free parameters (2)
  • λ_j (per-camera scale factor) = not reported, estimated in optimization
    Scales the translation of each camera's motion in Eq. (8) to match metric robot motion; determines the metric scale of the reconstruction.
  • camera height z (mobile robots) = estimated from VLM ground plane, Eq. (14)
    Post-calibration estimate of the unobservable z-component of the camera-to-robot transform, computed as average distance from the detected ground plane in the reconstructed pointcloud.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption MASt3R provides accurate, dense 3D pointmaps and pixel correspondences for input image pairs.
    The entire pipeline relies on the pretrained MASt3R model's pointmaps as the geometric backbone; no evaluation of MASt3R failure cases is provided.
  • domain assumption Robot poses from kinematics or odometry are metrically accurate and free of drift.
    These poses serve as the metric reference that fixes λ_j and the camera-to-robot transform; any odometry error directly biases calibration.
  • domain assumption The 3D scene is static during image collection.
    Standard SfM assumption, implicit in the problem formulation.
  • domain assumption A single scalar λ_j per camera suffices to make the MASt3R reconstruction metrically consistent.
    Eq. (8) scales the full translation of B_{j,i} by λ_j; if scale errors are spatially varying, the model is misspecified.
  • domain assumption For planar mobile robots, the z-component is unobservable from motion and can be recovered from a detected ground plane.
    Used in Sec. VII to estimate camera height via VLM segmentation; assumes the VLM correctly segments the floor and that the reconstructed pointcloud is accurate enough for back-projection.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Calib3R: A 3D Foundation Model for Multi-Camera to Robot Calibration and 3D Metric-Scaled Scene Reconstruction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3YTI4BKF

@misc{pith2026250908813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Calib3R: A 3D Foundation Model for Multi-Camera to Robot Calibration and 3D Metric-Scaled Scene Reconstruction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3YTI4BKF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08813}
}
Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Robots often rely on RGB images for tasks like manipulation and navigation. However, reliable interaction typically requires a 3D scene representation that is metric-scaled and aligned with the robot reference frame. This depends on accurate camera-to-robot calibration and dense 3D reconstruction, tasks usually treated separately, despite both relying on geometric correspondences from RGB data. Traditional calibration needs patterns, while RGB-based reconstruction yields geometry with an unknown scale in an arbitrary frame. Multi-camera setups add further complexity, as data must be expressed in a shared reference frame. We present Calib3R, a patternless method that jointly performs camera-to-robot calibration and metric-scaled 3D reconstruction via unified optimization. Calib3R handles single- and multi-camera setups on robot arms or mobile robots. It builds on the 3D foundation model MASt3R to extract pointmaps from RGB images, which are combined with robot poses to reconstruct a scaled 3D scene aligned with the robot. Experiments on diverse datasets show that Calib3R achieves accurate calibration with less than 10 images, outperforming target-less and marker-based methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08813 by Davide Allegro, Matteo Terreran, Stefano Ghidoni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the Calib3R method. A set of RGB images and their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Calib3R demonstrated to be robust and accurate over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Formulation of camera-to-robot calibration. Let [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Relation of incremental motion of multiple cameras onboard of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Franka Object dataset: Generic objects are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Camera-to-robot transformation accuracy as a function of the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Real-world experimental setup of the MEMROC dataset [20] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Camera-to-robot transformation accuracy as a function of the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Metric-scaled 3D reconstruction of the environment using 15 images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Multi-Camera Self-Calibration in Sports Motion Capture: Leveraging Human and Stick Poses

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A three-stage optimization pipeline for multi-camera extrinsic self-calibration that refines camera poses, reconstructs human and stick trajectories, and resolves global scale using the known stick length constraint.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fusion-perception- to-action transformer: Enhancing robotic manipulation with 3-d visual fusion attention and proprioception,

    Y . Liu, S. Liu, B. Chen, Z.-X. Yang, and S. Xu, “Fusion-perception- to-action transformer: Enhancing robotic manipulation with 3-d visual fusion attention and proprioception,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 41, pp. 1553–1567, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Latent space planning for multiobject manipulation with environment-aware relational classifiers,

    Y . Huang, N. C. Taylor, A. Conkey, W. Liu, and T. Hermans, “Latent space planning for multiobject manipulation with environment-aware relational classifiers,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 1724– 1739, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Dream to manipulate: Compositional world models empowering robot imitation learning with imagination,

    L. Barcellona, A. Zadaianchuk, D. Allegro, S. Papa, S. Ghidoni, and E. Gavves, “Dream to manipulate: Compositional world models empowering robot imitation learning with imagination,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14957, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Dynamic slam: The need for speed,

    M. Henein, J. Zhang, R. Mahony, and V . Ila, “Dynamic slam: The need for speed,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 2123–2129

    2020

  5. [5]

    Multisensor-based navigation and control of a mobile service robot,

    W. Yuan, Z. Li, and C.-Y . Su, “Multisensor-based navigation and control of a mobile service robot,”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 2624–2634, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Deep depth completion of a single rgb-d image,

    Y . Zhang and T. Funkhouser, “Deep depth completion of a single rgb-d image,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 175–185

    2018

  7. [7]

    An overview of depth cameras and range scanners based on time-of-flight technologies,

    R. Horaud, M. Hansard, G. Evangelidis, and C. M ´enier, “An overview of depth cameras and range scanners based on time-of-flight technologies,” Machine vision and applications, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1005–1020, 2016

    2016

  8. [8]

    3d depth cameras in vision: Benefits and limitations of the hardware: With an emphasis on the first- and second-generation kinect models,

    A. Kadambi, A. Bhandari, and R. Raskar, “3d depth cameras in vision: Benefits and limitations of the hardware: With an emphasis on the first- and second-generation kinect models,” inComputer vision and machine learning with RGB-D sensors. Springer, 2014, pp. 3–26

    2014

  9. [9]

    Challenges for monocular 6d object pose estimation in robotics,

    D. Bauer, P. H ¨onig, J.-B. Weibel, J. Garc´ıa-Rodr´ıguez, M. Vinczeet al., “Challenges for monocular 6d object pose estimation in robotics,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Rgbmanip: Monocular image-based robotic manipulation through active object pose estimation,

    B. An, Y . Geng, K. Chen, X. Li, Q. Dou, and H. Dong, “Rgbmanip: Monocular image-based robotic manipulation through active object pose estimation,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2024, pp. 7748–7755

    2024

  11. [11]

    Vidbot: Learning generalizable 3d actions from in-the-wild 2d human videos for zero-shot robotic manipulation,

    H. Chen, B. Sun, A. Zhang, M. Pollefeys, and S. Leutenegger, “Vidbot: Learning generalizable 3d actions from in-the-wild 2d human videos for zero-shot robotic manipulation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07135, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Sugar: Pre-training 3d visual representations for robotics,

    S. Chen, R. Garcia, I. Laptev, and C. Schmid, “Sugar: Pre-training 3d visual representations for robotics,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 18 049–18 060

    2024

  13. [13]

    Autonomous robot navigation based on multi-camera perception,

    K. Zhu, W. Chen, W. Zhang, R. Song, and Y . Li, “Autonomous robot navigation based on multi-camera perception,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 5879–5885

    2020

  14. [14]

    Multi-camera unified pre-training via 3d scene reconstruction,

    C. Min, L. Xiao, D. Zhao, Y . Nie, and B. Dai, “Multi-camera unified pre-training via 3d scene reconstruction,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 3243–3250, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Uncertainty-aware hand–eye calibration,

    M. Ulrich and M. Hillemann, “Uncertainty-aware hand–eye calibration,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 573–591, 2024. 12

    2024

  16. [16]

    Motion-based calibration of multimodal sensor extrinsics and timing offset estimation,

    Z. Taylor and J. Nieto, “Motion-based calibration of multimodal sensor extrinsics and timing offset estimation,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1215–1229, 2016

    2016

  17. [17]

    Robust odometry and mapping for multi-lidar systems with online extrinsic calibration,

    J. Jiao, H. Ye, Y . Zhu, and M. Liu, “Robust odometry and mapping for multi-lidar systems with online extrinsic calibration,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 351–371, 2021

    2021

  18. [18]

    Simultaneous calibration of odometry and camera for a differential drive mobile robot,

    G. Antonelli, F. Caccavale, F. Grossi, and A. Marino, “Simultaneous calibration of odometry and camera for a differential drive mobile robot,” in2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2010, pp. 5417–5422

    2010

  19. [19]

    A general approach to hand–eye calibration through the optimization of atomic transforma- tions,

    E. Pedrosa, M. Oliveira, N. Lau, and V . Santos, “A general approach to hand–eye calibration through the optimization of atomic transforma- tions,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1619–1633, 2021

    2021

  20. [20]

    Memroc: Multi-eye to mobile robot calibration,

    D. Allegro, M. Terreran, and S. Ghidoni, “Memroc: Multi-eye to mobile robot calibration,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 884–891

    2024

  21. [21]

    Extrinsic infrastructure calibration using the hand-eye robot-world formulation,

    M. Horn, T. Wodtko, M. Buchholz, and K. Dietmayer, “Extrinsic infrastructure calibration using the hand-eye robot-world formulation,” in2023 IEEE Intelligent V ehicles Symposium (IV), 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  22. [22]

    A graph-based optimization framework for hand-eye calibration for multi- camera setups,

    D. Evangelista, E. Olivastri, D. Allegro, E. Menegatti, and A. Pretto, “A graph-based optimization framework for hand-eye calibration for multi- camera setups,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 11 474–11 480

    2023

  23. [23]

    Accurate calibration of multi-perspective cameras from a generalization of the hand-eye constraint,

    Y . Wang, W. Jiang, K. Huang, S. Schwertfeger, and L. Kneip, “Accurate calibration of multi-perspective cameras from a generalization of the hand-eye constraint,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1244–1250

    2022

  24. [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,” in2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2010, pp. 279–284

    2010

  25. [25]

    Automatic robot hand-eye calibration enabled by learning-based 3d vision,

    L. Li, X. Yang, R. Wang, and X. Zhang, “Automatic robot hand-eye calibration enabled by learning-based 3d vision,”Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 110, no. 3, p. 130, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Accurate calibration of multi-perspective cameras from a generalization of the hand-eye constraint,

    Y . Wang, W. Jiang, K. Huang, S. Schwertfeger, and L. Kneip, “Accurate calibration of multi-perspective cameras from a generalization of the hand-eye constraint,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 1244–1250

    2022

  27. [27]

    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 . Liuet al., “Opencalib: A multi-sensor calibration toolbox for autonomous driving,”Software Impacts, vol. 14, p. 100393, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    Unified temporal and spatial calibration for multi-sensor systems,

    P. Furgale, J. Rehder, and R. Siegwart, “Unified temporal and spatial calibration for multi-sensor systems,” in2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1280– 1286

    2013

  29. [29]

    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,” in2019 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 15–20

    2019

  30. [30]

    Mc-calib: A generic and robust calibration toolbox for multi-camera systems,

    F. Rameau, J. Park, O. Bailo, and I. S. Kweon, “Mc-calib: A generic and robust calibration toolbox for multi-camera systems,”Computer Vision and Image Understanding, vol. 217, p. 103353, 2022

    2022

  31. [31]

    An unified iterative hand-eye calibration method for eye-on-base and eye-in- hand setups,

    D. Evangelista, D. Allegro, M. Terreran, A. Pretto, and S. Ghidoni, “An unified iterative hand-eye calibration method for eye-on-base and eye-in- hand setups,” in2022 IEEE 27th International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETF A). IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–7

    2022

  32. [32]

    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

  33. [33]

    Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy,

    S. Wang, V . Leroy, Y . Cabon, B. Chidlovskii, and J. Revaud, “Dust3r: Geometric 3d vision made easy,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 20 697–20 709

    2024

  34. [34]

    Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r,

    V . Leroy, Y . Cabon, and J. Revaud, “Grounding image matching in 3d with mast3r,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 71–91

    2024

  35. [35]

    Mast3r-sfm: a fully-integrated solution for unconstrained structure-from-motion,

    B. Duisterhof, L. Zust, P. Weinzaepfel, V . Leroy, Y . Cabon, and J. Revaud, “Mast3r-sfm: a fully-integrated solution for unconstrained structure-from-motion,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19152, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    A new technique for fully autonomous and efficient 3 d robotics hand/eye calibration,

    R. Y . Tsai, R. K. Lenzet al., “A new technique for fully autonomous and efficient 3 d robotics hand/eye calibration,”IEEE Transactions on robotics and automation, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 345–358, 1989

    1989

  37. [37]

    Robot sensor calibration: solving ax= xb on the euclidean group,

    F. C. Park and B. J. Martin, “Robot sensor calibration: solving ax= xb on the euclidean group,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 717–721, 1994

    1994

  38. [38]

    Multi-camera hand-eye cal- ibration for human-robot collaboration in industrial robotic workcells,

    D. Allegro, M. Terreran, and S. Ghidoni, “Multi-camera hand-eye cal- ibration for human-robot collaboration in industrial robotic workcells,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    Solving the robot-world/hand-eye calibration problem using the kronecker product,

    M. Shah, “Solving the robot-world/hand-eye calibration problem using the kronecker product,”Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 031007, 2013

    2013

  40. [40]

    Simultaneous robot-world and hand-eye calibration using dual-quaternions and kronecker product,

    A. Li, L. Wang, and D. Wu, “Simultaneous robot-world and hand-eye calibration using dual-quaternions and kronecker product,”Int. J. Phys. Sci, vol. 5, no. 10, pp. 1530–1536, 2010

    2010

  41. [41]

    Robot hand-eye calibration using structure-from-motion,

    N. Andreff, R. Horaud, and B. Espiau, “Robot hand-eye calibration using structure-from-motion,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 228–248, 2001

    2001

  42. [42]

    Structure-from- motion based hand-eye calibration usingL ∞ minimization,

    J. Heller, M. Havlena, A. Sugimoto, and T. Pajdla, “Structure-from- motion based hand-eye calibration usingL ∞ minimization,” inCVPR

  43. [43]

    Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,

    D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,” International journal of computer vision, vol. 60, pp. 91–110, 2004

    2004

  44. [44]

    Learning eye-in-hand camera calibration from a single image,

    E. Valassakis, K. Dreczkowski, and E. Johns, “Learning eye-in-hand camera calibration from a single image,” inConference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 1336–1346

    2022

  45. [45]

    Unifying scene representation and hand-eye calibration with 3d foundation models,

    W. Zhi, H. Tang, T. Zhang, and M. Johnson-Roberson, “Unifying scene representation and hand-eye calibration with 3d foundation models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11683, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    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

  47. [47]

    Simultaneous calibration of odometry and sensor parameters for mobile robots,

    A. Censi, A. Franchi, L. Marchionni, and G. Oriolo, “Simultaneous calibration of odometry and sensor parameters for mobile robots,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 475–492, 2013

    2013

  48. [48]

    Simultaneous calibration, localization, and mapping,

    R. K ¨ummerle, G. Grisetti, and W. Burgard, “Simultaneous calibration, localization, and mapping,” in2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2011, pp. 3716–3721

    2011

  49. [49]

    Camodocal: Automatic intrinsic and extrinsic calibration of a rig with multiple generic cameras and odometry,

    L. Heng, B. Li, and M. Pollefeys, “Camodocal: Automatic intrinsic and extrinsic calibration of a rig with multiple generic cameras and odometry,” in2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2013, pp. 1793–1800

    2013

  50. [50]

    An analytical least- squares solution to the odometer-camera extrinsic calibration problem,

    C. X. Guo, F. M. Mirzaei, and S. I. Roumeliotis, “An analytical least- squares solution to the odometer-camera extrinsic calibration problem,” in2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2012, pp. 3962–3968

    2012

  51. [51]

    Automatic multi-sensor extrinsic calibration for mobile robots,

    D. Zu ˜niga-No¨el, J.-R. Ruiz-Sarmiento, R. Gomez-Ojeda, and J. Gonzalez-Jimenez, “Automatic multi-sensor extrinsic calibration for mobile robots,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2862–2869, 2019

    2019

  52. [52]

    Automatic extrinsic rotational calibration of lidar sensors and vehicle orientation estimation,

    S. W. Meyer, H. Chen, and D. M. Bevly, “Automatic extrinsic rotational calibration of lidar sensors and vehicle orientation estimation,”IF AC- PapersOnLine, vol. 54, no. 20, pp. 424–429, 2021

    2021

  53. [53]

    Sensorx2car: Sensors-to-car calibration for autonomous driving in road scenarios,

    G. Yan, Z. Luo, Z. Liu, and Y . Li, “Sensorx2car: Sensors-to-car calibration for autonomous driving in road scenarios,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07279, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Structure-from-motion revisited,

    J. L. Schonberger and J.-M. Frahm, “Structure-from-motion revisited,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 4104–4113

    2016

  55. [55]

    Multi-view stereo: A tutorial,

    Y . Furukawa, C. Hern ´andezet al., “Multi-view stereo: A tutorial,” F oundations and trends® in Computer Graphics and Vision, vol. 9, no. 1-2, pp. 1–148, 2015

    2015

  56. [56]

    Vggsfm: Visual geometry grounded deep structure from motion,

    J. Wang, N. Karaev, C. Rupprecht, and D. Novotny, “Vggsfm: Visual geometry grounded deep structure from motion,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2024, pp. 21 686–21 697

    2024

  57. [57]

    Detector-free structure from motion,

    X. He, J. Sun, Y . Wang, S. Peng, Q. Huang, H. Bao, and X. Zhou, “Detector-free structure from motion,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 21 594–21 603

    2024

  58. [58]

    On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,

    R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, S. von Arx, M. S. Bernstein, J. Bohg, A. Bosselut, E. Brunskillet al., “On the opportunities and risks of foundation models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future,

    R. Firoozi, J. Tucker, S. Tian, A. Majumdar, J. Sun, W. Liu, Y . Zhu, S. Song, A. Kapoor, K. Hausmanet al., “Foundation models in robotics: Applications, challenges, and the future,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, p. 02783649241281508, 2023

    2023

  60. [60]

    Vggt: Visual geometry grounded transformer,

    J. Wang, M. Chen, N. Karaev, A. Vedaldi, C. Rupprecht, and D. Novotny, “Vggt: Visual geometry grounded transformer,” inProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, 2025, pp. 5294– 5306. 13

    2025

  61. [61]

    To aggregate or not to aggregate: Selective match kernels for image search,

    G. Tolias, Y . Avrithis, and H. J ´egou, “To aggregate or not to aggregate: Selective match kernels for image search,” inProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2013, pp. 1401–1408

    2013

  62. [62]

    Graspnet-1billion: A large- scale benchmark for general object grasping,

    H.-S. Fang, C. Wang, M. Gou, and C. Lu, “Graspnet-1billion: A large- scale benchmark for general object grasping,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. 11 444–11 453

    2020

  63. [63]

    Are we ready for service robots? the openloris- scene datasets for lifelong slam,

    X. Shi, D. Li, P. Zhao, Q. Tian, Y . Tian, Q. Long, C. Zhu, J. Song, F. Qiao, L. Songet al., “Are we ready for service robots? the openloris- scene datasets for lifelong slam,” in2020 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2020, pp. 3139–3145

    2020

  64. [64]

    A benchmark dataset for collaborative slam in service environments,

    H. Park, I. Lee, M. Kim, H. Park, and K. Joo, “A benchmark dataset for collaborative slam in service environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2024

    2024

  65. [65]

    On-line hand-eye calibration,

    N. Andreff, R. Horaud, and B. Espiau, “On-line hand-eye calibration,” in Second International Conference on 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling (Cat. No. PR00062). IEEE, 1999, pp. 430–436

    1999

  66. [66]

    The dual quaternion approach to hand-eye calibration,

    K. Daniilidis and E. Bayro-Corrochano, “The dual quaternion approach to hand-eye calibration,” inProceedings of 13th International Confer- ence on Pattern Recognition, vol. 1. IEEE, 1996, pp. 318–322

    1996

  67. [67]

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

    S. Liu, Z. Zeng, T. Ren, F. Li, H. Zhang, J. Yang, Q. Jiang, C. Li, J. Yang, H. Suet al., “Grounding dino: Marrying dino with grounded pre-training for open-set object detection,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 38–55

    2024

  68. [68]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R¨adle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafsonet al., “Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    An improved ransac for 3d point cloud plane segmentation based on normal distribution transformation cells,

    L. Li, F. Yang, H. Zhu, D. Li, Y . Li, and L. Tang, “An improved ransac for 3d point cloud plane segmentation based on normal distribution transformation cells,”Remote Sensing, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 433, 2017

    2017

  70. [2011]

    3497–3503

    IEEE, 2011, pp. 3497–3503

    2011

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.