pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15496 · v1 · pith:733ISBBTnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.CV

LAPS: Improving Incremental LiDAR Mapping using Active Pooling and Sampling for Neural Distance Fields

Dongjae Lee , Wooseong Yang , Yifu Tao , Maurice Fallon , Ayoung Kim This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 15:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.CV
keywords neural distance fieldsincremental LiDAR mappingcatastrophic forgettingactive samplingreplay buffer3D reconstructiononline optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

LAPS manages replay buffers with reliability-based pooling and uncertainty sampling to reduce forgetting in incremental neural LiDAR mapping.

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

The paper presents LAPS as a replay management system for training neural distance fields from sequential LiDAR scans. It retains the most reliable past measurements through active pooling while directing new optimization steps toward regions where the current field is least certain. This dual approach keeps the map from degrading old geometry when new data arrives and improves how fully the environment gets reconstructed. Readers would care because online 3D mapping for robots must work with bounded memory and streaming observations, yet standard replay methods often waste capacity on redundant data or leave gaps unfilled.

Core claim

LAPS combines reliability-based active pooling to retain reliable historical samples under limited memory with uncertainty-guided active sampling to focus optimization on under-constrained regions, consistently improving reconstruction completeness while maintaining competitive geometric accuracy.

What carries the argument

The LAPS replay management framework that scores historical points for reliability to decide retention and estimates uncertainty in the neural distance field to guide which new points receive optimization effort.

If this is right

  • Reconstruction recall improves by 4.66 percentage points and F1-score by 3.79 points over PIN-SLAM on the Blenheim Palace sequence from Oxford Spires.
  • Completeness increases on both synthetic and real-world benchmarks while geometric accuracy stays competitive.
  • Memory use for the replay buffer becomes more efficient by discarding low-reliability historical observations.
  • Online updates focus computation on poorly constrained areas rather than uniformly sampling the buffer.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same active selection logic could be tested on other continuous representations such as neural radiance fields or Gaussian splats for LiDAR or camera streams.
  • If uncertainty estimates remain reliable across sensor modalities, the method might extend to multi-sensor fusion without retraining the selection rules.
  • A natural next measurement would compare memory-accuracy curves when the reliability threshold is varied on longer trajectories.

Load-bearing premise

Reliability scores and uncertainty estimates derived from the current neural distance field give unbiased guidance on which samples to keep and which regions to emphasize.

What would settle it

Run LAPS on a dataset where ground-truth geometry is known and deliberately add noise to the uncertainty estimator; if completeness gains disappear or accuracy drops below a uniform-sampling baseline, the claim is refuted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15496 by Ayoung Kim, Dongjae Lee, Maurice Fallon, Wooseong Yang, Yifu Tao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of LAPS. LAPS incrementally reconstructs 3D environments from LiDAR scans with a neural distance field and manages online replay through (i) reliability-based active pooling to maintain a compact buffer with reduced spatial sample imbalance, and (ii) uncertainty-guided active sampling to focus optimization on under-constrained regions. Note that in the Radcliffe Camera example, the top region is n… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: LAPS pipeline. At each time step, we convert the incoming LiDAR scan into TSDF supervision samples and use them to update a neural distance field. The samples are inserted into a replay buffer through reliability-based active pooling. We then repeatedly draw mini-batches using uncertainty-guided active sampling and perform optimization steps to update the neural map. become occupied by LiDAR measurements. … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Uncertainty-guided active sampling. We estimate model uncertainty of the neural map at each time step. Red boxes illustrate how uncertainty evolves; regions become more certain as they receive supervision, while newly observed regions remain highly uncertain until sufficient updates are incorporated. Guided by this uncertainty, we construct training batches by combining samples from uncertain and certain v… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on MaiCity [22] and Newer College [23]. Top (MaiCity): LAPS better preserves fine structures (boxed), while baselines show missing geometry, floating artifacts, and inflated shapes. Bottom (Newer College): LAPS produces smoother, more complete surfaces with fewer unreconstructed regions than the baselines. (Best viewed when zoomed in.) TABLE I: Quantitative results on MaiCity [22]. P… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison on Oxford Spires [26]. Top (Blenheim 05) and bottom (Keble 04): Baselines tend to miss geometry in under-observed regions or add spurious surfaces, such as floating artifacts, particularly around complex structures. In contrast, LAPS produces more spatially coherent reconstructions with improved coverage across the scene. (Best viewed when zoomed in.) TABLE III: Quantitative results … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Training efficiency of active sampling on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effect of active pooling on MaiCity. Without active pooling, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Replay buffer memory on Newer College (260 frames). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Neural distance fields offer a compact and continuous representation of 3D geometry, making them attractive for incremental LiDAR mapping. However, their online optimization is vulnerable to catastrophic forgetting, where new observations can degrade previously reconstructed geometry. Replay-based training is commonly used to address this issue, but existing methods typically rely on passive replay buffers and uniform sampling, which can waste memory on redundant observations and under-train poorly constrained regions. We propose LAPS, a replay management framework for incremental neural mapping that improves both replay retention and replay allocation during online updates. LAPS combines reliability-based active pooling to retain reliable historical samples under limited memory with uncertainty-guided active sampling to focus optimization on under-constrained regions. Experiments on synthetic and real-world benchmarks show that LAPS consistently improves reconstruction completeness while maintaining competitive geometric accuracy. On Oxford Spires, it improves recall by 4.66 pp and F1-score by 3.79 pp over PIN-SLAM on the Blenheim Palace 05 sequence. We release our open source implementation at: https://github.com/dongjae0107/LAPS.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes LAPS, a replay management framework for incremental optimization of neural distance fields in LiDAR mapping. It combines reliability-based active pooling to retain reliable historical samples under limited memory with uncertainty-guided active sampling to prioritize under-constrained regions, aiming to reduce catastrophic forgetting compared to passive uniform replay. Experiments on synthetic and real-world data, including the Oxford Spires dataset, report gains in reconstruction completeness and competitive geometric accuracy, with specific improvements of +4.66 pp recall and +3.79 pp F1-score over PIN-SLAM on the Blenheim Palace 05 sequence. The implementation is released as open source.

Significance. If the central claims hold after addressing validation gaps, LAPS offers a targeted engineering improvement for memory-constrained online NDF mapping in robotics, with potential to enhance completeness without sacrificing accuracy. The open-source release aids reproducibility.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and Experiments: quantitative gains (recall +4.66 pp, F1 +3.79 pp) are stated without reported details on experimental controls, number of runs, statistical significance testing, or precise definitions/computation of completeness and accuracy metrics, which are load-bearing for the empirical claims.
  2. [Method] Method (active pooling and sampling): reliability scores and uncertainty estimates are derived directly from the evolving neural distance field during incremental updates. This creates a potential self-reinforcing feedback loop in which early optimization errors or under-constrained regions bias the very signals used for sample retention and prioritization, risking systematic distortion of the replay buffer. No decoupling (e.g., frozen estimator, ground-truth proxy, or stability analysis) is described to rule this out.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The GitHub link for the open-source implementation is a strength for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the changes we will make in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and Experiments: quantitative gains (recall +4.66 pp, F1 +3.79 pp) are stated without reported details on experimental controls, number of runs, statistical significance testing, or precise definitions/computation of completeness and accuracy metrics, which are load-bearing for the empirical claims.

    Authors: We agree that the reported quantitative improvements require fuller experimental context to be properly evaluated. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Experiments section to report the number of independent runs, any measures of variability across runs, the statistical tests applied (if any), and the exact definitions and computation procedures for recall, F1-score, completeness, and geometric accuracy. We will also ensure the abstract claims are appropriately qualified or cross-referenced to these details. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] Method (active pooling and sampling): reliability scores and uncertainty estimates are derived directly from the evolving neural distance field during incremental updates. This creates a potential self-reinforcing feedback loop in which early optimization errors or under-constrained regions bias the very signals used for sample retention and prioritization, risking systematic distortion of the replay buffer. No decoupling (e.g., frozen estimator, ground-truth proxy, or stability analysis) is described to rule this out.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern about possible feedback bias in an online setting. Although our reliability and uncertainty signals follow common practice in active replay methods, we will add a new analysis subsection that examines the temporal stability of these scores during incremental mapping and includes an ablation that periodically freezes the estimator used for scoring. This will allow us to quantify and mitigate any systematic distortion of the replay buffer. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical replay framework validated on external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper describes LAPS as a practical replay-management method combining reliability-based pooling and uncertainty-guided sampling for incremental NDF optimization. All reported gains (e.g., +4.66 pp recall on Oxford Spires) are obtained by direct comparison against independent baselines such as PIN-SLAM on held-out sequences. No equation, prediction, or central claim is shown to reduce by construction to a quantity fitted inside the same run; the reliability and uncertainty signals are used heuristically and their effectiveness is measured externally rather than assumed. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described. The method appears to rely on standard neural optimization and existing distance field representations without introducing new postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5735 in / 1075 out tokens · 35168 ms · 2026-05-19T15:52:19.105379+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Dense map representation,

    V . Reijgwart, J. Behley, T. Vidal-Calleja, H. Oleynikova, L. Ott, C. Stachniss, and A. Kim, “Dense map representation,” in SLAM Handbook. From Localization and Mapping to Spatial Intelligence, L. Carlone, A. Kim, T. Barfoot, D. Cremers, and F. Dellaert, Eds. Cambridge University Press, 2026

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Shine-mapping: Large-scale 3d mapping using sparse hierarchical implicit neural representations,

    X. Zhong, Y . Pan, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Shine-mapping: Large-scale 3d mapping using sparse hierarchical implicit neural representations,” inIEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automa- tion, 2023, pp. 8371–8377

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Neural geometric level of detail: Real-time rendering with implicit 3d shapes,

    T. Takikawa, J. Litalien, K. Yin, K. Kreis, C. Loop, D. Nowrouzezahrai, A. Jacobson, M. McGuire, and S. Fidler, “Neural geometric level of detail: Real-time rendering with implicit 3d shapes,” inIEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021, pp. 11 358–11 367

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,

    T. M ¨uller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller, “Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,”ACM Trans. on Graphics (TOG), vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Pin-slam: Lidar slam using a point-based implicit neural representation for achieving global map consistency,

    Y . Pan, X. Zhong, L. Wiesmann, T. Posewsky, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Pin-slam: Lidar slam using a point-based implicit neural representation for achieving global map consistency,” IEEE Trans. Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 4045–4064, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    isdf: Real-time neural signed distance fields for robot perception,

    J. Ortiz, A. Clegg, J. Dong, E. Sucar, D. Novotn `y, M. Zollh¨ofer, and M. Mukadam, “isdf: Real-time neural signed distance fields for robot perception,” inRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    N3-mapping: Normal guided neural non-projective signed distance fields for large-scale 3d mapping,

    S. Song, J. Zhao, K. Huang, J. Lin, C. Ye, and T. Feng, “N3-mapping: Normal guided neural non-projective signed distance fields for large-scale 3d mapping,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 5935–5942, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Real- time 3d reconstruction at scale using voxel hashing,

    M. Nießner, M. Zollh ¨ofer, S. Izadi, and M. Stamminger, “Real- time 3d reconstruction at scale using voxel hashing,”ACM Trans. on Graphics (TOG), vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1–11, 2013

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    Octomap: An efficient probabilistic 3d mapping framework based on octrees,

    A. Hornung, K. M. Wurm, M. Bennewitz, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “Octomap: An efficient probabilistic 3d mapping framework based on octrees,”Autonomous Robots, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 189–206, 2013

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Vdb- fusion: Flexible and efficient tsdf integration of range sensor data,

    I. Vizzo, T. Guadagnino, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Vdb- fusion: Flexible and efficient tsdf integration of range sensor data,”Sensors, vol. 22, no. 3, p. 1296, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    imap: Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time,

    E. Sucar, S. Liu, J. Ortiz, and A. J. Davison, “imap: Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time,” inIntl. Conf. on Com- puter Vision (ICCV), 2021, pp. 6229–6238

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Bayes’ rays: Uncertainty quantification for neural radiance fields,

    L. Goli, C. Reading, S. Sell ´an, A. Jacobson, and A. Tagliasacchi, “Bayes’ rays: Uncertainty quantification for neural radiance fields,” inIEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 20 061–20 070

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    SiLVR: Scalable lidar-visual radi- ance field reconstruction with uncertainty quantification,

    Y . Tao and M. Fallon, “SiLVR: Scalable lidar-visual radi- ance field reconstruction with uncertainty quantification,”IEEE Trans. Robotics, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Fisherrf: Active view selec- tion and mapping with radiance fields using fisher information,

    W. Jiang, B. Lei, and K. Daniilidis, “Fisherrf: Active view selec- tion and mapping with radiance fields using fisher information,” inEuropean Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV). Springer, 2024, pp. 422–440

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Un3-mapping: Uncertainty-aware neural non-projective signed distance fields for 3d mapping,

    S. Song, J. Zhao, E. Veas, J. Lin, Q. Cao, C. Ye, and T. Feng, “Un3-mapping: Uncertainty-aware neural non-projective signed distance fields for 3d mapping,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2025

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    3d lidar mapping in dynamic environments using a 4d implicit neural representation,

    X. Zhong, Y . Pan, C. Stachniss, and J. Behley, “3d lidar mapping in dynamic environments using a 4d implicit neural representation,” inIEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 15 417–15 427

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Optimized spatial hashing for collision detec- tion of deformable objects

    M. Teschner, B. Heidelberger, M. M ¨uller, D. Pomerantes, and M. H. Gross, “Optimized spatial hashing for collision detec- tion of deformable objects.” inVision, Modeling, Visualization (VMV), vol. 3, 2003, pp. 47–54

    work page 2003

  18. [18]

    Multi-resolution 3d mapping with explicit free space representation for fast and accurate mobile robot motion planning,

    N. Funk, J. Tarrio, S. Papatheodorou, M. Popovi ´c, P. F. Alcan- tarilla, and S. Leutenegger, “Multi-resolution 3d mapping with explicit free space representation for fast and accurate mobile robot motion planning,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3553–3560, 2021

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam,

    Z. Zhu, S. Peng, V . Larsson, W. Xu, H. Bao, Z. Cui, M. R. Oswald, and M. Pollefeys, “Nice-slam: Neural implicit scalable encoding for slam,” inIEEE/CVF Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 12 786–12 796

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Laplace redux-effortless bayesian deep learning,

    E. Daxberger, A. Kristiadi, A. Immer, R. Eschenhagen, M. Bauer, and P. Hennig, “Laplace redux-effortless bayesian deep learning,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 34, pp. 20 089–20 103, 2021

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Silvr: Scalable lidar-visual reconstruction with neural radiance fields for robotic inspection,

    Y . Tao, Y . Bhalgat, L. F. T. Fu, M. Mattamala, N. Chebrolu, and M. Fallon, “Silvr: Scalable lidar-visual reconstruction with neural radiance fields for robotic inspection,” inIEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2024, pp. 17 983–17 989

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Poisson surface reconstruction for lidar odometry and map- ping,

    I. Vizzo, X. Chen, N. Chebrolu, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Poisson surface reconstruction for lidar odometry and map- ping,” inIEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2021, pp. 5624–5630

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    The newer college dataset: Handheld lidar, inertial and vision with ground truth,

    M. Ramezani, Y . Wang, M. Camurri, D. Wisth, M. Mattamala, and M. Fallon, “The newer college dataset: Handheld lidar, inertial and vision with ground truth,” inIEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 4353–4360

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Open3D: A Modern Library for 3D Data Processing

    Q.-Y . Zhou, J. Park, and V . Koltun, “Open3d: A modern library for 3d data processing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09847, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    V oxfield: Non-projective signed distance fields for online planning and 3d reconstruction,

    Y . Pan, Y . Kompis, L. Bartolomei, R. Mascaro, C. Stachniss, and M. Chli, “V oxfield: Non-projective signed distance fields for online planning and 3d reconstruction,” inIEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2022, pp. 5331–5338

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    The oxford spires dataset: Benchmarking large- scale lidar-visual localisation, reconstruction and radiance field methods,

    Y . Tao, M. ´A. Mu ˜noz-Ba˜n´on, L. Zhang, J. Wang, L. F. T. Fu, and M. Fallon, “The oxford spires dataset: Benchmarking large- scale lidar-visual localisation, reconstruction and radiance field methods,”Intl. J. of Robotics Research, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Efficient implementation of marching cubes’ cases with topological guar- antees,

    T. Lewiner, H. Lopes, A. W. Vieira, and G. Tavares, “Efficient implementation of marching cubes’ cases with topological guar- antees,”Journal of graphics tools, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1–15, 2003

    work page 2003