Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 51 references

MR-SLAM: Immersive Spatial Supervision for Multi-Robot Mapping via Mixed Reality

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-20 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read MR-SLAM merges occupancy grids from multiple robots in real time and displays the results on spatially anchored panels viewed through a passthrough mixed-reality headset.

desk verdict MR-SLAM shows a working passthrough MR interface for supervising three simulated robots on ROS 2 with real-time map merging and solid reported metrics, but stays entirely in simulation. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.16432 v1 pith:NJJMSNVU submitted 2026-05-14 cs.RO cs.AIcs.HC

Prakash Aryan , Cem Erdogdu , Kavinaya Kumarchokkappan , Timo Kehrer , Sebastiano Panichella This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.HC
keywords mixedrealitymulti-robotSLAMoccupancygridmergingpassthroughMRROS2teleoperationspatialsupervisionmappingconsistency
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 shows how an operator wearing a Meta Quest 3 can teleoperate three simulated robots while seeing their combined mapping progress directly in the physical space rather than on separate 2D screens. Each robot runs its own SLAM process, the grids are fused on a ROS 2 back end, and the merged map appears on dashboard panels that stay fixed in the operator's view. In five nine-minute sessions the setup produced scans at roughly nine hertz, covered nearly eighteen square meters, and kept cross-robot map agreement above 94 percent. The work treats the combination of passthrough MR supervision and multi-robot SLAM as a practical reference on ordinary consumer hardware.

What carries the argument

Real-time merging of independent occupancy grids on a ROS 2 back end, rendered in situ through passthrough mixed reality with spatially anchored dashboard panels on a Meta Quest 3 headset.

What would settle it

Deploying the same headset and ROS 2 pipeline with actual TurtleBot3 robots in an unstructured indoor space and checking whether scan frequency falls below 5 Hz or cross-robot map consistency drops below 85 percent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MR-SLAM lets an operator wearing a Meta Quest 3 headset teleoperate three simulated TurtleBot3 robots through a passthrough view while spatially anchored dashboard panels show real-time merged occupancy grids produced by independent SLAM Toolbox instances running on a ROS 2 back end, delivering 8.83 Hz scan rates, 17.9 m² merged coverage, and 94.7 percent cross-instance consistency across five nine-minute sessions.

Load-bearing premise

Performance measured with simulated TurtleBot3 robots in a controlled passthrough setup will carry over to physical robots operating under real sensor noise and environmental dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An operator can maintain simultaneous spatial awareness of each robot's position and mapping state without switching between 2D windows.
  • Merged occupancy data updates at interactive rates while the operator continues to teleoperate all robots.
  • The approach runs on unmodified consumer mixed-reality hardware and open-source ROS 2 tooling.
  • The system provides a concrete baseline for measuring latency, coverage, and consistency in future multi-robot MR supervision setups.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same anchored-panel technique could be combined with task-planning overlays or anomaly alerts without leaving the mixed-reality view.
  • Extending the pipeline to larger robot teams would require testing whether the current single back-end merge remains responsive.
  • If physical-robot versions retain the reported consistency, the method could support warehouse or inspection workflows where operators stay outside the mapped area.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents MR-SLAM, a mixed reality system using a Meta Quest 3 headset for immersive supervision of multi-robot SLAM. An operator teleoperates three simulated TurtleBot3 robots via passthrough view with real-world occlusion, while spatially anchored dashboards display mapping progress. Independent SLAM Toolbox instances run on each robot, with occupancy grids merged in real time on a ROS 2 backend. Quantitative results from five 9-minute evaluation sessions report a scan rate of 8.83 ± 0.16 Hz, merged occupancy of 17.9 ± 0.8 m², and 94.7 ± 0.5% cross-instance occupancy consistency; an additional session reports 6.3 ms median transform jitter and 26.7 m² coverage of a 41 m² grid. The work is positioned as a reference implementation for passthrough MR supervision combined with multi-robot SLAM on consumer hardware.

Significance. If the results hold under more realistic conditions, MR-SLAM could provide a valuable interface for operators to maintain spatial awareness across multiple robots, addressing scalability issues of conventional 2D displays in tasks such as building inspection. The quantitative metrics with reported standard deviations from repeated sessions are a strength, supporting claims of real-time performance and consistency in the simulated setting. The approach demonstrates feasible integration of consumer MR hardware with ROS 2 SLAM pipelines.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and evaluation description: all reported metrics (scan rate 8.83 ± 0.16 Hz, merged area 17.9 ± 0.8 m², 94.7 ± 0.5% cross-instance consistency) are obtained exclusively from simulated TurtleBot3 robots in a controlled passthrough MR setup. This idealizes robot dynamics, odometry, and sensor models, leaving the central claim of a practical supervision system for real-world multi-robot mapping (e.g., warehouse monitoring) untested against wheel slip, LiDAR noise, and unmodeled obstacles.
  2. Evaluation section: the cross-instance occupancy consistency metric is presented as evidence of effective merging, yet no details are provided on its exact computation (e.g., grid alignment method, overlap threshold, or handling of differing robot poses), making it difficult to assess whether the 94.7% figure directly supports the claimed benefits of immersive supervision.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from explicit discussion of how the passthrough MR view interacts with the spatially anchored dashboards to avoid occlusion conflicts during teleoperation.
  2. Figure captions and axis labels in the results presentation could be clarified to indicate whether error bars represent standard deviation across the five sessions or another measure.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation of our evaluation and its limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [—] Abstract and evaluation description: all reported metrics (scan rate 8.83 ± 0.16 Hz, merged area 17.9 ± 0.8 m², 94.7 ± 0.5% cross-instance consistency) are obtained exclusively from simulated TurtleBot3 robots in a controlled passthrough MR setup. This idealizes robot dynamics, odometry, and sensor models, leaving the central claim of a practical supervision system for real-world multi-robot mapping (e.g., warehouse monitoring) untested against wheel slip, LiDAR noise, and unmodeled obstacles.

    Authors: We agree that the reported results are obtained exclusively in simulation and that this limits direct claims about robustness to real-world effects such as wheel slip or sensor noise. The simulated Gazebo environment was chosen to enable repeatable, controlled sessions that isolate the performance of the passthrough MR interface, spatial anchoring, and real-time occupancy-grid merging pipeline on consumer hardware. This allowed us to collect the reported statistics with standard deviations across five independent 9-minute runs. We acknowledge that the current evaluation does not constitute a full real-world validation. In the revised manuscript we will (1) explicitly qualify the abstract and evaluation sections to state that all quantitative results are from simulation, (2) expand the Discussion to list the idealized assumptions (perfect odometry, noise-free LiDAR, no dynamic obstacles), and (3) add a dedicated Future Work paragraph describing planned physical-robot experiments. These textual changes will be made without altering the core technical contribution. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [—] Evaluation section: the cross-instance occupancy consistency metric is presented as evidence of effective merging, yet no details are provided on its exact computation (e.g., grid alignment method, overlap threshold, or handling of differing robot poses), making it difficult to assess whether the 94.7% figure directly supports the claimed benefits of immersive supervision.

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing out this omission. The cross-instance occupancy consistency was computed by (a) retrieving the relative transforms between each robot pair from the ROS 2 tf tree at each evaluation timestamp, (b) transforming the occupancy grids into a common reference frame, (c) restricting the comparison to the spatial overlap region, and (d) calculating the percentage of cells whose occupancy probability differed by less than 0.1 after thresholding at 0.5. We will insert a new subsection titled “Occupancy Consistency Metric” in the revised Evaluation section that fully documents this procedure, including the alignment method, overlap criterion, and any handling of pose uncertainty. This addition will allow readers to evaluate the metric’s validity and its relation to the benefits of the MR supervision interface. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: descriptive systems implementation reporting empirical measurements

full rationale

The paper is a systems description of an MR-SLAM implementation that teleoperates simulated TurtleBot3 robots and reports observed performance numbers (scan rate, mapped area, occupancy consistency) from five 9-minute sessions. No mathematical derivations, first-principles predictions, or fitted models are claimed; the central results are direct empirical observations in a controlled simulation. No self-citations or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing steps for any derivation chain, so the work is self-contained against external benchmarks.

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

This is an applied engineering systems paper describing an interface for existing robotics components; it introduces no free parameters, mathematical axioms, or new invented entities beyond standard SLAM and MR technologies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MR-SLAM: Immersive Spatial Supervision for Multi-Robot Mapping via Mixed Reality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NJJMSNVU

@misc{pith2026260516432,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MR-SLAM: Immersive Spatial Supervision for Multi-Robot Mapping via Mixed Reality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NJJMSNVU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.16432}
}
read the original abstract

Operating a multi-robot fleet for simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) in applications such as building inspection or warehouse-aisle monitoring requires the operator to maintain spatial awareness of each robot's position and mapping state, a task that scales poorly on conventional 2D interfaces. We present MR-SLAM, a mixed reality (MR) system in which an operator wearing a Meta Quest 3 headset teleoperates three simulated TurtleBot3 robots through a passthrough view with real-world occlusion, while spatially anchored dashboard panels report mapping progress in situ. Each robot runs an independent SLAM Toolbox instance whose occupancy grid is merged in real time on a Robot Operating System 2 (ROS 2) back end. Across five 9-minute evaluation sessions, the system delivered scans at 8.83 +/- 0.16 Hz, mapped 17.9 +/- 0.8 m^2 of merged occupancy, and reached 94.7 +/- 0.5% cross-instance occupancy consistency across robot pairs. An additional session recorded 6.3 ms median transform jitter and 26.7 m^2 coverage of a 41 m^2 grid. We position MR-SLAM as a reference implementation for combining passthrough mixed reality supervision with multi-robot SLAM on consumer hardware.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16432 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MR-SLAM system architecture. Layer 1: operator with Meta Quest 3 passthrough MR. Layer 2: Unity application with robot physics, LiDAR raycasting, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Three simulated TurtleBot3 robots placed in the laboratory environ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) TF frame hierarchy: solid arrows = SLAM-published ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative map coverage over time for each robot and the merged [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Scan reception rates at SLAM Toolbox for each robot. (b) TF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Past, Present, and Future of Simultaneous Localization And Mapping: Towards the Robust-Perception Age

    C. Cadena, L. Carlone, H. Carrillo, Y . Latif, D. Scaramuzza, J. Neira, I. Reid, and J. J. Leonard, “Past, Present, and Future of Simultaneous Localization And Mapping: Towards the Robust- Perception Age,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1309–1332, Dec. 2016, arXiv:1606.05830 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.05830

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Simultaneous localization and mapping: part I,

    H. Durrant-Whyte and T. Bailey, “Simultaneous localization and mapping: part I,”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 99–110, Jun. 2006. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore. ieee.org/document/1638022

    work page arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    Estimating Uncertain Spatial Relationships in Robotics

    R. Smith, M. Self, and P. Cheeseman, “Estimating Uncertain Spatial Relationships in Robotics,” Mar. 2013, arXiv:1304.3111 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3111

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Thrun, W

    S. Thrun, W. Burgard, and D. Fox,Probabilistic Robotics (Intelligent Robotics and Autonomous Agents). The MIT Press, Aug. 2005

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Towards Collaborative Simultaneous Localization and Mapping: a Survey of the Current Research Landscape,

    P.-Y . Lajoie, B. Ramtoula, F. Wu, and G. Beltrame, “Towards Collaborative Simultaneous Localization and Mapping: a Survey of the Current Research Landscape,”Field Robotics, vol. 2, pp. 971–1000, May 2022, arXiv:2108.08325 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2108.08325

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    A Tutorial on Graph-Based SLAM,

    G. Grisetti, R. K ¨ummerle, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “A Tutorial on Graph-Based SLAM,”IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 31–43, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5681215

    work page arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    DOOR-SLAM: Distributed, Online, and Outlier Resilient SLAM for Robotic Teams,

    P.-Y . Lajoie, B. Ramtoula, Y . Chang, L. Carlone, and G. Beltrame, “DOOR-SLAM: Distributed, Online, and Outlier Resilient SLAM for Robotic Teams,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1656–1663, Apr. 2020, arXiv:1909.12198 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.12198

    work page arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Swarm-SLAM : Sparse Decentralized Collaborative Simultaneous Localization and Mapping Framework for Multi-Robot Systems,

    P.-Y . Lajoie and G. Beltrame, “Swarm-SLAM : Sparse Decentralized Collaborative Simultaneous Localization and Mapping Framework for Multi-Robot Systems,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 475–482, Jan. 2024, arXiv:2301.06230 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06230

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    T. B. Sheridan,Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, Aug. 1992

    1992

  2. [10]

    Simulation-based test case generation for unmanned aerial vehicles in the neighborhood of real flights,

    S. Khatiri, S. Panichella, and P. Tonella, “Simulation-based test case generation for unmanned aerial vehicles in the neighborhood of real flights,” inInternational Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation. IEEE, 2023, pp. 281–292. [Online]. Available: https...

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    A Systematic Review of Virtual Reality Interfaces for Controlling and Interacting with Robots,

    M. Wonsick and T. Padir, “A Systematic Review of Virtual Reality Interfaces for Controlling and Interacting with Robots,”Applied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 24, p. 9051, Jan. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/24/9051

    2020

  4. [12]

    Augmented Reality and Robotics: A Survey and Taxonomy for AR-enhanced Human-Robot Interaction and Robotic Interfaces,

    R. Suzuki, A. Karim, T. Xia, H. Hedayati, and N. Marquardt, “Augmented Reality and Robotics: A Survey and Taxonomy for AR-enhanced Human-Robot Interaction and Robotic Interfaces,” inCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Apr. 2022, pp. 1–33, arXiv:2203.03254 [cs...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Reality for Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey and Virtual Design Element Taxonomy,

    M. Walker, T. Phung, T. Chakraborti, T. Williams, and D. Szafir, “Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Reality for Human-Robot Interaction: A Survey and Virtual Design Element Taxonomy,” Feb. 2022, arXiv:2202.11249 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2202. 11249

    2022

  6. [14]

    Improving Collocated Robot Teleoperation with Augmented Reality,

    H. Hedayati, M. Walker, and D. Szafir, “Improving Collocated Robot Teleoperation with Augmented Reality,” in2018 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Mar. 2018, pp. 78–86, iSSN: 2167-2148. [Online]. Available: https: //ieeexplore.ieee.org/do...

    2018

  7. [15]

    How does simulation-based testing for self-driving cars match human perception?

    C. Birchler, T. K. Mohammed, P. Rani, T. Nechita, T. Kehrer, and S. Panichella, “How does simulation-based testing for self-driving cars match human perception?” inACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    The Cyber-Physical Control Room: A Mixed Reality Interface for Mobile Robot Teleoperation and Human-Robot Teaming,

    M. E. Walker, M. Gramopadhye, B. Ikeda, J. Burns, and D. Szafir, “The Cyber-Physical Control Room: A Mixed Reality Interface for Mobile Robot Teleoperation and Human-Robot Teaming,” in2024 19th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Mar. 2024, pp. ...

    2024

  9. [17]

    SimNav- XR: an extended reality platform for mobile robot simulation using ROS2 and Unity3D,

    P. Aryan, S. D. Shetty, V . Kalaichelvi, and R. Karthikeyan, “SimNav- XR: an extended reality platform for mobile robot simulation using ROS2 and Unity3D,”Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 13, Feb. 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ robotics-and-...

    2026 doi

  10. [18]

    SLAM Toolbox: SLAM for the dynamic world,

    S. Macenski and I. Jambrecic, “SLAM Toolbox: SLAM for the dynamic world,”Journal of Open Source Software, vol. 6, no. 61, p. 2783, May 2021. [Online]. Available: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10. 21105/joss.02783

    2021

  11. [19]

    Merging Occupancy Grid Maps From Multiple Robots,

    A. Birk and S. Carpin, “Merging Occupancy Grid Maps From Multiple Robots,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 1384–1397, Jul

  12. [20]

    Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1677951

    [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1677951

  13. [21]

    Fast and accurate map merging for multi-robot systems,

    S. Carpin, “Fast and accurate map merging for multi-robot systems,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 305–316, Oct. 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-008-9097-4

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    Physics-informed machine learning for precision unmanned aerial vehicle control: Adaptive transformers with safety guarantees,

    P. Aryan and S. Panichella, “Physics-informed machine learning for precision unmanned aerial vehicle control: Adaptive transformers with safety guarantees,”Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 172, p. 114379, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2026.114379

    2026 doi

  15. [23]

    CCM-SLAM: Robust and efficient centralized collaborative monocular simultaneous lo- calization and mapping for robotic teams,

    P. Schmuck and M. Chli, “CCM-SLAM: Robust and efficient centralized collaborative monocular simultaneous lo- calization and mapping for robotic teams,”Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 763–781, 2019, eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/rob.2185...

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Kimera-Multi: a System for Distributed Multi-Robot Metric-Semantic Simultaneous Localization and Mapping,

    Y . Chang, Y . Tian, J. P. How, and L. Carlone, “Kimera-Multi: a System for Distributed Multi-Robot Metric-Semantic Simultaneous Localization and Mapping,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2021, pp. 11 210–11 218, iSSN: 2577-087X. [On...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Kimera-Multi: Robust, Distributed, Dense Metric-Semantic SLAM for Multi-Robot Systems,

    Y . Tian, Y . Chang, F. H. Arias, C. Nieto-Granda, J. P. How, and L. Carlone, “Kimera-Multi: Robust, Distributed, Dense Metric-Semantic SLAM for Multi-Robot Systems,” Dec. 2021, arXiv:2106.14386 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.14386

    2021

  18. [26]

    LAMP: Large-Scale Autonomous Mapping and Positioning for Exploration of Perceptually-Degraded Subterranean Environments,

    K. Ebadi, Y . Chang, M. Palieri, A. Stephens, A. Hatteland, E. Heiden, A. Thakur, N. Funabiki, B. Morrell, S. Wood, L. Carlone, and A.-a. Agha-mohammadi, “LAMP: Large-Scale Autonomous Mapping and Positioning for Exploration of Perceptually-Degraded Subterranean Environments,” ...

    2020

  19. [27]

    LAMP 2.0: A Robust Multi-Robot SLAM System for Operation in Challenging Large-Scale Underground Environments,

    Y . Chang, K. Ebadi, C. E. Denniston, M. F. Ginting, A. Rosinol, A. Reinke, M. Palieri, J. Shi, A. Chatterjee, B. Morrell, A.-a. Agha-mohammadi, and L. Carlone, “LAMP 2.0: A Robust Multi-Robot SLAM System for Operation in Challenging Large-Scale Underground Environments,” Jul....

    2022

  20. [28]

    Using occupancy grids for mobile robot perception and navigation,

    A. Elfes, “Using occupancy grids for mobile robot perception and navigation,”Computer, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 46–57, Jun. 1989. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/30720

    1989

  21. [29]

    High resolution maps from wide angle sonar,

    H. Moravec and A. Elfes, “High resolution maps from wide angle sonar,” in1985 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation Proceedings, vol. 2, Mar. 1985, pp. 116–121. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1087316

    1985

  22. [30]

    ORB-SLAM2: an Open-Source SLAM System for Monocular, Stereo and RGB-D Cameras,

    R. Mur-Artal and J. D. Tardos, “ORB-SLAM2: an Open-Source SLAM System for Monocular, Stereo and RGB-D Cameras,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1255–1262, Oct. 2017, arXiv:1610.06475 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.06475

    2017

  23. [31]

    Real-time loop closure in 2D LIDAR SLAM,

    W. Hess, D. Kohler, H. Rapp, and D. Andor, “Real-time loop closure in 2D LIDAR SLAM,” in2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2016, pp. 1271–1278. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7487258

    2016

  24. [32]

    A Comparison of Modern General- Purpose Visual SLAM Approaches,

    A. Merzlyakov and S. Macenski, “A Comparison of Modern General- Purpose Visual SLAM Approaches,” Aug. 2021, arXiv:2107.07589 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.07589

    2021

  25. [33]

    On map merging,

    S. Carpin, A. Birk, and V . Jucikas, “On map merging,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 1–14, Oct. 2005. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0921889005001041

    2005

  26. [34]

    On the Development of a Mobile TurtleBot3 Burger Multi-robot System for Manufacturing Environment Monitorization,

    C. Nica, M. Oprea, and A.-C. Stan, “On the Development of a Mobile TurtleBot3 Burger Multi-robot System for Manufacturing Environment Monitorization,” inProceedings of Emerging Trends and Technologies on Intelligent Systems, A. Noor, A. Sen, and G. Trivedi, Eds. Singapore: Spr...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Map Merging for Multi-Robotic Applications,

    J. Va ˇsˇc´ak and D. Herich, “Map Merging for Multi-Robotic Applications,” in2023 IEEE 21st World Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence and Informatics (SAMI), Jan. 2023, pp. 000 021–000 026. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10044522

    2023

  28. [36]

    Communicating Robot Arm Motion Intent Through Mixed Reality Head-mounted Displays,

    E. Rosen, D. Whitney, E. Phillips, G. Chien, J. Tompkin, G. Konidaris, and S. Tellex, “Communicating Robot Arm Motion Intent Through Mixed Reality Head-mounted Displays,” Aug. 2017, arXiv:1708.03655 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.03655

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    ROS Reality: A Virtual Reality Framework Using Consumer- Grade Hardware for ROS-Enabled Robots,

    D. Whitney, E. Rosen, D. Ullman, E. Phillips, and S. Tellex, “ROS Reality: A Virtual Reality Framework Using Consumer- Grade Hardware for ROS-Enabled Robots,” in2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Oct. 2018, pp. 1–9, iSSN: 2153-0866...

    2018

  30. [38]

    Quest2ROS: An App to Facilitate Teleoperating Robots,

    M. C. Welle, N. Ingelhag, M. Lippi, M. Wozniak, A. Gasparri, and D. Kragic, “Quest2ROS: An App to Facilitate Teleoperating Robots,” Feb. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum? id=d3MTESE2e8&referrer=%5Bthe%20profile%20of%20Danica% 20Kragic%5D(%2Fprofile%3Fid%...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Quest2ROS2: A ROS 2 Framework for Bi-manual VR Teleoperation,

    J. Li, Z. Wang, T. Wang, M. Stenmark, and V . Krueger, “Quest2ROS2: A ROS 2 Framework for Bi-manual VR Teleoperation,” Jan. 2026, arXiv:2601.18289 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601. 18289

    2026

  32. [40]

    Spatial Assisted Human-Drone Collaborative Navigation and Interaction through Immersive Mixed Reality,

    L. Morando and G. Loianno, “Spatial Assisted Human-Drone Collaborative Navigation and Interaction through Immersive Mixed Reality,” Apr. 2024, arXiv:2402.04070 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04070

    2024

  33. [41]

    Multi-robot Systems, Virtual Reality and ROS: Developing a New Generation of Operator Interfaces,

    J. J. Rold ´an, E. Pe ˜na-Tapia, D. Garz ´on-Ramos, J. de Le ´on, M. Garz ´on, J. del Cerro, and A. Barrientos, “Multi-robot Systems, Virtual Reality and ROS: Developing a New Generation of Operator Interfaces,” in Robot Operating System (ROS): The Complete Reference (Volume 3...

    2019

  34. [42]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91590-6 2

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91590-6 2

    doi

  35. [43]

    Unity-Technologies/Unity-Robotics-Hub,

    “Unity-Technologies/Unity-Robotics-Hub,” Mar. 2026, original- date: 2020-09-24T17:23:13Z. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ Unity-Technologies/Unity-Robotics-Hub

    2026

  36. [44]

    Comparing Performance between different implementations of ROS for Unity,

    J. Allspaw, G. LeMasurier, and H. Yanco, “Comparing Performance between different implementations of ROS for Unity,” Mar. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=WH3yhsbBjj

    2023

  37. [45]

    Comparative Analysis of ROS-Unity3D and ROS-Gazebo for Mobile Ground Robot Simulation,

    J. Platt and K. Ricks, “Comparative Analysis of ROS-Unity3D and ROS-Gazebo for Mobile Ground Robot Simulation,”Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 106, no. 4, p. 80, Dec. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-022-01766-2

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Towards field deployment of MA Vs in adaptive exploration of GPS-denied subterranean environments,

    A. Patel, S. Karlsson, B. Lindqvist, J. Haluska, C. Kanellakis, A. Agha- mohammadi, and G. Nikolakopoulos, “Towards field deployment of MA Vs in adaptive exploration of GPS-denied subterranean environments,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 176, p. 104663, Jun. 2024. [Onli...

    2024

  39. [47]

    turtlebot3 - ROS Wiki

    R. , “turtlebot3 - ROS Wiki.” [Online]. Available: https://wiki.ros.org/ turtlebot3

  40. [48]

    Turtlebot 3 as a Robotics Education Platform,

    R. Amsters and P. Slaets, “Turtlebot 3 as a Robotics Education Platform,” inRobotics in Education, M. Merdan, W. Lepuschitz, G. Koppensteiner, R. Balogh, and D. Obdr ˇz´alek, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 170–181

    2020

  41. [49]

    A Formal Analysis and Taxonomy of Task Allocation in Multi-Robot Systems,

    B. P. Gerkey and M. J. Matari ´c, “A Formal Analysis and Taxonomy of Task Allocation in Multi-Robot Systems,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 939–954, Sep. 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364904045564

    2004 doi

  42. [50]

    Cooperative Heterogeneous Multi-Robot Systems: A Survey,

    Y . Rizk, M. Awad, and E. W. Tunstel, “Cooperative Heterogeneous Multi-Robot Systems: A Survey,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 29:1–29:31, Apr. 2019. [Online]. Available: https: //dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3303848

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    Bridging research and practice in simulation-based testing of industrial robot navigation systems,

    S. M. Khatiri, F. E. V . Barrientos, M. Wulf, P. Tonella, and S. Panichella, “Bridging research and practice in simulation-based testing of industrial robot navigation systems,” in40th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, ASE 2025, Seoul, Korea,...

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 20, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.