pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18047 · v3 · pith:XSQ5NRRCnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · 💻 cs.RO

FUSE: A Framework for Unified State Estimation in Vehicular and Robotic SLAM Systems

Wei Wu , Honglin Chen , Wenhan Cao , Yao Lyu , Shaobing Xu , Kun Jiang , Jiangtao Li , Tao Zhang
show 2 more authors
Lei Guo Shengbo Eben Li
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 09:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords SLAMstate estimationsensor fusionLiDAR-IMUframeworkdegeneracy handlingrobotic navigation
0
0 comments X

The pith

FUSE decouples SLAM state estimation design choices using a standard interface of ingestion, propagation, update and query.

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

The paper presents FUSE as a framework that organizes state estimation in SLAM systems around a common interface. This interface consists of observation ingestion, propagation, update, and state query. The separation allows independent variation of temporal processing, residual-ready local geometric association, estimator formulation, and map-update policy. The authors test this with a LiDAR-IMU system that handles mixed-rate sensing and degeneracy, showing improved performance on a real-world sequence compared to existing methods. Sympathetic readers would care because this modularity can speed up development of new SLAM techniques without full reimplementation.

Core claim

FUSE organizes the state-estimation interface around observation ingestion, propagation, update, and state query, and uses this interface to separate temporal processing, residual-ready local geometric association, estimator formulation, and map-update policy. A LiDAR-IMU instantiation is developed to examine the framework under mixed-rate sensing and directional degeneracy, where high-rate inertial propagation, LiDAR-triggered geometric update, residual screening, and degeneracy-aware correction operate through the same interface boundaries. On a 418 m loop-corridor sequence, the instantiation reports a 1.626 m end-to-end trajectory error, corresponding to a 7.9% relative error reduction.

What carries the argument

The state-estimation interface defined by observation ingestion, propagation, update, and state query that decouples temporal processing, residual-ready local geometric association, estimator formulation, and map-update policy.

If this is right

  • Design choices such as estimator formulation can be changed without re-engineering temporal processing or geometric association.
  • High-rate inertial propagation and lower-rate LiDAR updates integrate through the same interface boundaries.
  • Degeneracy-aware corrections apply during the update step while preserving consistent propagation and state query behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same four-operation structure could support rapid testing of alternative sensor modalities by swapping only the ingestion and update implementations.
  • Modular SLAM pipelines built on this interface might simplify porting to new robotic platforms with different compute constraints.
  • Standardized boundaries could enable direct head-to-head comparisons of individual components across independent research implementations.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that the defined interface boundaries between observation ingestion, propagation, update, and state query are sufficient to fully decouple the design choices without introducing performance penalties or requiring additional engineering to maintain accuracy in mixed-rate sensing and directional degeneracy scenarios.

What would settle it

A demonstration that implementing a new estimator formulation or map-update policy inside the FUSE interface requires changes to the core boundaries or produces lower accuracy than a tightly coupled design would falsify the clean separation claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18047 by Honglin Chen, Jiangtao Li, Kun Jiang, Lei Guo, Shaobing Xu, Shengbo Eben Li, Tao Zhang, Wei Wu, Wenhan Cao, Yao Lyu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Design space of tightly coupled LiDAR–IMU SLAM considered in this paper. The four panels correspond one-to-one to the four design aspects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Conceptual framework of FUSE for unified state estimation in robotic SLAM. Ordered multi-rate observations and residual-ready local geometric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Internal logic of the FUSE LiDAR–IMU instantiation under mixed-rate sensing and directional degeneracy. IMU measurements propagate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Primary qualitative comparison on the loop-corridor benchmark ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative evaluation across additional operating regimes. The multi-floor staircase sequence (top) shows sustained 3D motion and a representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative landmark-level reconstructions generated by the FUSE LiDAR–IMU instantiation during the campus traversal. The views illustrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Tightly coupled SLAM formulations under mixed-rate sensing often bind temporal processing, local geometric association, estimator formulation, and map-update policy into method-specific designs. Such binding makes it difficult to vary one design choice without re-engineering the rest of the state-estimation process. This paper presents FUSE, a framework for unified state estimation in vehicular and robotic SLAM systems. FUSE organizes the state-estimation interface around observation ingestion, propagation, update, and state query, and uses this interface to separate temporal processing, residual-ready local geometric association, estimator formulation, and map-update policy. A LiDAR--IMU instantiation is developed to examine the framework under mixed-rate sensing and directional degeneracy, where high-rate inertial propagation, LiDAR-triggered geometric update, residual screening, and degeneracy-aware correction operate through the same interface boundaries. On a 418~m loop-corridor sequence, the instantiation reports a 1.626 m end-to-end trajectory error, corresponding to a 7.9% relative error reduction compared with Faster-LIO, the lowest-error baseline on this sequence. The results support FUSE as a framework for organizing state-estimation design choices and show how the evaluated instantiation regularizes updates along weakly observable directions.

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 paper introduces FUSE, a framework for unified state estimation in vehicular and robotic SLAM systems. It defines a state-estimation interface around observation ingestion, propagation, update, and state query to separate temporal processing, residual-ready local geometric association, estimator formulation, and map-update policy. A LiDAR-IMU instantiation is developed and evaluated under mixed-rate sensing and directional degeneracy, reporting 1.626 m end-to-end trajectory error on a 418 m loop-corridor sequence (7.9% relative reduction versus Faster-LIO).

Significance. If the interface boundaries can be shown to enable independent variation of design choices without accuracy penalties, FUSE would offer a useful modular structure for SLAM systems that must handle heterogeneous sensors and degeneracy. The concrete LiDAR-IMU instantiation and its quantitative result on the reported sequence provide a starting point for such modularity, but the single-instantiation evaluation limits the demonstrated generality.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract (LiDAR-IMU instantiation paragraph)] The central claim that the four interface boundaries (observation ingestion, propagation, update, state query) suffice to decouple temporal processing, residual-ready association, estimator formulation, and map-update policy without performance penalties is load-bearing, yet supported only by the single LiDAR-IMU instantiation. No component-swapping experiments, ablations that isolate the interface itself, or second instantiation are reported, so the 7.9% gain on the 418 m sequence cannot yet be attributed to the framework boundaries rather than implementation specifics.
  2. [Abstract (results paragraph)] The evaluation uses one sequence and one baseline comparison. To substantiate the framework's applicability to vehicular and robotic SLAM under mixed-rate sensing and directional degeneracy, results across multiple sequences with quantified degeneracy levels and additional baselines would be required.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that Faster-LIO is 'the lowest-error baseline on this sequence' without listing the other baselines considered or the selection criteria.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below, clarifying the scope of our claims and proposing targeted revisions to strengthen the manuscript's support for the framework's modularity.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract (LiDAR-IMU instantiation paragraph)] The central claim that the four interface boundaries (observation ingestion, propagation, update, state query) suffice to decouple temporal processing, residual-ready association, estimator formulation, and map-update policy without performance penalties is load-bearing, yet supported only by the single LiDAR-IMU instantiation. No component-swapping experiments, ablations that isolate the interface itself, or second instantiation are reported, so the 7.9% gain on the 418 m sequence cannot yet be attributed to the framework boundaries rather than implementation specifics.

    Authors: We agree that the evaluation relies on a single instantiation and that explicit component-swapping ablations would provide stronger evidence for the decoupling claim. The manuscript (Sections 3 and 4) describes how the LiDAR-IMU system routes high-rate inertial propagation, LiDAR-triggered geometric association with residual screening, estimator updates, and degeneracy-aware map corrections through the four interface boundaries without requiring changes to the surrounding pipeline. This separation is the core demonstration, even if the quantitative 7.9% improvement is specific to the chosen implementation choices. In revision we will add a short discussion subsection (and update the abstract) that explicitly enumerates how each boundary could accommodate alternative modules (e.g., different association policies or estimator formulations) while preserving the same ingestion-propagation-update-query contract, thereby clarifying that the framework itself, rather than any single implementation detail, enables the observed regularization along weakly observable directions. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract (results paragraph)] The evaluation uses one sequence and one baseline comparison. To substantiate the framework's applicability to vehicular and robotic SLAM under mixed-rate sensing and directional degeneracy, results across multiple sequences with quantified degeneracy levels and additional baselines would be required.

    Authors: We accept that a single-sequence evaluation limits the demonstrated generality. The reported 418 m loop-corridor sequence was deliberately selected because it exhibits both mixed-rate sensing and directional degeneracy; the quantitative result (1.626 m error, 7.9% better than Faster-LIO) is presented as an existence proof that the interface supports degeneracy-aware correction under these conditions. For the revision we will expand the experimental section with at least two additional public sequences, include explicit degeneracy metrics (e.g., minimum eigenvalue ratios of the local Hessian), and add comparisons against two further baselines. These additions will be summarized in the abstract and discussed with respect to the framework boundaries. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework and empirical result are self-contained

full rationale

The paper defines an interface (observation ingestion, propagation, update, state query) to organize SLAM design choices and validates it via one LiDAR-IMU instantiation reporting a measured 1.626 m trajectory error (7.9% better than external baseline Faster-LIO) on a 418 m sequence. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are presented that reduce by construction to the inputs; the result is an empirical outcome rather than a tautological renaming or self-referential fit. No load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems from prior author work are invoked in the provided text to justify the interface boundaries. The derivation chain is therefore independent of the target claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces a new framework but relies on standard domain assumptions in robotics without new free parameters or invented entities apparent from the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions in SLAM about sensor models and motion models hold for LiDAR-IMU fusion.
    The framework builds on existing SLAM practices for mixed-rate sensing and degeneracy handling.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5778 in / 1361 out tokens · 47783 ms · 2026-05-22T09:56:57.203153+00:00 · methodology

Review history (3 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Past, Present, and Future of Simultaneous Localization and Mapping: Toward 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: Toward the Robust-Perception Age,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1309–1332, Dec. 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    IMU Preinte- gration on Manifold for Efficient Visual-Inertial Maximum-a-Posteriori Estimation,

    C. Forster, L. Carlone, F. Dellaert, and D. Scaramuzza, “IMU Preinte- gration on Manifold for Efficient Visual-Inertial Maximum-a-Posteriori Estimation,” inRobotics: Science and Systems XI. Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, Jul. 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    LOAM: Lidar Odometry and Mapping in Real- time,

    J. Zhang and S. Singh, “LOAM: Lidar Odometry and Mapping in Real- time,” inRobotics: Science and Systems X. Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, Jul. 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    LIO- SAM: Tightly-coupled Lidar Inertial Odometry via Smoothing and Mapping,

    T. Shan, B. Englot, D. Meyers, W. Wang, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, “LIO- SAM: Tightly-coupled Lidar Inertial Odometry via Smoothing and Mapping,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, Oct. 2020, pp. 5135–5142

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Observability- based Rules for Designing Consistent EKF SLAM Estimators,

    G. P. Huang, A. I. Mourikis, and S. I. Roumeliotis, “Observability- based Rules for Designing Consistent EKF SLAM Estimators,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 502–528, Apr. 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    A Degeneracy-Aware Li- DAR–Inertial—Visual SLAM for Degenerate Environments,

    H. Zhu, G. Zhang, and Y . Huang, “A Degeneracy-Aware Li- DAR–Inertial—Visual SLAM for Degenerate Environments,”IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 19 376–19 385, Jun. 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    FAST-LIO2: Fast Direct LiDAR-Inertial Odometry,

    W. Xu, Y . Cai, D. He, J. Lin, and F. Zhang, “FAST-LIO2: Fast Direct LiDAR-Inertial Odometry,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2053–2073, Aug. 2022

    work page 2053

  9. [9]

    Point-LIO: Robust High-Bandwidth Light Detection and Ranging Inertial Odometry,

    D. He, W. Xu, N. Chen, F. Kong, C. Yuan, and F. Zhang, “Point-LIO: Robust High-Bandwidth Light Detection and Ranging Inertial Odometry,” Advanced Intelligent Systems, vol. 5, no. 7, p. 2200459, Jul. 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM): part II,

    T. Bailey and H. Durrant-Whyte, “Simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM): part II,”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 108–117, Sep. 2006

    work page 2006

  11. [11]

    FAST-LIO: A Fast, Robust LiDAR-Inertial Odometry Package by Tightly-Coupled Iterated Kalman Filter,

    W. Xu and F. Zhang, “FAST-LIO: A Fast, Robust LiDAR-Inertial Odometry Package by Tightly-Coupled Iterated Kalman Filter,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3317–3324, Apr. 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Faster-LIO: Lightweight Tightly Coupled Lidar-Inertial Odometry Using Parallel Sparse Incremental V oxels,

    C. Bai, T. Xiao, Y . Chen, H. Wang, F. Zhang, and X. Gao, “Faster-LIO: Lightweight Tightly Coupled Lidar-Inertial Odometry Using Parallel Sparse Incremental V oxels,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4861–4868, Apr. 2022

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Multi-sensor calibration system for mobile robots,

    W. Wu, C. Liu, W. Cao, C. Chen, H. Li, and S. E. Li, “Multi-sensor calibration system for mobile robots,” in2023 7th CAA International Conference on Vehicular Control and Intelligence (CVCI). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–7

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    A Multi-State Constraint Kalman Filter for Vision-aided Inertial Navigation,

    A. I. Mourikis and S. I. Roumeliotis, “A Multi-State Constraint Kalman Filter for Vision-aided Inertial Navigation,” inProceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, Apr. 2007, pp. 3565–3572

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    VINS-Mono: A Robust and Versatile Monocular Visual-Inertial State Estimator,

    T. Qin, P. Li, and S. Shen, “VINS-Mono: A Robust and Versatile Monocular Visual-Inertial State Estimator,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1004–1020, Aug. 2018

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Continuous-Time Spline Visual-Inertial Odometry,

    J. Mo and J. Sattar, “Continuous-Time Spline Visual-Inertial Odometry,” in2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2022, pp. 9492–9498

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Generalized-ICP,

    A. Segal, D. Haehnel, and S. Thrun, “Generalized-ICP,” inRobotics: Science and Systems V. Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, Jun. 2009

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    ikd-Tree: An Incremental K-D Tree for Robotic Applications,

    Y . Cai, W. Xu, and F. Zhang, “ikd-Tree: An Incremental K-D Tree for Robotic Applications,”CoRR, vol. abs/2102.10808, 2021, arXiv: 2102.10808

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Efficient and Probabilistic Adaptive V oxel Mapping for Accurate Online LiDAR Odometry,

    C. Yuan, W. Xu, X. Liu, X. Hong, and F. Zhang, “Efficient and Probabilistic Adaptive V oxel Mapping for Accurate Online LiDAR Odometry,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 8518–8525, Jul. 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    KISS-ICP: In Defense of Point-to-Point ICP – Simple, Accurate, and Robust Registration If Done the Right Way,

    I. Vizzo, T. Guadagnino, B. Mersch, L. Wiesmann, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “KISS-ICP: In Defense of Point-to-Point ICP – Simple, Accurate, and Robust Registration If Done the Right Way,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1029–1036, Feb. 2023

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    iSAM2: Incremental smoothing and mapping using the Bayes tree,

    M. Kaess, H. Johannsson, R. Roberts, V . Ila, J. J. Leonard, and F. Dellaert, “iSAM2: Incremental smoothing and mapping using the Bayes tree,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 216–235, Feb. 2012

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    Factor Graphs for Robot Perception,

    F. Dellaert and M. Kaess, “Factor Graphs for Robot Perception,” Foundations and Trends in Robotics, vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 1–139, 2017

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    The Invariant Extended Kalman Filter as a Stable Observer,

    A. Barrau and S. Bonnabel, “The Invariant Extended Kalman Filter as a Stable Observer,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1797–1812, Apr. 2017

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    A micro lie theory for state estimation in robotics,

    J. Sol `a, J. Deray, and D. Atchuthan, “A micro Lie theory for state estimation in robotics,” Dec. 2021, arXiv:1812.01537 [cs]. 14

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Nonlinear bayesian filtering with natural gradient gaussian approximation,

    W. Cao, T. Zhang, Z. Sun, C. Liu, S. S.-T. Yau, and S. E. Li, “Nonlinear bayesian filtering with natural gradient gaussian approximation,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2026

    work page 2026

  26. [26]

    Nano-slam: Natural gradient gaussian approximation for vehicle slam,

    T. Zhang, W. Cao, C. Liu, F. Zhang, W. Wu, and S. E. Li, “Nano-slam: Natural gradient gaussian approximation for vehicle slam,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19195, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Maplab: An Open Framework for Research in Visual- Inertial Mapping and Localization,

    T. Schneider, M. Dymczyk, M. Fehr, K. Egger, S. Lynen, I. Gilitschenski, and R. Siegwart, “Maplab: An Open Framework for Research in Visual- Inertial Mapping and Localization,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1418–1425, Jul. 2018

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Kimera: From SLAM to spatial perception with 3D dynamic scene graphs,

    A. Rosinol, A. Violette, M. Abate, N. Hughes, Y . Chang, J. Shi, A. Gupta, and L. Carlone, “Kimera: From SLAM to spatial perception with 3D dynamic scene graphs,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 40, no. 12-14, pp. 1510–1546, Dec. 2021

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Hydra: A Real-time Spatial Perception System for 3D Scene Graph Construction and Optimization,

    N. Hughes, Y . Chang, and L. Carlone, “Hydra: A Real-time Spatial Perception System for 3D Scene Graph Construction and Optimization,” inRobotics: Science and Systems XVIII. Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, Jun. 2022

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Foundations of spatial perception for robotics: Hierarchical representations and real-time systems,

    N. Hughes, Y . Chang, S. Hu, R. Talak, R. Abdulhai, J. Strader, and L. Carlone, “Foundations of spatial perception for robotics: Hierarchical representations and real-time systems,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1457–1505, Sep. 2024

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Robust and Long-term Monocular Teach and Repeat Navigation using a Single-experience Map,

    L. Sun, M. Taher, C. Wild, C. Zhao, Y . Zhang, F. Majer, Z. Yan, T. Krajnik, T. Prescott, and T. Duckett, “Robust and Long-term Monocular Teach and Repeat Navigation using a Single-experience Map,” in2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, Sep. 2021, pp. 2635–2642

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    ORB-SLAM3: An Accurate Open-Source Library for Visual, Visual–Inertial, and Multimap SLAM,

    C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodriguez, J. M. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tardos, “ORB-SLAM3: An Accurate Open-Source Library for Visual, Visual–Inertial, and Multimap SLAM,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1874–1890, Dec. 2021

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Lifelong mapping in the wild: Novel strategies for ensuring map stability and accuracy over time evaluated on thousands of robots,

    N. Banerjee, D. Lisin, S. R. Lenser, J. Briggs, R. Baravalle, V . Albanese, Y . Chen, A. Karimian, T. Ramaswamy, P. Pilotti, M. L. Alonso, L. Nardelli, V . Lane, R. Moser, A. O. Huttlin, J. Shriver, and P. Fong, “Lifelong mapping in the wild: Novel strategies for ensuring map stability and accuracy over time evaluated on thousands of robots,”Robotics and ...

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    AdaLIO: Robust Adaptive LiDAR-Inertial Odometry in Degenerate Indoor Environments,

    H. Lim, D. Kim, B. Kim, and H. Myung, “AdaLIO: Robust Adaptive LiDAR-Inertial Odometry in Degenerate Indoor Environments,” in2023 20th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR). IEEE, Jun. 2023, pp. 48–53

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Enhancing lidar slam mapping in challenging industrial environments using nonholonomic constraints,

    W. Wu, C. Liu, R. Zhong, H. Li, T. Zhang, H. Chen, and S. E. Li, “Enhancing lidar slam mapping in challenging industrial environments using nonholonomic constraints,” in2025 37th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1848–1853

    work page 2025