Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

G2IA argues that reliable cross-modal place recognition needs geometry-aware descriptors and instance-level verification, not just global matching.

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

2026-08-02 11:19 UTC pith:RKNOJTJF

load-bearing objection Strong reported gains and a plausible pipeline, but the shape-feature alignment that drives the refinement stage is underspecified and the appendix is missing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2606.15287 v1 pith:RKNOJTJF submitted 2026-06-13 cs.CV

G2IA: Geometry-Guided Instance-Aware Retrieval and Refinement for Cross-Modal Place Recognition

Xianyun Jiao , Jingyi Xu , Zhongmiao Yan , Xieyuanli Chen , Ling Pei This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords cross-modal place recognitionimage-to-point-cloud retrievalvisual geometry priorsinstance-aware refinementgeometric layout matchingshape consistencycamera-LiDAR calibration
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.

This paper argues that image-to-point-cloud place recognition fails if treated as a single global-descriptor matching problem, because urban scenes contain repeated roads, facades, intersections, and object arrangements, and because RGB images and LiDAR scans observe the same place through different signals. To address both ambiguities, G2IA couples a retrieval stage that builds place descriptors from visual geometry priors and instance masks with a refinement stage that re-ranks candidates by checking whether local instance shapes and their relative spatial layouts agree across modalities. On NCLT and KITTI, the method reports consistent gains over existing baselines at both strict (0.5 m) and tolerant (10 m) localization thresholds, and strong zero-shot transfer from NCLT to KITTI. A sympathetic reader would take this as evidence that representation alignment and candidate verification are complementary and jointly necessary for reliable cross-modal place recognition.

Core claim

The central claim is that reliable cross-modal place recognition requires a retrieval-and-verification pipeline rather than a single shared descriptor. The descriptor generation module (DGM) projects LiDAR points onto the image plane using calibration, completes the sparse depth, and encodes both normalized depth maps and instance-masked visual signals with geometry-grounded encoders, aggregating the features with NetVLAD into a global descriptor. The candidate refinement module (CRM) then takes the top-R candidates and re-ranks them with a geometric layout matcher, which compares normalized pairwise distances between instance centers, and a shape feature matcher, which compares latent shape

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-module G2IA pipeline. DGM aligns RGB and LiDAR inputs by injecting visual geometry priors (monocular depth from a geometry-grounded transformer) and instance masks (from a lightweight segmentation model) into complementary encoders, producing a concatenated global descriptor. CRM performs instance-aware verification: it projects each candidate point cloud into the query image frustum, clusters points with DBSCAN, and compares normalized pairwise distance matrices (layout) and latent shape features (shape) using a fusion score. These two modules together carry the argument that retrieval efficiency and fine-grained verification are not mutually exclusive.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes accurate camera-LiDAR calibration; if the extrinsics are off, the projection of point clouds into the query image frustum and the layout distances degrade, and both retrieval and refinement suffer.

What would settle it

Take a benchmark sequence and perturb the calibration extrinsics by a small rotation or translation (e.g., 0.5 degrees or 5 cm), then measure AR@1 at the 0.5 m threshold. If performance drops sharply, the calibration assumption is load-bearing; if it stays flat, the geometry-guided alignment is more robust than the paper's limitation statement suggests.

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

Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Under a 10 m positive-distance threshold, G2IA raises AR@1 over the strongest baseline by 5.11 to 26.70 percentage points across four NCLT test sequences.
  • Under the strict 0.5 m threshold, G2IA achieves AR@1 of 97.59% on KITTI-00, up from 89.73% for the best baseline.
  • Zero-shot transfer from NCLT to KITTI without fine-tuning reaches 69.96% AR@1 on KITTI-00 at 0.5 m, substantially above prior zero-shot results.
  • Ablations confirm that both visual geometry priors in retrieval and both matchers (layout and shape) in refinement contribute additively to final performance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the calibration assumption can be relaxed, for instance with online extrinsic estimation, the refinement stage could generalize to platforms where LiDAR and camera are not rigidly mounted, a common failure mode in low-cost robots.
  • Because the layout matcher normalizes pairwise distances, it deliberately discards metric scale; a variant using metric depth could improve strict-threshold performance at the cost of scale ambiguity.
  • The strong zero-shot transfer suggests geometry priors learned from one sensor setup may transfer to another; a testable extension is evaluating G2IA on unseen city-scale maps with no training data from that sensor.
  • The refinement stage is modular: the same shape-layout verification could be applied to any global-descriptor retrieval output, meaning existing cross-modal place recognition methods could be upgraded by plugging in the candidate refinement module.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes G2IA, a two-stage framework for image-to-point-cloud cross-modal place recognition. In the retrieval stage, a descriptor generation module (DGM) fuses VGGT-derived depth priors with instance-mask features and NetVLAD aggregation to produce a global descriptor. In the refinement stage, a candidate refinement module (CRM) re-ranks top-R candidates by combining a geometric layout matcher (GLM) and a shape feature matcher (SFM), the latter comparing latent shape features from SAM 3D Objects with MiniPointNet-encoded point-cloud clusters. Experiments on NCLT and KITTI report consistent improvements over LIP-Loc, ModaLink, and InsCMPR at both 0.5 m and 10 m thresholds, plus strong zero-shot NCLT-to-KITTI transfer. The paper claims that geometry-guided instance-aware representation and candidate verification jointly reduce modality gap and perceptual aliasing.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, G2IA would be a valuable advance in cross-modal place recognition, with large margins over strong baselines (e.g., 99.22% AR@1 on KITTI-00 at 10 m, 69.96% zero-shot at 0.5 m) and consistent gains across sequences and thresholds. The explicit retrieval-and-verification architecture is a sensible departure from pure global-descriptor matching, and the ablations in Tables IV and V provide initial evidence for the contributions of VGGT priors and the CRM. However, the manuscript as submitted withholds the appendix that is referenced for training details, weight-selection ablations, and additional experiments, and it does not report variance or repeated-seed statistics. The SFM alignment mechanism in Eq. (3) is unspecified, which is load-bearing given the large ablation gain attributed to SFM. The identical LIP-Loc rows in Tables II and III also require clarification. These issues currently prevent full verification, but they appear addressable within the scope of a revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III-C, Eq. (3), Table V] The shape consistency score in Eq. (3) computes cosine similarity between phi(V_k), a latent shape feature from SAM 3D Objects, and psi(Q_j,k), a MiniPointNet encoding of the point-cloud cluster. The manuscript does not specify whether phi and psi are trained jointly, what loss aligns them, or whether they are frozen pretrained features. Table V shows that enabling SFM alone lifts KITTI-00 AR@1 from 95.32 to 98.30, so this mechanism is load-bearing for the refinement claim. Without an explicit alignment procedure or a principled argument for cross-modal comparability of fixed features, the SFM result is unsupported. The referenced appendix is not present in the manuscript. Please provide the training/alignment details or, if the features are frozen, justify why their cosine similarity is a meaningful cross-modal shape-consistency measure.
  2. [§IV-A and §IV-B] The paper repeatedly defers to a missing appendix for training details ('The training details of all the baselines and our G2IA are provided in the appendix'), weight selection ('The selection of these weights is ablated in the appendix'), and additional results. The submitted manuscript contains no appendix. This is not a minor omission: it blocks reproduction and verification of the central empirical claim. In addition, Tables I-III report single numbers with no error bars, repeated-seed statistics, or significance tests. Given the large cross-sequence variation in reported gains (e.g., 2.64% vs 23.31% improvement over InsCMPR on NCLT at 0.5 m), variance estimates are necessary to assess whether the improvements are meaningful. The authors should include the full experimental setup and at least mean±std over multiple runs.
  3. [Table III vs Table II] The LIP-Loc row in the zero-shot cross-dataset evaluation (Table III) is numerically identical to the LIP-Loc row in the supervised KITTI evaluation (Table II) for every sequence and threshold. If LIP-Loc is trained on the KITTI training split in Table II, this duplication is inconsistent with a zero-shot protocol. If LIP-Loc is inherently zero-shot and requires no training, the protocol should say so explicitly. As written, this casts doubt on the fairness and correctness of the zero-shot comparison. Please clarify the training/inference protocol for each baseline in both settings.
  4. [§II, Related Work] The paper states that 'geometry-grounded vision models with scene-level layout awareness remain underexplored in CMPR' while citing [22], VGGT-MPR, an arXiv preprint from the same group that uses VGGT for multimodal place recognition. The text does not explain how G2IA differs from or improves upon VGGT-MPR. This is important for novelty assessment. Please add an explicit comparison/differentiation with VGGT-MPR, including any architectural or experimental distinctions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-A(b)] The notation '91.9494.67' in Table I and similar missing spaces (e.g., '97.6499.31', '96.9597.64') appear to be table formatting errors. Please fix the alignment.
  2. [§III-B(a)] The sentence 'By using VGGT-derived depth for the image inputs, the GC encoder explicitly incorporates visual geometry priors...' is clear, but the relationship between the DPT head and the MambaVision backbone could be stated more precisely (e.g., whether the DPT head is frozen or fine-tuned).
  3. [§IV-C(b)] In the CRM ablation, the text says 'When a matcher is disabled, its corresponding score weight is set to zero.' It would be helpful to state whether the remaining weights are renormalized; otherwise the reported ablated scores may not be comparable.
  4. [References] Reference [27] is cited as 'SAM 3D: 3dfy anything in images' but the manuscript uses 'SAM 3D Objects'; please ensure the official name and version are cited consistently. Also, reference [26] is 'Faster Segment Anything', while the text uses 'MobileSAM'; please reconcile the naming.
  5. [Limitations] The limitations section candidly acknowledges sensitivity to camera-LiDAR calibration and the scale ambiguity of single-view geometry. It would strengthen the paper to include at least a qualitative or quantitative calibration-robustness experiment (e.g., perturbing extrinsics) to contextualize the claimed performance under realistic calibration errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No constructional circularity: the claimed benchmark gains are empirical, trained on external data, and not derived from their own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical performance result on NCLT and KITTI, not a derivation from first principles. The descriptor generation module is trained with the lazy triplet loss in Eq. (1) on image-LiDAR pairs, so the learned descriptor is supervised from external data. The candidate refinement module re-ranks retrieved candidates using layout consistency in Eq. (2) and shape cosine similarity in Eq. (3), with weights set at inference and ablated in Table V. None of these equations define the predicted quantity in terms of itself, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The related-work sentence that geometry-grounded CMPR models 'remain underexplored in CMPR' while citing [22], VGGT-MPR, from overlapping authors, is a novelty/attribution inconsistency and a minor self-citation, but it is not load-bearing for the benchmark claim: VGGT [13] and SAM 3D Objects [27] are external pretrained models, and the reported results are evaluated against public datasets and baselines. The missing appendix and the unspecified training or alignment of the φ and ψ mappings in Eq. (3) are verifiability and correctness concerns, not evidence that the derivation reduces to its inputs. Unsupported assumptions are not circular reasoning. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical or abstract entities are postulated. The paper's components are existing pretrained models, learned descriptors, and an architectural module (RAB); the central claim rests chiefly on benchmark experiments, with the main assumptions being calibration accuracy, transferability of foundation-model priors, and the validity of mask-to-pointcloud instance correspondence.

free parameters (4)
  • Fusion weights w_IR, w_LC, w_SC = 0.2, 0.2, 0.6
    Eq. (5); set before evaluation; the ranking depends heavily on these weights, and the ablation selecting them is in the missing appendix.
  • Layout discrepancy penalty sigma = 5
    Eq. (2); hand-set; controls how strongly geometric layout differences are penalized in the refinement score.
  • Top-R candidate count R = 20
    Inference setup; limits refinement to the 20 top retrieved candidates, so final accuracy depends on retrieval recall at R=20.
  • Triplet margin beta = not stated in main text
    Eq. (1); margin for the lazy triplet hinge loss is not given in the main text and is deferred to the missing appendix, blocking exact reproduction.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Accurate camera-LiDAR calibration
    DGM projects database point clouds onto the image plane using calibration, and CRM projects candidate point clouds into the query image frustum; the Limitations section explicitly concedes this assumption.
  • domain assumption Pretrained foundation-model priors transfer to NCLT/KITTI
    VGGT, MobileSAM, SAM 3D Objects, and ImageNet-pretrained MambaVision are used with only DGM-level training; the reported gains assume these priors generalize to the benchmark domains.
  • domain assumption Frustum-projected point clusters correspond to query instances
    CRM assumes that points of a candidate cloud projecting inside a query image mask form the same instance cluster via DBSCAN; wrong or distant candidates can violate this correspondence, yet SFM/GLM scores are built on it.
  • domain assumption Scale-normalized layout geometry is sufficiently discriminative
    Image-side and point-cloud-side layouts are normalized per modality before comparison (Eq. 2 context), so only relative arrangement is checked; metric scale information is discarded, which the Limitations acknowledge may lose useful cues.
  • domain assumption Depth completion output is accurate enough for LiDAR descriptors
    The database depth map is obtained by projecting points and completing the sparse depth with a classical method [28]; errors in completion propagate into the geometry-context descriptors.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of G2IA: Geometry-Guided Instance-Aware Retrieval and Refinement for Cross-Modal Place Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RKNOJTJF

@misc{pith2026260615287,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: G2IA: Geometry-Guided Instance-Aware Retrieval and Refinement for Cross-Modal Place Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RKNOJTJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.15287}
}
Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Cross-modal place recognition (CMPR) enables camera-only robots to localize against pre-built LiDAR maps in autonomous navigation scenarios. This image-to-point-cloud setting is challenged by two coupled ambiguities: the modality gap between perspective RGB appearance and sparse metric geometry, and perceptual aliasing among urban places with similar roads, facades, intersections, and object arrangements. Instead of treating CMPR as a single global descriptor matching problem, we argue that reliable retrieval requires both geometry-aware representation alignment and fine-grained candidate verification. In this paper, we propose G2IA, a geometry-guided instance-aware framework for image-to-point-cloud place recognition. In the retrieval stage, visual geometry priors from VGGT and instance features are integrated to construct place descriptors that are more compatible with LiDAR-derived map representations. In the refinement stage, the retrieved candidates are re-ranked by explicitly verifying whether local instance shapes and their relative spatial layouts are consistent across modalities. Experiments on public benchmarks demonstrate that G2IA consistently improves image-to-point-cloud place recognition under different localization thresholds, and exhibits strong cross-dataset generalization.

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

36 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    General place recogni- tion survey: Towards the real-world autonomy age,

    P. Yin, S. Zhao, I. Cisneros, A. Abuduweili, G. Huang, M. Mil- ford, C. Liu, H. Choset, and S. Scherer, “General place recogni- tion survey: Towards the real-world autonomy age,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.04497, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    3d point cloud-based place recognition: a survey.,

    K. Luo, H. Yu, X. Chen, Z. Yang, J. Wang, P. Cheng, and A. Mian, “3d point cloud-based place recognition: a survey.,”Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 57, no. 4, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    A survey on global lidar localization: Challenges, advances and open problems,

    H. Yin, X. Xu, S. Lu, X. Chen, R. Xiong, S. Shen, C. Stachniss, and Y . Wang, “A survey on global lidar localization: Challenges, advances and open problems,”International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 132, no. 8, pp. 3139–3171, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Mixvpr++: Enhanced visual place recognition with hierarchical- region feature-mixer and adaptive gabor texture fuser,

    J. Nie, D. Xue, F. Pan, S. Cheng, W. Liu, J. Hu, and Z. Ning, “Mixvpr++: Enhanced visual place recognition with hierarchical- region feature-mixer and adaptive gabor texture fuser,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 580–587, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Pointnetvlad: Deep point cloud based retrieval for large-scale place recognition,

    M. A. Uy and G. H. Lee, “Pointnetvlad: Deep point cloud based retrieval for large-scale place recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 4470– 4479, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Cvtnet: A cross-view transformer network for lidar-based place recognition in autonomous driving environments,

    J. Ma, G. Xiong, J. Xu, and X. Chen, “Cvtnet: A cross-view transformer network for lidar-based place recognition in autonomous driving environments,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 4039–4048, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Lcpr: A multi-scale attention- based lidar-camera fusion network for place recognition,

    Z. Zhou, J. Xu, G. Xiong, and J. Ma, “Lcpr: A multi-scale attention- based lidar-camera fusion network for place recognition,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1342–1349, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Lc2: Lidar-camera loop constraints for cross-modal place recognition,

    A. J. Lee, S. Song, H. Lim, W. Lee, and H. Myung, “Lc2: Lidar-camera loop constraints for cross-modal place recognition,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 3589–3596, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    I2p-rec: Recognizing images on large-scale point cloud maps through bird’s eye view projections,

    S. Zheng, Y . Li, Z. Yu, B. Yu, S.-Y . Cao, M. Wang, J. Xu, R. Ai, W. Gu, L. Luo,et al., “I2p-rec: Recognizing images on large-scale point cloud maps through bird’s eye view projections,” in2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1395–1400, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  10. [10]

    Crossbev-pr: Cross-modal visual-lidar place recognition via bev feature distillation,

    J. Xu, X. Wu, L. Xuan, Y . Xiao, J. Shi, and H. Wang, “Crossbev-pr: Cross-modal visual-lidar place recognition via bev feature distillation,” in2025 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 11049–11056, IEEE, 2025

    2025

  11. [11]

    Lip-loc: Lidar image pretraining for cross-modal localization,

    S. Shubodh, M. Omama, H. Zaidi, U. S. Parihar, and M. Krishna, “Lip-loc: Lidar image pretraining for cross-modal localization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp. 948–957, 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Inscmpr: Efficient cross-modal place recognition via instance-aware hybrid mamba-transformer,

    S. Jiao, Z. Su, L. Luo, H. Yu, Z. Zhou, H. Lu, and X. Chen, “Inscmpr: Efficient cross-modal place recognition via instance-aware hybrid mamba-transformer,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2212–2218, IEEE, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Vggt: Visual geometry grounded transformer,

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

    2025

  14. [14]

    Opal: Visibility-aware lidar-to-openstreetmap place recognition via adaptive radial fusion,

    S. Kang, Y . Liao, Y . Xia, O. Wysocki, B. Jutzi, and D. Cremers, “Opal: Visibility-aware lidar-to-openstreetmap place recognition via adaptive radial fusion,” inConference on Robot Learning, pp. 4385– 4400, PMLR, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Uniloc: Towards universal place recognition using any single modality,

    Y . Xia, Z. Li, Y .-J. Li, L. Shi, H. Cao, J. F. Henriques, and D. Cre- mers, “Uniloc: Towards universal place recognition using any single modality,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12079, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Text2loc: 3d point cloud localization from natural language,

    Y . Xia, L. Shi, Z. Ding, J. F. Henriques, and D. Cremers, “Text2loc: 3d point cloud localization from natural language,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 14958–14967, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Modalink: Unifying modalities for efficient image- to-pointcloud place recognition,

    W. Xie, L. Luo, N. Ye, Y . Ren, S. Du, M. Wang, J. Xu, R. Ai, W. Gu, and X. Chen, “Modalink: Unifying modalities for efficient image- to-pointcloud place recognition,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 3326–3333, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    Salient-vpr: Salient weighted global descriptor for visual place recognition,

    K. Wang, S. Luo, T. Chen, and J. Lu, “Salient-vpr: Salient weighted global descriptor for visual place recognition,”IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, vol. 71, pp. 1–8, 2022

    2022

  19. [19]

    Anyloc: Towards universal visual place recognition,

    N. Keetha, A. Mishra, J. Karhade, K. M. Jatavallabhula, S. Scherer, M. Krishna, and S. Garg, “Anyloc: Towards universal visual place recognition,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1286–1293, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    Tell me where you are: Multimodal llms meet place recognition,

    Z. Lyu, J. Zhang, M. Lu, Y . Li, and C. Feng, “Tell me where you are: Multimodal llms meet place recognition,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17520, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Imlpr: Image-based lidar place recognition using vision foundation models,

    M. Jung, L. F. T. Fu, M. Fallon, and A. Kim, “Imlpr: Image-based lidar place recognition using vision foundation models,” in9th Annual Conference on Robot Learning

  22. [22]

    Vggt-mpr: Vggt-enhanced multimodal place recognition in autonomous driving environments,

    J. Xu, Z. Qi, Z. Yan, X. Gao, Q. Jiao, S. Xia, X. Chen, and L. Pei, “Vggt-mpr: Vggt-enhanced multimodal place recognition in autonomous driving environments,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.19735, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark,et al., “Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision,” inInternational conference on machine learning, pp. 8748–8763, PmLR, 2021

    2021

  24. [24]

    Monocular visual place recognition in lidar maps via cross-modal state space model and multi-view matching,

    G. Yao, X. Li, L. Fu, and Y . Pan, “Monocular visual place recognition in lidar maps via cross-modal state space model and multi-view matching,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2154–2161, IEEE, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    Vmamba: Visual state space model,

    Y . Liu, Y . Tian, Y . Zhao, H. Yu, L. Xie, Y . Wang, Q. Ye, J. Jiao, and Y . Liu, “Vmamba: Visual state space model,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 37, pp. 103031–103063, 2024

    2024

  26. [26]

    Faster segment anything: Towards lightweight sam for mobile applications,

    C. Zhang, D. Han, Y . Qiao, J. U. Kim, S.-H. Bae, S. Lee, and C. S. Hong, “Faster segment anything: Towards lightweight sam for mobile applications,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14289, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Sam 3d: 3dfy anything in images,

    X. Chen, F.-J. Chu, P. Gleize, K. J. Liang, A. Sax, H. Tang, W. Wang, M. Guo, T. Hardin, X. Li,et al., “Sam 3d: 3dfy anything in images,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.16624, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    In defense of classical image processing: Fast depth completion on the cpu,

    J. Ku, A. Harakeh, and S. L. Waslander, “In defense of classical image processing: Fast depth completion on the cpu,” in2018 15th conference on computer and robot vision (CRV), pp. 16–22, Ieee, 2018

    2018

  29. [29]

    Vision transformers for dense prediction,

    R. Ranftl, A. Bochkovskiy, and V . Koltun, “Vision transformers for dense prediction,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 12179–12188, 2021

    2021

  30. [30]

    Mambavision: A hybrid mamba- transformer vision backbone,

    A. Hatamizadeh and J. Kautz, “Mambavision: A hybrid mamba- transformer vision backbone,” inProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pp. 25261–25270, 2025

    2025

  31. [31]

    Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly supervised place recognition,

    R. Arandjelovic, P. Gronat, A. Torii, T. Pajdla, and J. Sivic, “Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly supervised place recognition,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 5297–5307, 2016

    2016

  32. [32]

    Billion-scale similarity search with gpus,

    J. Johnson, M. Douze, and H. J ´egou, “Billion-scale similarity search with gpus,”IEEE transactions on big data, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 535–547, 2019

    2019

  33. [33]

    A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,

    M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, X. Xu,et al., “A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,” inkdd, vol. 96, pp. 226–231, 1996

    1996

  34. [34]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 652–660, 2017

    2017

  35. [35]

    University of michigan north campus long-term vision and lidar dataset,

    N. Carlevaris-Bianco, A. K. Ushani, and R. M. Eustice, “University of michigan north campus long-term vision and lidar dataset,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2016

    2016

  36. [36]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, C. Stiller, and R. Urtasun, “Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,”The international journal of robotics research, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1231–1237, 2013

    2013

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.