Loop Closure Detection in Closed Environments

Achim Schweikard; Elmar Rueckert; Nils Rottmann; Ralf Bruder

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Loop Closure Detection in Closed Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A robot that only follows a wall with wheel odometry can close loops and build an accurate map of an enclosed area.

desk verdict Odometry-only loop closure via orientation-profile matching is a genuinely new idea with a real robot test, but the discriminative assumption is unproven for shapes without corners within the neighborhood window and there is no outlier rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04558 v1 pith:6HALA7CV submitted 2019-08-13 cs.RO

Nils Rottmann , Ralf Bruder , Achim Schweikard , Elmar Rueckert This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords loopclosuredetectionodometry-onlymappingposegraphoptimizationwallfollowingpathsegmentationlow-costrobotsareadeviationmetricboundary

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 claims that a robot navigating around the boundary of an enclosed area can build a usable map using only its wheel odometry, with no camera, LIDAR, or time-of-flight sensor. The method cuts the odometry path into straight segments, builds a pose graph, and detects loop closures by comparing the local shape of the path around each pose. Those loop-closing constraints are inserted into the pose graph and refined with standard pose graph optimization, yielding a closed polygon map of the environment. In tests the area deviation between the estimated map and the true boundary is 4.5% in a simulated apartment, 17.8% under heavy odometry noise, and 11.87% for a real lawn mower circling a courtyard. If correct, this would let low-cost household robots replace random-walk behavior with goal-directed navigation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the piecewise-linear orientation profile $\theta(x)$ of the pruned path, built from cumulative orientation and path length. To test a loop-closing candidate $(i,j)$, the profile is re-centered so both neighborhoods are compared from the same reference orientation and path coordinate, sampled at $m$ points, and scored by the correlation error $C_{ij} = \frac{1}{m}\sum_{k=1}^{m}\|\theta_{i,k}-\theta_{j,k}\|^2$; pairs with $C_{ij}$ below a threshold $c_{\min}$ become loop closures. Each closure enters the pose graph as a zero relative measurement $\hat{\xi}_{ij} = [0,0,0]^\top$ with covariance $P_{\mathrm{lc},ij} = \mathrm{diag}([\gamma_1, \gamma_1, \gamma_2])\,C_{ij}$, so the loop-closure confidence is encoded directly into the optimization weight.

What would settle it

Run the method on a perfect square or rectangle with the same odometry model: the corners have identical orientation profiles under rotation, so the detector should produce false loop closures between different corners; if the resulting map stays near the reported area deviation the assumption holds, and if the polygon collapses or skews the assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the shape of the odometry path itself carries enough information to close loops: when the robot passes the same place, the orientation profile of the path over a sufficiently long neighborhood matches, and this match can be detected without external sensors. The authors represent the pruned path as a piecewise-linear orientation function over path length, compare neighborhoods of poses through a correlation error, and use a threshold to select loop-closing pose pairs. These pairs enter the pose graph as zero relative measurements whose covariance grows with the correlation error, after which standard pose graph optimization is used to refine all poses. The paper reports accurate map estimates in simulation and with a real lawn mower, and argues that its assumption about the discriminative nature of neighboring poses holds even under large odometric noise.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on the assumption that two poses with similar local orientation profiles are the same place; in environments with repeated or mirrored wall shapes, distinct places can look identical to the detector and cause false loop closures.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A robot that only follows a wall, using bumpers or signal-wire sensors to generate odometry, can produce a boundary polygon map of its workspace without cameras, LIDAR, or time-of-flight sensors.
The reported area errors of 4.5% in the simulated apartment and 11.87% on a real lawn mower in a courtyard suggest the map is accurate enough to support planning tasks such as complete coverage.
The method remains usable under substantial odometric drift: mean area deviation rises from 7.91% to 27.30% as the odometry noise parameter $\alpha$ grows from 0.1 to 0.5.
The loop-closing constraints are ordinary relative pose measurements, so standard pose graph optimization software can consume them without modifying the optimizer.

Reading between the lines

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

The orientation-profile comparison could be applied to other one-dimensional signals a cheap robot already has, such as bumper contact patterns or signal-wire crossings, extending the method beyond wheel odometry without new sensors.
The most likely breaking point is repetitive geometry: in a symmetric courtyard or a long corridor with evenly spaced doors, different places can produce nearly identical neighborhoods, so a targeted test there would reveal whether the covariance weighting suppresses false closures.
Because the output is a closed boundary with a quantitative area error, the map confidence itself could drive navigation decisions, for example telling the robot when to re-traverse the boundary to shrink uncertainty.

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, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear Colleague,

The genuinely new thing here is a loop closure detector that uses only wheel odometry and wall-following, comparing the orientation profile of the path in a neighborhood around each pose. That idea is not in the cited limited-sensing SLAM work, which needs line features or rectilinear structure. The authors validate it in a simulated apartment and on a real lawn mower in a courtyard, with area deviations of 4.5% and 11.87%, and the map estimates are checked against ground truth polygons, so the central claim is externally grounded.

What the paper does well: the pipeline is clearly spelled out—path segmentation into dominant points, pose graph construction, correlation error C_ij between grounded orientation profiles, adding zero-measurement loop closures for local minima below a threshold, and standard Levenberg-Marquardt pose graph optimization. The writing is easy to follow and the real robot experiment is a real plus.

The soft spots are genuine. First, there is no baseline without loop closure and no precision/recall for the detected loop closures; the only metric is area deviation, and the alignment step uses the same shape-comparison idea, so the evaluation is partly self-referential. Second, the detection thresholds cmin and LNH are tuned per environment (cmin = 1.0 for the apartment, 0.3 for the courtyard), with no a priori guidance. Third, and most importantly, there is no false-positive rejection. The correlation error in Eq. (12) is exactly zero for any two poses whose ±LNH neighborhoods lie entirely on a straight wall segment longer than 2·LNH. A 100 m square would produce identical profiles for the centers of opposite sides, and the algorithm would add spurious loop closures. The two test environments sidestep this because LNH = 30 m is large relative to their ~100 m circumferences, so every neighborhood contains a corner. That means the claim that the discriminative nature of neighboring poses is 'solid' is not established for arbitrary shapes; it is an artifact of the test geometries. The stress-test note I received makes this same point, and I think it holds.

Who this is for: researchers working on boundary mapping for low-cost robots—vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, field robots with only encoders. The core idea is plausible and clearly presented, but the evidence falls short of the strong accuracy and robustness claims. Adding a no-loop-closure baseline, precision/recall numbers, and at least one larger or non-convex environment would make it a solid contribution.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, not desk reject. A good referee can push for the missing baseline and outlier rejection. The idea deserves serious evaluation, and the current narrow validation is fixable.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a loop closure detection method for mapping the boundary of closed environments using only odometry data. Odometry is pruned into dominant points via path segmentation, a pose graph is built, and loop closure candidates are found by comparing grounded orientation profiles over a neighborhood of length LNH and selecting pairs whose correlation error C_ij is below a threshold cmin. Zero-measurement loop-closing constraints are added and the graph is optimized with Levenberg-Marquardt. The map is obtained by closing the optimized trajectory at a selected loop-closing pair. The evaluation reports area deviation between the estimated map and a ground-truth polygon: 4.5% for a simulated apartment, 17.8% under large simulated odometry noise, and 11.87% for a real courtyard. The abstract claims accurate maps from odometry only and states that the discriminative nature of neighboring poses is solid.

Significance. If the method works as claimed, it would let low-cost robots build boundary maps using only wheel odometry and wall following, which is practically significant. The paper's strengths are its simple pipeline, the use of standard pose graph optimization, and the evaluation with a real lawn mower. The area-deviation numbers for the two tested environments are encouraging. However, the paper does not report loop closure precision or recall, does not compare against a no-loop-closure baseline, and tunes the key thresholds per environment. The claimed generality of the discriminative-neighborhood assumption is not supported by experiments whose small circumferences relative to LNH avoid the straight-segment failure mode described below.

major comments (4)

[II-B (Eq. 12), V (Table III)] The loop closure detector has no false-positive rejection or consistency check. For any straight wall segment longer than 2·LNH (LNH=30 m in Table III, so 60 m), every pose whose ±LNH neighborhood lies entirely inside the segment has a constant grounded orientation profile; consequently C_ij=0 for all such pose pairs, not only for true revisits. The algorithm then adds zero-measurement loop-closing edges for all selected local minima below cmin (Section II-B, 'Third') and optimizes the graph in Section II-C, so in a 100 m×100 m square, non-corresponding pairs on parallel sides would be linked and the map estimate would be corrupted. The two test environments have circumferences of 100 m and 106.79 m, so their straight segments are shorter than 60 m; the experiments therefore do not support the abstract's claim that the discriminative nature of neighboring poses is 'solid.' The authors should either add an outlier rejection mechanism or explicitly restrict the claim to environments where the maximal straight segment length is bounded in terms of LNH.
[III] The evaluation reports only the final area deviation ΔA. It does not report loop closure precision or recall, nor the number of loop closures detected per experiment, and it does not compare against a no-loop-closure baseline such as the raw odometry trajectory or a graph closed only at the start and end. Since the paper's contribution is the loop closure detector, the results do not establish that the detected constraints improve map accuracy; the improvement could be due to the final closing step or to the pose graph optimization alone. Please add these standard measures.
[II-D] The area-error evaluation in Section II-D uses the same loop-closure detector from Section II-B to find correspondence pairs between the estimated map and the ground-truth polygon via Horn's method. Because false positives in that detector are not quantified, the reported ΔA values may partly reflect alignment success or failure rather than map quality. Please report the alignment results separately or use an alignment procedure that is independent of the loop-closure detector.
[II-B, V] The key parameters cmin and LNH are tuned per test environment: cmin is set to 1.0 for the apartment and 0.3 for the courtyard, and LNH=30 m is justified in the Appendix because the test environments have circumferences of about 100 m. The paper acknowledges that these parameters significantly affect detection, so the results do not establish a generally applicable, parameter-free method, and the Introduction's claim of applicability to 'arbitrary shapes' is not supported by the evidence.

minor comments (4)

[II-B (Eq. 17)] The text says 'the correlation error from Equation (6)' but C_ij is defined in Equation (12); please correct the reference.
[II-A, Algorithm 1] The pseudocode and the prose disagree about the condition that ends a segment: Algorithm 1 continues the segment when d<Lmin and e<emax, while the surrounding text says the segment is 'not any longer a valid representation' when both are true. Please align the prose and the pseudocode.
[V, Table III] The table of default parameters omits cmin, although cmin is a critical threshold that is assigned different values for the two experiments; please list it in the table or explain why it is excluded.
[II-A, Eq. (6)] The denominator (|S|-2) is not rendered clearly in the equation; please fix the typesetting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the core result is externally benchmarked against ground-truth maps.

full rationale

We examined the full derivation chain: odometry data, path segmentation (Algorithm 1), pose-graph construction, loop-closure detection via orientation-profile correlation (Eq. 12), pose-graph optimization (Eq. 15), and area-deviation evaluation (Eq. 19). No step defines its output in terms of its target. The loop-closure detector compares grounded orientation profiles of path neighborhoods, and the loop-closing measurement is zero with covariance proportional to C_ij (Eq. 17); this is a weighting choice, not a constructed prediction. The reported area errors are computed against independent ground-truth polygons (the simulated apartment and the CAD courtyard), so the central accuracy claim is externally grounded. The parameters cmin and LNH are tuned per environment (Sec. III, Table III), and the evaluation alignment in Sec. II-D reuses the shape-comparison method to find initial correspondences for Horn's method; these are legitimate limitations and fairness risks, but not circular steps, because the tuning does not define the reported delta-A and the reuse does not feed back into the map-generation optimization. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations and no imported uniqueness theorem. The 'discriminative nature of neighboring poses' premise is an empirical assumption validated by benchmarks, not an equation that reduces to itself. Therefore there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. It depends on several hand-tuned thresholds, a calibrated odometry noise model, and a domain-specific discriminative assumption about path shape uniqueness.

free parameters (7)

Lmin = 0.1 m
Minimum segment length in path segmentation; set by hand (Table III).
emax = 0.001
Line fit threshold in path segmentation; set by hand (Table III).
LNH = 30 m
Neighborhood length for shape comparison; chosen based on test environment circumference (Table III, Section II-B).
cmin = 1.0 (apartment), 0.3 (courtyard)
Loop closure correlation threshold; tuned per test environment (Sections III-A and III-B).
M = 100
Number of sample points for correlation error; set in Table III.
gamma1, gamma2 = 1.0, 1.0
Scaling for loop closure covariance; set to one in experiments (Section II-C).
alpha1..alpha4 = 0.0849, 0.0412, 0.0316, 0.0173
Odometry noise model parameters calibrated via maximum likelihood using OptiTrack (Table I).

assumptions (5)

standard math The pose graph formulation and Levenberg-Marquardt optimization produce a valid map estimate when loop closures are correct.
Standard graph-based SLAM framework cited from [9], [19].
domain assumption The odometry motion model of [23] describes the differential drive robot's noise behavior.
Used in Eq. (16) to build odometry covariances; parameters calibrated for the real robot.
domain assumption Low correlation error C_ij between orientation profiles implies the poses are the same place (discriminative neighborhood assumption).
Core of loop closure detection, Section II-B; asserted and tested, not proven.
domain assumption The robot follows the boundary repeatedly, producing a path that can be closed into a single loop.
The method requires wall following around the area of interest, Section II-B.
domain assumption The area deviation metric after Horn-alignment is a fair measure of map quality.
Used in Section II-D for evaluation; alignment itself uses the proposed loop closure detector.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Loop Closure Detection in Closed Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HALA7CV

@misc{pith2026190804558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Loop Closure Detection in Closed Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HALA7CV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04558}
}

read the original abstract

Low cost robots, such as vacuum cleaners or lawn mowers employ simplistic and often random navigation policies. Although a large number of sophisticated mapping and planning approaches exist, they require additional sensors like LIDAR sensors, cameras or time of flight sensors. In this work, we propose a loop closure detection method based only on odometry data which can be generated using low-range or binary signal sensors together with simple wall following techniques. We show how to include the detected loop closing constraints into a pose graph formulation such that standard pose graph optimization techniques can be used for map estimation. We evaluate our map estimate and loop closure approach using both, simulation and a real lawn mower in complex and realistic environments. Our results demonstrate that our approach generates accurate map estimates on the basis of odometry data only. We further show that our assumption about the discriminative nature of neighboring poses in the pose graph is solid, even under large odometry noise. These improved map estimates provide the basis for smart navigation policies in low cost robots and extends their abilities to goal-directed behavior like pick and place or complete coverage path planning in realistic environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04558 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** To generate a new dominant point, the distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Example for the piecewise linear orientation function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The figure shows how the dominant points are transformed to a set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Correlation error of the shapes of the neighborhood between the vertices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The figures shows the steps we use for generating a polygon map of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Deviation of areas between an original map and the map estimate. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The resulting map estimate can be seen in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_11.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The real courtyard depicted in (a) and the collected odometry data together with the map estimate shown in (b). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: The left panel shows the estimated path of the simulated robot gen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The left panel shows the estimated path of the simulated robot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Consistency of the ekf-slam algorithm

Tim Bailey, Juan Nieto, Jose Guivant, Michael Stevens, and Eduardo Nebot. Consistency of the ekf-slam algorithm. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on , pages 3562–3568. IEEE, 2006

work page 2006
[2]

Slam with sparse sensing

Kristopher R Beevers and Wesley H Huang. Slam with sparse sensing. In ICRA, pages 2285–2290, 2006

work page 2006
[3]

Using 3d laser range data for slam in outdoor environments

Christian Brenneke, Oliver Wulf, and Bernardo Wagner. Using 3d laser range data for slam in outdoor environments. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003.(IROS 2003). Proceedings. 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, volume 1, pages 188–193. IEEE, 2003

work page 2003
[4]

Robust coverage by a mobile robot of a planar workspace

Timothy Bretl and Seth Hutchinson. Robust coverage by a mobile robot of a planar workspace. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2013 IEEE International Conference on , pages 4582–4587. IEEE, 2013

work page 2013
[5]

A fast and accurate approximation for planar pose graph optimization

Luca Carlone, Rosario Aragues, Jos ´e A Castellanos, and Basilio Bona. A fast and accurate approximation for planar pose graph optimization. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 33(7):965–987, 2014

work page 2014
[6]

A line feature based slam with low grade range sensors using geometric constraints and active exploration for mobile robot

Young-Ho Choi, Tae-Kyeong Lee, and Se-Young Oh. A line feature based slam with low grade range sensors using geometric constraints and active exploration for mobile robot. Autonomous Robots , 24(1):13–27, 2008

work page 2008
[7]

Towards semantic slam using a monocular camera

Javier Civera, Dorian G ´alvez-L´opez, Luis Riazuelo, Juan D Tard ´os, and JMM Montiel. Towards semantic slam using a monocular camera. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pages 1277–1284. IEEE, 2011

work page 2011
[8]

Real-time 3d visual slam with a hand-held rgb-d camera

Nikolas Engelhard, Felix Endres, J ¨urgen Hess, J ¨urgen Sturm, and Wol- fram Burgard. Real-time 3d visual slam with a hand-held rgb-d camera. In Proc. of the RGB-D Workshop on 3D Perception in Robotics at the European Robotics F orum, V asteras, Sweden , volume 180, pages 1–15, 2011

work page 2011

Show all 25 references

[9]

A tutorial on graph-based slam

Giorgio Grisetti, Rainer Kummerle, Cyrill Stachniss, and Wolfram Bur- gard. A tutorial on graph-based slam. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine , 2(4):31–43, 2010

2010
[10]

Nonlinear con- straint network optimization for efﬁcient map learning

Giorgio Grisetti, Cyrill Stachniss, and Wolfram Burgard. Nonlinear con- straint network optimization for efﬁcient map learning. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 10(3):428–439, 2009

2009
[11]

Fast and accurate slam with rao–blackwellized particle ﬁlters

Giorgio Grisetti, Gian Diego Tipaldi, Cyrill Stachniss, Wolfram Burgard, and Daniele Nardi. Fast and accurate slam with rao–blackwellized particle ﬁlters. Robotics and Autonomous Systems , 55(1):30–38, 2007

2007
[12]

A probabilis- tic approach to high-conﬁdence cleaning guarantees for low-cost cleaning robots

J ¨urgen Hess, Maximilian Beinhofer, and Wolfram Burgard. A probabilis- tic approach to high-conﬁdence cleaning guarantees for low-cost cleaning robots. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014 IEEE International Conference on, pages 5600–5605. IEEE, 2014

2014
[13]

Closed- form solution of absolute orientation using orthonormal matrices

Berthold KP Horn, Hugh M Hilden, and Shahriar Negahdaripour. Closed- form solution of absolute orientation using orthonormal matrices. JOSA A, 5(7):1127–1135, 1988

1988
[14]

isam2: Incremental smoothing and mapping using the bayes tree

Michael Kaess, Hordur Johannsson, Richard Roberts, Viorela Ila, John J Leonard, and Frank Dellaert. isam2: Incremental smoothing and mapping using the bayes tree. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 31(2):216–235, 2012

2012
[15]

Outdoor mapping and navigation using stereo vision

Kurt Konolige, Motilal Agrawal, Robert C Bolles, Cregg Cowan, Martin Fischler, and Brian Gerkey. Outdoor mapping and navigation using stereo vision. In Experimental Robotics , pages 179–190. Springer, 2008

2008
[16]

g 2 o: A general framework for graph optimization

Rainer K ¨ummerle, Giorgio Grisetti, Hauke Strasdat, Kurt Konolige, and Wolfram Burgard. g 2 o: A general framework for graph optimization. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, pages 3607–3613. IEEE, 2011

2011
[17]

Robust loop closing over time for pose graph slam

Yasir Latif, C ´esar Cadena, and Jos ´e Neira. Robust loop closing over time for pose graph slam. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 32(14):1611–1626, 2013

2013
[18]

Go straight, turn right: Pose graph reduction through trajectory segmentation using line segments

Yasir Latif and Jos ´e Neira. Go straight, turn right: Pose graph reduction through trajectory segmentation using line segments. In Mobile Robots (ECMR), 2013 European Conference on , pages 144–149. IEEE, 2013

2013
[19]

Globally consistent range scan alignment for environment mapping

Feng Lu and Evangelos Milios. Globally consistent range scan alignment for environment mapping. Autonomous robots, 4(4):333–349, 1997

1997
[20]

Fastslam: A factored solution to the simultaneous localization and mapping problem

Michael Montemerlo, Sebastian Thrun, Daphne Koller, Ben Wegbreit, et al. Fastslam: A factored solution to the simultaneous localization and mapping problem. Aaai/iaai, 593598, 2002

2002
[21]

Fast iterative alignment of pose graphs with poor initial estimates

Edwin Olson, John Leonard, and Seth Teller. Fast iterative alignment of pose graphs with poor initial estimates. In Robotics and Automation,
[22]

Simultaneous loclization and mapping with limited sensing using extended kalman ﬁlter and hough transfrom

Ozan Ozisik and Sirma Yavuz. Simultaneous loclization and mapping with limited sensing using extended kalman ﬁlter and hough transfrom. Tehnicki vjesnik/Technical Gazette, 23(6), 2016

2016
[23]

Probabilistic robotics

Sebastian Thrun. Probabilistic robotics. Communications of the ACM , 45(3):52–57, 2002

2002
[24]

Real-time indoor mapping for mobile robots with limited sensing

Ying Zhang, Juan Liu, Gabriel Hoffmann, Mark Quilling, Kenneth Payne, Prasanta Bose, and Andrew Zimdars. Real-time indoor mapping for mobile robots with limited sensing. In Mobile Adhoc and Sensor Systems (MASS), 2010 IEEE 7th International Conference on , pages 636–641. IEEE, 2010

2010
[2006]

Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on , pages 2262–2269

ICRA 2006. Proceedings 2006 IEEE International Conference on , pages 2262–2269. IEEE, 2006

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Consistency of the ekf-slam algorithm

Tim Bailey, Juan Nieto, Jose Guivant, Michael Stevens, and Eduardo Nebot. Consistency of the ekf-slam algorithm. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2006 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on , pages 3562–3568. IEEE, 2006

work page 2006

[2] [2]

Slam with sparse sensing

Kristopher R Beevers and Wesley H Huang. Slam with sparse sensing. In ICRA, pages 2285–2290, 2006

work page 2006

[3] [3]

Using 3d laser range data for slam in outdoor environments

Christian Brenneke, Oliver Wulf, and Bernardo Wagner. Using 3d laser range data for slam in outdoor environments. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2003.(IROS 2003). Proceedings. 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, volume 1, pages 188–193. IEEE, 2003

work page 2003

[4] [4]

Robust coverage by a mobile robot of a planar workspace

Timothy Bretl and Seth Hutchinson. Robust coverage by a mobile robot of a planar workspace. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2013 IEEE International Conference on , pages 4582–4587. IEEE, 2013

work page 2013

[5] [5]

A fast and accurate approximation for planar pose graph optimization

Luca Carlone, Rosario Aragues, Jos ´e A Castellanos, and Basilio Bona. A fast and accurate approximation for planar pose graph optimization. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 33(7):965–987, 2014

work page 2014

[6] [6]

A line feature based slam with low grade range sensors using geometric constraints and active exploration for mobile robot

Young-Ho Choi, Tae-Kyeong Lee, and Se-Young Oh. A line feature based slam with low grade range sensors using geometric constraints and active exploration for mobile robot. Autonomous Robots , 24(1):13–27, 2008

work page 2008

[7] [7]

Towards semantic slam using a monocular camera

Javier Civera, Dorian G ´alvez-L´opez, Luis Riazuelo, Juan D Tard ´os, and JMM Montiel. Towards semantic slam using a monocular camera. In Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, pages 1277–1284. IEEE, 2011

work page 2011

[8] [8]

Real-time 3d visual slam with a hand-held rgb-d camera

Nikolas Engelhard, Felix Endres, J ¨urgen Hess, J ¨urgen Sturm, and Wol- fram Burgard. Real-time 3d visual slam with a hand-held rgb-d camera. In Proc. of the RGB-D Workshop on 3D Perception in Robotics at the European Robotics F orum, V asteras, Sweden , volume 180, pages 1–15, 2011

work page 2011