Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 27 references

LIR-LIVO: A Lightweight,Robust LiDAR/Vision/Inertial Odometry with Illumination-Resilient Deep Features

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a lightweight LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry system can keep pose estimation accurate in low light by giving deep-learned visual features metric depths directly from LiDAR point clouds.

desk verdict A credible LIVO system with a genuinely new front-end integration and strong Hilti low-light results, but the SOTA claim is overstated and the LiDAR depth-association step is under-validated at depth discontinuities. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08676 v1 pith:7PVVEX55 submitted 2025-02-12 cs.RO cs.CVcs.SYeess.SPeess.SY

Shujie Zhou , Zihao Wang , Xinye Dai , Weiwei Song , Shengfeng Gu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CVcs.SYeess.SPeess.SY
keywords LiDAR-inertial-visualodometrySuperPointLightGluedepthassociationilluminationrobustnesserror-stateiteratedKalmanfilterslidingwindowSLAM
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

LIR-LIVO is a LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry system whose central claim is that deep-learned visual features can make pose estimation accurate and robust in poor lighting if each feature is given a metric depth directly from the LiDAR point cloud. Instead of triangulating visual landmarks and maintaining a separate 3D visual map, the system recovers each feature's depth by fitting a local plane through nearby LiDAR points, then feeds the fixed-depth features into a sliding-window reprojection update inside an error-state iterated Kalman filter. The paper reports that this design outperforms prior open-source LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry systems on most benchmark sequences, and that it keeps working on low-light indoor sequences where comparison methods fail. A uniform distribution of feature depths is added so that near features, which mainly constrain translation, and far features, which mainly constrain rotation, both contribute to the estimate. The significance, if the claims hold, is a practical recipe for robots and drones that must localize reliably under changing illumination and LiDAR-degraded conditions.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is LiDAR depth association feeding a lightweight sliding-window visual update inside an error-state iterated Kalman filter. A sweep-recombination step first realigns LiDAR scans so their end timestamp matches the camera image timestamp. Each keypoint from the learned detector (SuperPoint) is then located on a unit sphere around the camera, and the five nearest LiDAR points define a candidate local plane; a 0.05 m point-to-plane residual check validates the association, and the feature's depth is solved on that plane. The matched features, established by the learned matcher LightGlue, enter a reprojection residual that treats those depths and all past keyframe poses as constants, so the filter only has to estimate the new keyframe's pose. A separate depth-distribution step bins features across ten depth intervals so both near and far points contribute complementary constraints on translation and rotation.

What would settle it

Take a motion-captured scene containing thin foreground structures in front of a background wall, and compare the depth LIR-LIVO assigns to each image feature against the true geometry. If features whose five nearest LiDAR points straddle the foreground/background edge receive visibly wrong depths and the pose error grows on exactly those frames, the depth-association assumption is falsified; if the 0.05 m residual check rejects those associations and pose error stays low, the assumption holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that associating every deep visual feature with an accurate LiDAR-derived depth makes the vision part of a fused odometry system both more accurate and cheaper than the standard triangulation-and-landmark pipeline. Depth comes from projecting LiDAR points onto a unit sphere around the camera, taking the five nearest points to each feature, fitting a plane, accepting the association only if the point-to-plane residual is below 0.05 m, and solving for the feature's depth on that plane. Because the depth is treated as fixed, the reprojection residual in the filter optimizes only the pose of the newest keyframe against a small sliding window of past keyframes, with older poses and depths held constant. The reported results are lower absolute trajectory errors than prior open-source systems on the majority of the evaluated aerial, handheld, and low-light sequences, including successful estimation in sequences where comparison methods diverge or fail.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that for every visual feature, the five closest LiDAR points in the camera's direction lie on one flat surface, so the depth solved from their fitted plane is the true depth of the image feature.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot or drone using this system can expect pose estimates to remain stable when ambient light drops, because the visual front end does not depend on optical flow or intensity corners.
  • The visual subsystem's memory footprint is smaller than in landmark-based LIVO systems, since no 3D visual map is maintained; only a sliding window of keyframes with feature depths is kept.
  • Accuracy no longer depends on having a wide camera baseline for triangulation, so the system can stay accurate during slow or small-motion segments as long as LiDAR depth association succeeds.
  • Near and far features are explicitly balanced, so the estimator does not let distant points dominate rotation or nearby points dominate translation in any single frame.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An unstated consequence is that the same depth-association recipe could work with any depth source, such as a stereo camera or RGB-D sensor, preserving the illumination robustness of the learned features without requiring LiDAR.
  • The 0.05 m plane residual threshold means the system's reliability in cluttered scenes hinges on the five nearest LiDAR points lying on one surface; scenes with thin structures or moving objects would expose this and are not separately stress-tested in the reported benchmarks.
  • The paper's ablation isolates the uniform-depth-distribution component, but not the depth association or the learned front end; a reader who wants to attribute the gains should test variants that replace only one component at a time.
  • If the depth-association failures are rare, the system's accuracy should degrade gracefully rather than catastrophically, because the iterated Kalman filter can still use the LiDAR-inertial update as a backup; this could be tested by injecting synthetic wrong depths into the visual update and measuring pose error growth.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents LIR-LIVO, a LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry system that couples a FAST-LIO2-style direct LiDAR-inertial estimator with a visual frontend based on SuperPoint feature extraction and LightGlue matching. Visual feature depths are obtained by associating each feature ray with nearby LiDAR points on the unit sphere, fitting a local plane, and solving for the feature depth; a uniform depth distribution heuristic is used to select features across ten depth intervals. The visual subsystem keeps a small sliding window of keyframes and optimizes only the newest pose by minimizing reprojection errors with previously associated depths held fixed. Experiments on NTU-VIRAL, Hilti'22, and R3LIVE benchmark sequences report lower RMSE than several open-source baselines on most sequences, and timing measurements indicate real-time operation on a desktop GPU.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would make a useful contribution by showing that a lightweight LIVO system can benefit from deep visual features and LiDAR-derived depths without maintaining a visual landmark map, and it would provide evidence of robustness in low-light conditions where classical visual frontends fail. The manuscript has concrete strengths: it is validated on external datasets with independent ground truth, it compares against multiple open-source baselines, it includes a timing breakdown, and the code is publicly released. The central claim of state-of-the-art accuracy is, however, currently stated too broadly relative to the paper's own tables, and the depth-association mechanism that underpins the visual measurement model is not validated at depth discontinuities. These issues are addressable in revision but need substantive work.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B, Eq. (1)] The plane-fitting formulation as printed is vacuous: with b = [0,0,0,0,0]^T, the least-squares solution is x = (A^T A)^{-1} A^T b = 0, which cannot serve as the plane normal/offset vector. This makes the depth-association equations in Eq. (1) and the subsequent depth computation in Eq. (2) non-reproducible. Please provide the correct plane estimation formulation (e.g., fit n^T p = l with an appropriate non-zero b vector, or use SVD of mean-centered points) and ensure Eq. (2) is consistent with it.
  2. [Section V.A, Tables II-III and Abstract] The abstract and Section V.B claim state-of-the-art accuracy, but the tables contain multiple counterexamples: in Table II, LIR-LIVO is worse than SR-LIVO on eee03 (0.261 vs. 0.216), nya02 (0.253 vs. 0.190), and sbs01 (0.152 vs. 0.120); in Table III, it is worse than SR-LIVO on hku campus seq 00 (0.029 vs. 0.020) and worse than both R3LIVE and SR-LIVO on LiDAR Degenerate (0.076 vs. 0.064 and 0.053). The claim should be qualified to 'most sequences,' and since many differences are at the centimeter level, statistical significance or at least repeated-run variability should be reported.
  3. [Section IV.B and IV.E.2] The depth association validates only that the five nearest LiDAR points are approximately coplanar (0.05 m point-to-plane threshold); it does not verify that the feature's true scene point lies on that plane. At depth discontinuities, thin structures, or object boundaries, the five angularly nearest points can all lie on a foreground surface while the feature lies on a background surface, yielding a biased depth that Eq. (6) treats as fixed truth. No robust kernel or chi-square gate for depth outliers is described. I recommend adding a quantitative evaluation of depth-association accuracy (e.g., fraction of associated depths within a tolerance of ground-truth depth) and an outlier-rejection mechanism in the visual update, otherwise the reported low-light gains cannot be attributed to correct depth association rather than the LiDAR-inertial subsystem alone.
  4. [Section V.A and V.B] The text states that evaluations were conducted on '20 sequences from NTU-VIRAL, Hilti'22, R3LIVE-Dataset, and FAST-LIVO-Dataset,' but Tables II and III report only NTU-VIRAL, Hilti'22, and R3LIVE sequences; no FAST-LIVO-Dataset results appear. In addition, Section V.B reports an eee01 error of 0.139 m while Table II lists 0.164 m for LIR-LIVO on that sequence. These inconsistencies must be reconciled, as they affect the reproducibility of the reported results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 2 caption] The caption refers to 'SuperPoint and SuperGlue,' but the text and Section IV.C use LightGlue; please align the terminology.
  2. [Section IV.B, Eq. (3)] The notation is unclear: δj and δk are called inverse depths, but the formula writes δk outside the bracket and δj inside; please clarify the relationship between the inverse-depth parametrization and the camera projection function π_c and its derivative π'_c.
  3. [Section IV.B] There are several typos, including 'A silding window' and 'pc_i ... in the u'; the latter should likely read 'in the unit sphere.' Please proofread the mathematical and algorithmic descriptions.
  4. [Section V.C, Table IV] The comparison between SuperPoint/LightGlue and Shi-Tomasi/BFMatcher should state the feature count, image resolution, and whether all components ran on the same hardware with the same sliding-window size; otherwise the timing comparison is difficult to interpret.
  5. [Section V.D, Table V] The text references 'Table V-C' but the table is labeled 'TABLE V'; also clarify how the 50 uniformly depth-sampled points interact with the ten depth intervals described in Section IV.B.
  6. [Section IV.E.2] The phrase 'estimatoin strategy' is a typo for 'estimation strategy.' More substantively, the criterion for keyframe selection is described only vaguely as 'variation in its prior pose relative to the K1 keyframe'; please specify the threshold or procedure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: LIR-LIVO is evaluated on external benchmarks, and its depth-association and uniform-depth-distribution steps are design choices rather than predictions fitted to the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that LIR-LIVO achieves state-of-the-art accuracy and robustness, supported by comparisons on the independent NTU-VIRAL, Hilti'22, and R3LIVE-Dataset benchmarks with external ground truth or trajectory consistency. No parameter of the visual front end or depth-association module is fitted to these benchmark outcomes; SuperPoint and LightGlue are pretrained external models, and the 0.05 m coplanarity threshold in Section IV.B is a stated design parameter borrowed and made stricter from [7], not a fitted constant. The depth-association procedure (Eqs. (1)-(2)) computes a feature depth as the intersection of the feature ray with a local plane fit to nearby LiDAR points; this is a geometric measurement model, and the visual reprojection residual (Eq. (6)) uses that depth as a fixed constant. While this model may be inaccurate at depth discontinuities, that is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity: the measurement is not defined in terms of the pose output being predicted. The uniform depth-distribution strategy is motivated by the analytical Jacobians in Eq. (3) and is ablated on NTU-VIRAL, but the ablation is a mild self-evaluation, not a case of fitting a parameter to the claimed benchmark result. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renaming of a known result as a new derivation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and externally falsifiable; no circular step reduces the conclusions to the inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on pretrained deep networks and on hand-set engineering constants. These constants are not fitted to the benchmark errors in an opaque way, but they are not justified by sensitivity analyses either.

free parameters (5)
  • Depth association plane residual threshold = 0.05 m
    Used in Section IV.B to accept or reject LiDAR-point-to-feature depth associations; no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Sliding window size = 5 keyframes
    Section V.C states time consumption is measured with a sliding window size of 5; the window size affects accuracy and runtime but is not tuned.
  • Depth distribution intervals = 10 intervals over 1 to 200 m
    Section IV.B divides the depth range into 10 uniform 20 m intervals and dynamically adapts the maximum depth; these values are hand-chosen.
  • Parallax threshold for keyframe inclusion = 15 pixels
    Section IV.E.2 includes only keyframes with parallax larger than 15 pixels; no ablation or justification is given for this cutoff.
  • Uniform depth sampling count = 50 points per frame
    Section V.D states depth-associated features are uniformly downsampled to 50 points per frame; this value is chosen for the ablation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SuperPoint and LightGlue pretrained models transfer to the benchmark camera and illumination conditions.
    The visual frontend in Section IV.C relies on these external networks to detect and match features without fine-tuning or dataset-specific adaptation.
  • standard math The scene is locally planar for both LiDAR point-to-plane residuals and depth association.
    Equations (1), (2), and (5) assume the five nearest points lie on a plane; cluttered scenes, depth discontinuities, and edges violate this assumption.
  • domain assumption Camera-LiDAR-IMU extrinsics and time offsets are pre-calibrated and fixed.
    Section IV.D states these quantities are pre-calibrated; inaccurate calibration is not modeled or corrected online.
  • standard math IMU state propagation follows the standard error-state iterated Kalman filter model with biases as random walks.
    Section IV.D uses Eq. (4) and the FAST-LIO2-style ESIKF without proving or re-deriving the underlying inertial navigation model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LIR-LIVO: A Lightweight,Robust LiDAR/Vision/Inertial Odometry with Illumination-Resilient Deep Features." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7PVVEX55

@misc{pith2026250208676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LIR-LIVO: A Lightweight,Robust LiDAR/Vision/Inertial Odometry with Illumination-Resilient Deep Features},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7PVVEX55}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08676}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose LIR-LIVO, a lightweight and robust LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry system designed for challenging illumination and degraded environments. The proposed method leverages deep learning-based illumination-resilient features and LiDAR-Inertial-Visual Odometry (LIVO). By incorporating advanced techniques such as uniform depth distribution of features enabled by depth association with LiDAR point clouds and adaptive feature matching utilizing Superpoint and LightGlue, LIR-LIVO achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) accuracy and robustness with low computational cost. Experiments are conducted on benchmark datasets, including NTU-VIRAL, Hilti'22, and R3LIVE-Dataset. The corresponding results demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms other SOTA methods on both standard and challenging datasets. Particularly, the proposed method demonstrates robust pose estimation under poor ambient lighting conditions in the Hilti'22 dataset. The code of this work is publicly accessible on GitHub to facilitate advancements in the robotics community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08676 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The 3D point cloud mapping results of LIR-LIVO on the Hilti’22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of our LIR-LIVO. The LiDAR frame timestamps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The process of sweep recombination. The original LiDAR frame is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sensitivity differences of camera rotation and translation to landmarks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The performance of proposed visual fontend. The images are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The framework of the visual module. The circles represent feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ”Unified multi-modal landmark tracking for tightly coupled LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry.” IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters 6.2 (2021): 1004-1011

    Wisth, David, et al. ”Unified multi-modal landmark tracking for tightly coupled LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry.” IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters 6.2 (2021): 1004-1011

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    ”LOAM: LiDAR odometry and mapping in real-time.” Robotics: Science and systems

    Zhang, Ji, and Sanjiv Singh. ”LOAM: LiDAR odometry and mapping in real-time.” Robotics: Science and systems. V ol. 2. No. 9. 2014

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    ”Fast-lio2: Fast direct LiDAR-inertial odometry.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics 38.4 (2022): 2053-2073

    Xu, Wei, et al. ”Fast-lio2: Fast direct LiDAR-inertial odometry.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics 38.4 (2022): 2053-2073

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    ”Lio-sam: Tightly-coupled LiDAR inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping.” 2020 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS)

    Shan, Tixiao, et al. ”Lio-sam: Tightly-coupled LiDAR inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping.” 2020 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    ”Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monocular visual-inertial state estimator.” IEEE transactions on robotics 34.4 (2018): 1004-1020

    Qin, Tong, Peiliang Li, and Shaojie Shen. ”Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monocular visual-inertial state estimator.” IEEE transactions on robotics 34.4 (2018): 1004-1020

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Lin, Jiarong, and Fu Zhang. ”R3LIVE: A Robust, Real-time, RGB- colored, LiDAR-Inertial-Visual tightly-coupled state Estimation and map- ping package.” 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion (ICRA). IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    ”LE-VINS: A robust solid-state-LiDAR-enhanced visual-inertial navigation system for low-speed robots.” IEEE Transac- tions on Instrumentation and Measurement 72 (2023): 1-13

    Tang, Hailiang, et al. ”LE-VINS: A robust solid-state-LiDAR-enhanced visual-inertial navigation system for low-speed robots.” IEEE Transac- tions on Instrumentation and Measurement 72 (2023): 1-13

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    ”SR-LIVO: LiDAR-Inertial-Visual Odometry and Mapping With Sweep Reconstruction.” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (2024)

    Yuan, Zikang, et al. ”SR-LIVO: LiDAR-Inertial-Visual Odometry and Mapping With Sweep Reconstruction.” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    ”Camvox: A low-cost and accurate lidar-assisted visual slam system.” 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Zhu, Yuewen, et al. ”Camvox: A low-cost and accurate lidar-assisted visual slam system.” 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    ”Lvi-sam: Tightly-coupled LiDAR-visual-inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping.” 2021 IEEE international con- ference on robotics and automation (ICRA)

    Shan, Tixiao, et al. ”Lvi-sam: Tightly-coupled LiDAR-visual-inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping.” 2021 IEEE international con- ference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    ”Fast-livo2: Fast, direct LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics (2024)

    Zheng, Chunran, et al. ”Fast-livo2: Fast, direct LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry.” IEEE Transactions on Robotics (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    ”Fast-livo: Fast and tightly-coupled sparse- direct LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry.” 2022 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS)

    Zheng, Chunran, et al. ”Fast-livo: Fast and tightly-coupled sparse- direct LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry.” 2022 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    ”Lego-loam: Lightweight and ground-optimized LiDAR odometry and mapping on variable terrain.” 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Sys- tems (IROS)

    Shan, Tixiao, and Brendan Englot. ”Lego-loam: Lightweight and ground-optimized LiDAR odometry and mapping on variable terrain.” 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Sys- tems (IROS). IEEE, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    ”Stereo visual inertial LiDAR simultaneous localization and mapping.” 2019 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS)

    Shao, Weizhao, et al. ”Stereo visual inertial LiDAR simultaneous localization and mapping.” 2019 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    ”Lic-fusion 2.0: LiDAR-inertial-camera odometry with sliding-window plane-feature tracking.” 2020 IEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Zuo, Xingxing, et al. ”Lic-fusion 2.0: LiDAR-inertial-camera odometry with sliding-window plane-feature tracking.” 2020 IEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    ”Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras.” Advances in neural information processing systems 34 (2021): 16558-16569

    Teed, Zachary, and Jia Deng. ”Droid-slam: Deep visual slam for monocular, stereo, and rgb-d cameras.” Advances in neural information processing systems 34 (2021): 16558-16569

    2021

  9. [17]

    ”SupSLAM: A robust visual inertial SLAM system using SuperPoint for unmanned aerial vehicles.” 2021 8th NAFOSTED Conference on Information and Computer Science (NICS)

    Quach, Cong Hoang, et al. ”SupSLAM: A robust visual inertial SLAM system using SuperPoint for unmanned aerial vehicles.” 2021 8th NAFOSTED Conference on Information and Computer Science (NICS). IEEE, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    ”Super- point: Self-supervised interest point detection and description.” Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops

    DeTone, Daniel, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabinovich. ”Super- point: Self-supervised interest point detection and description.” Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops. 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    ”Airslam: An efficient and illumination-robust point-line visual slam system.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03520 (2024)

    Xu, Kuan, et al. ”Airslam: An efficient and illumination-robust point-line visual slam system.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03520 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    ”Superglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks.” Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Sarlin, Paul-Edouard, et al. ”Superglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks.” Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    ”Light- glue: Local feature matching at light speed.” Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Lindenberger, Philipp, Paul-Edouard Sarlin, and Marc Pollefeys. ”Light- glue: Local feature matching at light speed.” Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    ”XFeat: Accelerated Features for Lightweight Image Matching.” Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Potje, Guilherme, et al. ”XFeat: Accelerated Features for Lightweight Image Matching.” Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    ”A real-time method for depth enhanced visual odometry.” Autonomous Robots 41 (2017): 31-43

    Zhang, Ji, Michael Kaess, and Sanjiv Singh. ”A real-time method for depth enhanced visual odometry.” Autonomous Robots 41 (2017): 31-43

    2017

  16. [24]

    ”Laser–visual–inertial odometry and map- ping with high robustness and low drift.” Journal of field robotics 35.8 (2018): 1242-1264

    Zhang, Ji, and Sanjiv Singh. ”Laser–visual–inertial odometry and map- ping with high robustness and low drift.” Journal of field robotics 35.8 (2018): 1242-1264

    2018

  17. [25]

    ”R2LIVE: A Robust, Real-Time, LiDAR-Inertial- Visual Tightly-Coupled State Estimator and Mapping.” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6.4 (2021): 7469-7476

    Lin, Jiarong, et al. ”R2LIVE: A Robust, Real-Time, LiDAR-Inertial- Visual Tightly-Coupled State Estimator and Mapping.” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6.4 (2021): 7469-7476

    2021

  18. [26]

    ”Hilti-oxford dataset: A millimeter-accurate benchmark for simultaneous localization and mapping.” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8.1 (2022): 408-415

    Zhang, Lintong, et al. ”Hilti-oxford dataset: A millimeter-accurate benchmark for simultaneous localization and mapping.” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8.1 (2022): 408-415

    2022

  19. [27]

    ”Ntu viral: A visual-inertial-ranging-LiDAR dataset, from an aerial vehicle viewpoint.” The International Journal of Robotics Research 41.3 (2022): 270-280

    Nguyen, Thien-Minh, et al. ”Ntu viral: A visual-inertial-ranging-LiDAR dataset, from an aerial vehicle viewpoint.” The International Journal of Robotics Research 41.3 (2022): 270-280

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.