Uncertainty Model Estimation in an Augmented Data Space for Robust State Estimation

Clark N. Taylor; Jason N. Gross; Robert C. Leishman; Ryan M. Watson

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Uncertainty Model Estimation in an Augmented Data Space for Robust State Estimation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 This paper argues that robust state estimation is improved by learning the measurement error model in an augmented space containing residuals plus quality-correlated metadata such as GNSS signal strength, and validates the claim with…

desk verdict A reasonable incremental extension of BCE, but the 'significant' accuracy claim rests on descriptive statistics from two of three datasets — needs a revision before it can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04372 v1 pith:AJVKCC3I submitted 2019-08-12 eess.SP

Ryan M. Watson , Jason N. Gross , Clark N. Taylor , Robert C. Leishman This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SP

keywords robuststateestimationbatchcovarianceGaussianmixturemodelmetadataaugmentationvariationalclusteringfeatureselectionGNSSpositioningmeasurementuncertainty

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

This paper tries to show that robust state estimation can be made markedly more accurate by learning the measurement error model in an augmented data space rather than from residuals alone. The proposed method, BCE-AD, takes the residual of each sensor observation, appends metadata known to correlate with observation quality—for GNSS, signal strength, elevation angle, and azimuth angle—and fits a Gaussian mixture model to the augmented vectors. Cluster assignments made in that space are then used to update each measurement's covariance, and the fit-and-update loop repeats. In three GNSS field tests, the median horizontal positioning error drops from 6.70 m to 2.14 m and from 7.31 m to 3.25 m relative to the residual-only BCE baseline on two datasets, with no loss on the third, where residual-only clustering already separates cleanly. If the claim holds, any sensor with side information about data quality can feed that information into the uncertainty model instead of relying on hand-tuned robust cost functions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the augmented data vector $d_n = (r_n, f_n)$, formed by concatenating a measurement residual with a metadata feature vector. A variational Gaussian mixture model is fit to these augmented vectors, and the resulting cluster assignments partition the original residuals; each cluster's mean and covariance in the residual domain become the updated measurement uncertainty model. Because adding dimensions can make clusters easier to separate but also raises computational cost, the pipeline includes an online feature-selection step—nearest-neighbor graph construction, eigendecomposition, and least-angle regression—that chooses the relevant metadata per iteration. This fit-cluster-update loop is the entire mechanism: it converts external quality indicators into covariance updates without ever requiring a hand-specified robust cost function.

What would settle it

Run BCE-AD with the metadata values randomly permuted across observations while keeping everything else identical; if the median positioning error still improves substantially over BCE, then the improvement cannot be attributed to the metadata's quality information.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that measurement residuals alone can be ambiguous as a domain for learning an uncertainty model, and that projecting them into a higher-dimensional space with quality-correlated metadata makes the clusters that the model needs to find easier to recover. The paper's BCE-AD algorithm iterates: run nonlinear least squares, form residuals, augment each residual with metadata, use unsupervised feature selection to pick the relevant dimensions, fit a variational Gaussian mixture model to the augmented data, map each augmented assignment back onto the residual domain, update each factor's covariance to the sufficient statistics of its assigned component, and repeat until convergence. The experimental claim is that this yields notably lower median horizontal RSOS positioning error than the L2 baseline, dynamic covariance scaling, max-mixtures, and the original BCE on two kinematic GNSS datasets, and comparable performance on a third where the residual-domain partition is already unambiguous.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chosen metadata truly correlates with measurement quality, so that adding it to the residual domain separates good from bad observations better than residuals alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the two datasets where residual-only clustering is ambiguous, BCE-AD lowers median horizontal RSOS error from 6.70 m to 2.14 m and from 7.31 m to 3.25 m compared with BCE.
On the dataset where residual-domain clusters are already clean, BCE-AD matches BCE exactly, and the feature-selection step keeps only residuals—evidence that the gain is tied to separability rather than to extra model capacity.
Because the pipeline only requires metadata that correlates with observation quality, it transfers to other sensors, e.g., using image illumination or feature age for vision-based estimation, as the paper itself notes.
Since the selected features change across optimization iterations, the online feature-selection step is not a frill: it prevents irrelevant metadata from degrading the clustering once better state estimates make residual structure clearer.

Reading between the lines

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

If the augmentation benefit holds across sensors, then robust estimation becomes a clustering problem with side information, and the practical question shifts to finding cheap metadata that is monotonically related to observation quality rather than designing robust cost functions.
The three-dataset comparison suggests a control condition for future work: report the residual-domain separability, since BCE-AD should only help when that separability is low. That would turn the paper's post-hoc hypothesis into a testable prediction.
A natural stress test is to apply BCE-AD to visual odometry or LiDAR, where per-point features like reflectivity, depth uncertainty, or keypoint age are available and where GNSS-style elevation and azimuth metadata are absent.

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

Quick take: this is a legitimate, clearly written extension of the batch covariance estimation (BCE) framework, but the headline claim is not yet supported. The evidence is descriptive only — no significance tests, no intervals, and one of the three datasets shows zero improvement. I'd send it to review, but with the expectation of a revision that tightens the claims and adds reproducibility.

What's new: the idea to augment the residual space with metadata (signal strength, elevation, azimuth) before fitting the GMM is a sensible move, and the paper's argument that the added dimensions increase the chance of a unique partitioning is plausible. The implementation is straightforward: variational clustering on the augmented space, online feature selection from Cai et al., then mapping the cluster assignments back to the residual domain. The algorithmic description in Section III is clear enough that I could reimplement it. The authors are also honest about the collect-2 case where BCE-AD gives no benefit over BCE, and they offer a plausible explanation.

Where it's soft: the abstract and Section IV claim a 'significant increase' in accuracy, but Table I gives only medians, variances, and maxima. There are no per-epoch error distributions, no paired tests (e.g., Wilcoxon), no bootstrap CIs. Given the collect-2 variance is 393 m^2 with a max over 100 m, the sampling variability is large. The two datasets that improve show big median drops (6.70 to 2.14, 7.31 to 3.25), so the effect may be real, but 'significant' is a statistical term and this paper doesn't earn it. Also, the truncation level M*, convergence threshold, and feature selection parameters are not specified, and no code is released — so independent verification is harder than it should be. These are fixable in revision.

On the stress-test: it's right that the central claim lacks statistical support. But I don't read the paper as circular or self-serving; BCE from the same group is the natural baseline, and the data are public. The improvement is empirical, and the mechanism (metadata helps partitioning) is directly visualized.

Bottom line: worth a read for anyone working on robust GNSS or factor-graph covariance adaptation. It's an incremental contribution, not a breakthrough, and the current claims outrun the evidence. A serious referee should push for a significance analysis or at least confidence intervals, a clear statement of hyperparameters, and preferably code/data release. I'd accept it for review.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BCE-AD, an extension of batch covariance estimation (BCE) for robust state estimation. Instead of fitting a Gaussian mixture model to measurement residuals alone, BCE-AD augments the residuals with metadata (signal strength, elevation, azimuth) and performs variational clustering over the augmented data space, with online feature selection between optimization iterations. The method is evaluated on three kinematic GNSS datasets, using a software-defined receiver with intentionally degraded observations, and compared against l2, DCS, max-mixtures, and BCE baselines. The reported results show lower median horizontal RSOS error for BCE-AD on data collects 1 and 3, and equal performance to BCE on data collect 2. The paper concludes that BCE-AD provides comparable or improved state estimation accuracy compared with previously proposed robust estimation techniques.

Significance. If the reported improvements are statistically reliable, BCE-AD is a valuable extension to robust state estimation because it addresses settings in which residual-domain clustering alone cannot separate good from degraded measurements. The method is well motivated, the baselines are appropriate, and the three datasets have been made publicly available through the authors' earlier BCE paper, which supports reproducibility of the comparison. However, the central empirical claim rests on descriptive statistics alone; no significance tests, confidence intervals, or per-epoch comparisons are provided, and the method shows no gain on one of the three datasets. The conceptual idea is promising, but the current evidence is not sufficient to support the headline claim as stated. I would encourage the authors to add inferential analysis and to reword the 'significant' language accordingly.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-B, Table I] The claim that BCE-AD 'significantly reduces' the median horizontal RSOS error is not supported by any inferential analysis. The paper reports only the median, variance, and maximum for each estimator and gives no per-epoch counts, confidence intervals, or paired significance tests. Since BCE-AD and BCE have identical statistics on data collect 2 (median 3.58 m and variance 393.32 m^2), and since the improvements on collects 1 and 3 could plausibly arise from sampling variability, the authors should add paired comparisons across epochs (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test or bootstrap confidence intervals) and reserve the word 'significant' for statistically tested differences. The large variance and maximum values on data collect 2 (up to 103.64 m) further indicate that median-only reporting can obscure tail behavior.
[Section III-B and III-D] The proposed framework is not fully reproducible because key algorithmic parameters are not specified: the truncation level M* for the variational GMM, the convergence threshold for the outer iteration, the variational clustering hyperparameters (including priors), and the feature-selection parameters such as the number of nearest neighbors for the NN graph and the LARS stopping criterion. The paper also does not release code. Without these details, a reader cannot determine whether the reported improvements depend on particular settings, and the experiments cannot be independently replicated. The authors should provide these settings or a reference to a complete implementation.
[Section III-A, Table II] The paper's core premise, stated in Section III-A, is that features such as signal strength, elevation, and azimuth are known to correlate with measurement quality. This premise is asserted but not validated, and Table II shows that the selected features vary across iterations and datasets with no quantitative justification. A direct check (e.g., correlation of each feature with residual magnitude, or an ablation study adding and removing each feature) would test the premise and would make the observed improvements on collects 1 and 3 more interpretable, especially because no feature beyond residuals is used on data collect 2. Without such evidence, the attribution of the improvement to the augmented data space remains a hypothesis rather than a demonstrated mechanism.

minor comments (6)

[Section III-A, Eq. (5)] The notation is inconsistent: 'm' is used both as an index and as the number of components, and the relationship between the truncation level M* and the summation limit M is not stated in the equation. Please clarify the indexing and the role of M*.
[Section IV-A] The number of epochs (sample size) for each data collect is not reported; adding these counts would help interpret the statistics in Table I and would enable paired comparisons across epochs.
[Fig. 4] The box plot would be easier to interpret if the whisker definition and the handling of outliers were specified, and if the axes were labeled with units.
[Table I] The color coding described in the caption (green and red entries for minimum and maximum statistics) is not visible in grayscale print; the caption should also state the minimum and maximum values textually for accessibility.
[Table II] The green/red cell scheme needs a legend; the caption should explicitly define utilized versus non-utilized features, and ideally the numerical feature-selection scores should be reported instead of only binary indicators.
[Section IV-B and Fig. 5] The claim that residuals are 'easily partitioned' in some datasets is supported only by visual inspection of two-dimensional scatter plots; a quantitative separability measure (e.g., silhouette score) would make the argument more rigorous and would help the reader evaluate the hypothesis about when BCE-AD provides no additional benefit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: BCE-AD is an empirical extension of the authors' prior BCE method, validated against external baselines on public datasets; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that clustering in an augmented data space (residuals plus signal strength, elevation, and azimuth) improves robust state estimation—is not derived from its own inputs; it is tested by comparing BCE-AD against L2, DCS, MM, and BCE on three kinematic GNSS datasets. The only self-citations are to the authors' previous BCE formulation [13], [14] and to the public datasets released there; these serve as a baseline and a data source, not as an argument that BCE-AD is correct. The uncertainty model is fit from measurement residuals and metadata via variational clustering, then used to re-weight the factor graph; this EM-like iteration is an estimation procedure, not a tautology. The paper does not claim to predict a quantity that was used as a fit. The 'significant' language is supported only by descriptive medians (Table I) and lacks significance testing, but that is a statistical-evidence limitation, not circularity. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing result is imported from the authors' prior work. The improvement claims are therefore self-contained empirical findings, even if their strength is overstated.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are the correlation between metadata and measurement quality, and the GMM model for the augmented data, both domain assumptions. The free parameters (truncation level, convergence threshold, feature selection settings) are user-chosen and not fully reported.

free parameters (3)

Truncation level M* = unknown
Maximum number of GMM components, set a priori per the algorithm in Section III-B; not estimated from data.
Convergence threshold = unknown
User-defined threshold for iteration stopping, mentioned in Section III-D but value not specified.
Feature selection parameters = unknown
Parameters for the unsupervised feature selection algorithm [24] (e.g., number of selected features) are not specified.

assumptions (3)

standard math Variational inference and GMM estimation are valid for the augmented dataset.
The method relies on standard variational Bayesian GMM fitting (Eqs. 6-8) and assumes the mean-field approximation is adequate.
domain assumption Metadata (signal strength, elevation, azimuth) correlate with GNSS measurement quality.
Stated in Sections III-A and IV-A as the motivation for augmentation; not proven or quantified.
domain assumption The augmented dataset can be characterized as a GMM.
Eq. 5 assumes the augmented data space is a mixture of Gaussians; this is a modeling choice not empirically validated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainty Model Estimation in an Augmented Data Space for Robust State Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJVKCC3I

@misc{pith2026190804372,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncertainty Model Estimation in an Augmented Data Space for Robust State Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJVKCC3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04372}
}

read the original abstract

The requirement to generate robust robotic platforms is a critical enabling step to allow such platforms to permeate safety-critical applications (i.e., the localization of autonomous platforms in urban environments). One of the primary components of such a robotic platform is the state estimation engine, which enables the platform to reason about itself and the environment based upon sensor readings. When such sensor readings are degraded traditional state estimation approaches are known to breakdown. To overcome this issue, several robust state estimation frameworks have been proposed. One such method is the batch covariance estimation (BCE) framework. The BCE approach enables robust state estimation by iteratively updating the measurement error uncertainty model through the fitting of a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) to the measurement residuals. This paper extends upon the BCE approach by arguing that the uncertainty estimation process should be augmented to include metadata (e.g., the signal strength of the associated GNSS observation). The modification of the uncertainty estimation process to an augmented data space is significant because it increases the likelihood of a unique partitioning in the measurement residual domain and thus provides the ability to more accurately characterize the measurement uncertainty model. The proposed batch covariance estimation over an augmented data-space (BCE-AD) is experimentally validated on collected data where it is shown that a significant increase in state estimation accuracy can be granted compared to previously proposed robust estimation techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04372 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of the proposed robust optimized algorithm. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Horizontal RSOS positioning error for the collected GNSS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Ground trace for the three kinematic GNSS data collects, which were made publicly available within [14]. All three data collected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Partitioning of the measurement residual domain with the BCE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Toward autonomous exploration in conﬁned underwater environments,

A. Mallios, P. Ridao, D. Ribas, M. Carreras, and R. Camilli, “Toward autonomous exploration in conﬁned underwater environments,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 994–1012, 2016

work page 2016
[2]

T. D. Barfoot, State Estimation for Robotics . Cambridge University Press, 2017

work page 2017
[3]

Simon, Optimal state estimation: Kalman, H inﬁnity, and nonlinear approaches

D. Simon, Optimal state estimation: Kalman, H inﬁnity, and nonlinear approaches. John Wiley & Sons, 2006

2006
[4]

Thrun, W

S. Thrun, W. Burgard, and D. Fox, Probabilistic robotics. MIT press, 2005

2005
[5]

Factor graphs for robot perception,

F. Dellaert, M. Kaess et al. , “Factor graphs for robot perception,” Foundations and Trends® in Robotics, vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 1–139, 2017

work page 2017
[6]

Contribution to the theory of robust estimation,

F. R. Hampel, “Contribution to the theory of robust estimation,” Ph. D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley , 1968

work page 1968
[7]

P. J. Huber, Robust Statistics. Wiley New York, 1981

work page 1981
[8]

Robust map optimization using dynamic covariance scaling,

P. Agarwal, G. D. Tipaldi, L. Spinello, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “Robust map optimization using dynamic covariance scaling,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . Citeseer, 2013, pp. 62–69

work page 2013

Show all 28 references

[9]

Inference on networks of mixtures for robust robot mapping,

E. Olson and P. Agarwal, “Inference on networks of mixtures for robust robot mapping,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 826–840, 2013

2013
[10]

Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model ﬁtting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,

M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model ﬁtting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,”Communications of the ACM , vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 381–395, 1981

1981
[11]

Fault exclusion in multi- constellation global navigation satellite systems,

Y . Zhai, M. Joerger, and B. Pervan, “Fault exclusion in multi- constellation global navigation satellite systems,” The Journal of Navi- gation, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 1281–1298, 2018

2018
[12]

Selecting good measurements vial1 relaxation: A convex approach for robust estimation over graphs,

L. Carlone, A. Censi, and F. Dellaert, “Selecting good measurements vial1 relaxation: A convex approach for robust estimation over graphs,” in 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2014, pp. 2667–2674

2014
[13]

Batch Measurement Error Covariance Estimation for Robust Localization,

R. M. Watson, C. N. Taylor, R. C. Leishman, and J. N. Gross, “Batch Measurement Error Covariance Estimation for Robust Localization,” in ION GNSS+ 2018 . the Institute of Navigation, 2018, pp. 2429–2439

2018
[14]

En- abling Robust State Estimation through Measurement Error Covariance Adaptation,

R. M. Watson, J. N. Gross, C. N. Taylor, and R. C. Leishman, “En- abling Robust State Estimation through Measurement Error Covariance Adaptation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04055 , 2019

1906 arXiv
[15]

Square Root SAM: Simultaneous localization and mapping via square root information smoothing,

F. Dellaert and M. Kaess, “Square Root SAM: Simultaneous localization and mapping via square root information smoothing,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 1181–1203, 2006

2006
[16]

Parameter estimation techniques: A tutorial with application to conic ﬁtting,

Z. Zhang, “Parameter estimation techniques: A tutorial with application to conic ﬁtting,” Image and vision Computing, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 59–76, 1997

1997
[17]

Expectation-maximization for adaptive mixture models in graph optimization,

T. Pfeifer and P. Protzel, “Expectation-maximization for adaptive mixture models in graph optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.04748 , 2018

2018 arXiv
[18]

Geometrical and statistical properties of systems of linear inequalities with applications in pattern recognition,

T. M. Cover, “Geometrical and statistical properties of systems of linear inequalities with applications in pattern recognition,” IEEE transactions on electronic computers , no. 3, pp. 326–334, 1965

1965
[19]

Accelerated variational dirich- let process mixtures,

K. Kurihara, M. Welling, and N. Vlassis, “Accelerated variational dirich- let process mixtures,” in Advances in neural information processing systems, 2007, pp. 761–768

2007
[20]

An unsupervised approach to modelling visual data,

D. Steinberg, “An unsupervised approach to modelling visual data,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Sydney., 2013

2013
[21]

Monte Carlo methods for signal processing: a review in the statistical signal processing context,

A. Doucet and X. Wang, “Monte Carlo methods for signal processing: a review in the statistical signal processing context,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 152–170, 2005

2005
[22]

C. M. Bishop, Pattern recognition and machine learning . springer, 2006

2006
[23]

Variational inference: A review for statisticians,

D. M. Blei, A. Kucukelbir, and J. D. McAuliffe, “Variational inference: A review for statisticians,” Journal of the American Statistical Association , vol. 112, no. 518, pp. 859–877, 2017

2017
[24]

Unsupervised feature selection for multi- cluster data,

D. Cai, C. Zhang, and X. He, “Unsupervised feature selection for multi- cluster data,” in Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining . ACM, 2010, pp. 333–342

2010
[25]

Least angle and l1 penalized regression: A review,

T. Hesterberg, N. H. Choi, L. Meier, C. Fraley et al., “Least angle and l1 penalized regression: A review,” Statistics Surveys, vol. 2, pp. 61–93, 2008

2008
[26]

The levenberg-marquardt algorithm: implementation and theory,

J. J. Mor ´e, “The levenberg-marquardt algorithm: implementation and theory,” in Numerical analysis. Springer, 1978, pp. 105–116

1978
[27]

LabSat 3 GPS Simulator,

“LabSat 3 GPS Simulator,” https://www.labsat.co.uk/index.php/en/ products/labsat-3, accessed 3/1/19
[28]

RTKLIB: An open source program package for GNSS positioning,

T. Takasu, “RTKLIB: An open source program package for GNSS positioning,” 2011

2011

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Toward autonomous exploration in conﬁned underwater environments,

A. Mallios, P. Ridao, D. Ribas, M. Carreras, and R. Camilli, “Toward autonomous exploration in conﬁned underwater environments,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 994–1012, 2016

work page 2016

[2] [2]

T. D. Barfoot, State Estimation for Robotics . Cambridge University Press, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Simon, Optimal state estimation: Kalman, H inﬁnity, and nonlinear approaches

D. Simon, Optimal state estimation: Kalman, H inﬁnity, and nonlinear approaches. John Wiley & Sons, 2006

2006

[4] [4]

Thrun, W

S. Thrun, W. Burgard, and D. Fox, Probabilistic robotics. MIT press, 2005

2005

[5] [5]

Factor graphs for robot perception,

F. Dellaert, M. Kaess et al. , “Factor graphs for robot perception,” Foundations and Trends® in Robotics, vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 1–139, 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Contribution to the theory of robust estimation,

F. R. Hampel, “Contribution to the theory of robust estimation,” Ph. D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley , 1968

work page 1968

[7] [7]

P. J. Huber, Robust Statistics. Wiley New York, 1981

work page 1981

[8] [8]

Robust map optimization using dynamic covariance scaling,

P. Agarwal, G. D. Tipaldi, L. Spinello, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “Robust map optimization using dynamic covariance scaling,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . Citeseer, 2013, pp. 62–69

work page 2013