Map Prediction and Generative Entropy for Multi-Agent Exploration

Alexander Spinos; Bradley Woosley; Brian A. Bittner; Christopher Korpela; John G. Rogers III; Justin Rokisky

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Map Prediction and Generative Entropy for Multi-Agent Exploration

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using generative entropy—the disagreement of a fine-tuned diffusion inpainter—as a task reward, a three-robot team reaches a 99.8%-accurate predicted map at 147 s versus 238 s with visible entropy, a 62% speedup.

desk verdict Promising new use of diffusion-model disagreement as an exploration reward, but the claimed speedup rests on distribution-matched simulation and an under-specified update rule. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13189 v1 pith:BAT36SU7 submitted 2025-01-22 cs.RO cs.CVcs.LG

Alexander Spinos , Bradley Woosley , Justin Rokisky , Christopher Korpela , John G. Rogers III , Brian A. Bittner This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.ROcs.CVcs.LG

keywords multi-agentexplorationgenerativeentropymappredictionimageinpaintinglatentdiffusiontaskallocationoccupancygridmutualinformation

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 a robot team exploring an unknown area can build an accurate map much sooner if exploration tasks are prioritized by where a generative map predictor is most uncertain, rather than by where sensors would recover the most unknown cells. The authors fine-tune a latent diffusion inpainting model to complete partially observed 2D occupancy maps of simulated towns, then define 'generative entropy' as the binary entropy of each cell's occupancy probability after successive predictions are folded in as noisy observations. In simulated three-vehicle exploration, using this entropy as the task reward in the ACBBA auction-based allocator reaches a 99.8%-accurate predicted map at a median of 147 seconds, versus 238 seconds for a visible-entropy reward—a 62% reduction. The paper also shows that predicted maps provide useful scene estimates long before explicit observation would, with the rough-accuracy threshold reached at 42 seconds compared to 241 seconds for raw mapped data.

What carries the argument

The engine of the method is a fine-tuned latent diffusion inpainting model (Stable Diffusion v1.2, fine-tuned for 250,000 steps on 180,000 exploration snapshots from 2,000 procedurally generated town maps) that inpaints unknown cells of a 200x200 occupancy grid as a grayscale image with a binary mask. The generative entropy field is the second piece: for each cell, repeated predictions over the exploration run are folded into an occupancy probability $p_i$, and the cell's binary entropy measures how much the predictor keeps changing its mind. The third piece is ACBBA, a market-based task allocator that scores paths as $S = \sum_j \lambda^{\tau_j(\pi)} c_j$, where the task reward $c_j$ is set to the total generative entropy in a box centered on the task; the paper compares this against constant rewards and against visible entropy, which scales $c_j$ with the volume of unknown space a sensor would observe. Together, these let the fleet spend its sensing effort where the inpainter's uncertainty is concentrated.

What would settle it

Run the identical ACBBA comparison (three robots, 100 m x 100 m maps, same thresholds and ACBBA parameters) but with test maps drawn from a different generator or real urban lidar data, and measure the median time to 99.8% predicted-map accuracy; if generative entropy does not beat visible entropy on that distribution, the central claim is not general. A cheaper check: inspect mid-run entropy maps for a real building layout and verify that high-entropy cells actually coincide with the final map's unresolved geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a 'generative entropy' field, derived from the run-to-run disagreement of a fine-tuned latent diffusion inpainter, is a better task-weighting signal than expected information recovery for the goal of converging quickly to an accurate predicted map. Formally, each predicted map is treated as a noisy observation and used to update a cellwise occupancy belief $p_i$; the cell's generative entropy is $H_i = -p_i \log_2 p_i - (1-p_i)\log_2(1-p_i)$. High-entropy regions are where the predictor is torn between interpretations, which the paper identifies with map geometry that still needs to be observed. When ACBBA weights frontier and quasirandom tasks by the total generative entropy in a box around each task, the team reaches the high-accuracy threshold of 99.8% predicted-map accuracy at 147 s median (IQR 141–157 s), 62% faster than the visible-entropy baseline at 238 s (IQR 204–257 s). The authors do not claim that generative entropy speeds up raw cell coverage—in fact it trails constant and visible-entropy rewards there—but that the predicted map, which is what a user sees, becomes correct sooner.

Load-bearing premise

The entire advantage rests on the inpainting prior matching the deployment distribution: the diffusion model is trained on snapshots from the same procedural map generator used to generate the test environments, so its disagreements track true map uncertainty; in a different environment class or with a different sensor model, the entropy field could be miscalibrated and the 62% advantage could shrink or reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Using generative entropy as the task reward cuts the median time to a 99.8%-accurate predicted map from 238 s to 147 s, a 62% improvement over the visible-entropy baseline.
Map prediction itself gives a rough layout of the scene at 42 s median, versus 241 s for the best explicit-observation method, so even imperfect predictions deliver useful intelligence early.
The benefit of generative entropy is specific to predicted-map accuracy: it uncovers fewer raw cells than constant or visible-entropy rewards, so it trades raw coverage for geometric resolution.
The diffusion-based predictor runs in about 1 second per image and its runtime does not depend on the number of agents, so the framework scales to larger teams.
Among the compared inpainting models, Stable Diffusion was selected because it combines near-best perceptual similarity with roughly one-second inference, well below the other diffusion pipeline's ~30 s.

Reading between the lines

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

The same disagreement-based entropy could be applied to other predictive models, such as 3D scene-graph or semantic-mesh predictors, wherever repeated stochastic inference produces a measurable spread; the paper's mechanism does not depend on the specific diffusion architecture.
A hybrid predictor that uses Stable Diffusion early and a finer-grained pixel-space diffusion model at the end, which the paper notes outperforms Stable Diffusion late in exploration, could push the high-accuracy threshold further down.
Since generative entropy underperforms on raw coverage, a combined reward that mixes expected information gain with generative entropy might offer the best of both—faster raw exploration without sacrificing the late-stage geometric resolution that drives predicted-map accuracy.
A natural test is whether the entropy field can be computed from a single stochastic prediction (e.g., by sampling multiple times from the inpainter at one timestep) rather than across successive exploration updates, which would remove the need for a belief-state accumulator.

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

First thing you should know: this is a decent, honest paper that gives the field a new idea worth testing—using the disagreement of a diffusion inpainter across repeated predictions as a task reward for multi-robot exploration. The comparison against visible-entropy reward is direct and the result is clean: generative entropy reaches 99.8% predicted-map accuracy at 147 s versus 238 s (62% faster), with non-overlapping interquartile ranges across 10 trials. The paper also reports that generative entropy is worse at raw cell coverage, which is a sign they're not cherry-picking.

What's genuinely new: prior map-prediction work used local GANs or VAEs around frontiers; this is the first (to my knowledge) to fine-tune a latent diffusion inpainter to predict the whole global map and use its variance as an exploration signal. The model comparison (LaMa, RePaint, Stable Diffusion) is reasonable and the choice of Stable Diffusion is justified. The prose is clear, and the limitation about the dataset not capturing varied environments is stated explicitly.

Soft spots, in proportion. The headline result comes entirely from simulation where the procedural map generator is also the source of the diffusion prior's training set. So the entropy signal is matched to the test distribution by construction. The paper acknowledges the dataset isn't diverse; that makes the 62% a within-distribution result, not a general one. That's a real external validity gap, not a fatal flaw. Second, the posterior update that turns predicted maps into per-cell probabilities is under-specified: "treated like a noisy observation" with a saturation threshold, but no likelihood model or update schedule is given. Without that, the generative entropy field is hard to reproduce or audit. Third, 10 trials per condition without significance testing is thin; the IQR separation helps, but bootstrapped or paired tests would be easy to add. No code or data is released, which makes all of this harder to verify.

Is the central argument sound? For the simulated town environment, yes, the evidence supports the claim that valuing the inpainter's disagreement speeds convergence. The self-referential nature of generative entropy is a feature, not a bug, as long as the prior is calibrated—which is exactly the condition that doesn't hold in a new environment.

Who should read this: roboticists working on exploration and anyone using generative models for prediction under partial observability. It deserves a serious referee: the idea is novel, the experiments are simple enough to reproduce, and the flaws are fixable with more trials, a spelled-out update rule, and at least one distribution-shift test. I'd send it to review.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a framework for multi-agent exploration in which a fine-tuned latent diffusion inpainting model predicts complete occupancy maps from partial observations, and a generative entropy field—defined as the binary entropy of per-cell posterior occupancy beliefs updated from successive predictions—is used as the ACBBA task reward. The authors benchmark LaMa, RePaint, and Stable Diffusion as inpainting models, select Stable Diffusion, and compare constant, visible-entropy, and generative-entropy rewards in a three-robot simulated urban environment. They report that generative entropy reaches 99.8% predicted-map accuracy at 147 s (IQR 141–157) versus 238 s (IQR 204–257) for visible entropy, a 62% improvement, while visible entropy uncovers more raw map cells.

Significance. The central idea—using disagreement of a generative map predictor as a proxy for task value—is novel and potentially useful. The framework is model-agnostic, does not feed predictions into safety-critical navigation, and is demonstrated with a plausible baseline. The paper also provides a careful comparison of three inpainting architectures with LPIPS/FID metrics. However, the headline quantitative claim currently rests on a single accuracy threshold, 10 trials per condition, and no statistical significance test, and the evaluation is confined to maps from the same procedural generator used to fine-tune the predictor. With added statistical rigor and an explicit external-validity analysis, this could be a solid contribution.

major comments (4)

[Section VI-A, Figure 4] The central claim of 'significantly faster' convergence rests on the 99.8% accuracy threshold alone, with only 10 trials per condition and no significance test. The visible difference between the interquartile ranges is suggestive, but a claim of significance needs a proper test (e.g., permutation or Wilcoxon on the convergence times) and ideally a report of all three thresholds rather than only the high-accuracy one.
[Section V] The posterior update rule is under-specified. The sentence 'Each time a predicted map is produced, it is treated like a noisy observation and used to update the posterior probability of every cell' does not define the observation likelihood, the update schedule, or the 'saturation threshold' that limits confidence. Without the exact update equation, Eq. (1) and the resulting entropy field cannot be reproduced or audited.
[Sections III-C and VI-A] The map predictor is fine-tuned and evaluated on the same procedural generator, and the paper itself notes that the dataset 'was not intended to capture a large variety of possible environments.' This makes the 62% improvement an in-distribution result; if the inpainter's prior is miscalibrated on a different building distribution, sensor model, or real scene, generative entropy may no longer track predictive uncertainty. The general claim in the abstract should be conditioned on this, or the authors should add a distribution-shift experiment.
[Sections V-VI] Generative entropy is a self-referential measure: it quantifies disagreement among the predictor's own samples, not the distance between the predictor and ground truth. The paper would be strengthened by an explicit statement of this property and a discussion of failure modes where the model is confidently wrong (e.g., consistent hallucinations), since such cases would make the entropy-based reward misleading rather than informative.

minor comments (4)

[Section VI-A] The phrase 'takes 241 son average' appears to be a typo for 's on average.'
[Figure 4] The accuracy thresholds 95.0%, 99.0%, and 99.8% are only described in the text; annotating them on the lower panel would make the comparison easier to follow.
[Section IV] The choice of Stable Diffusion over RePaint is justified partly by runtime, but the paper does not report the additional wall-clock cost of computing the generative entropy field at each prediction interval; this cost matters for the practical advantage.
[Section V] Please clarify the initialization and handling of unknown cells in Eq. (1), since the entropy definition is applied before any predicted-map updates and the initial p_i for unobserved cells is not stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the generative entropy reward is an empirical task-weighting heuristic, and the reported success metric is independent ground-truth map accuracy.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and empirically grounded. The map predictor is trained on a separate procedurally generated training set and evaluated on held-out test snapshots (Section III-C, IV), so the predicted maps are genuine predictions rather than fitted outputs. Generative entropy is defined in Eq. 1 as the binary entropy of an occupancy belief that is updated by treating each predicted map as a noisy observation (Section V); this is a stated heuristic metric, not a quantity derived from the success criterion. The success criterion is predicted-map accuracy against ground truth, measured independently of the reward definition (Section VI, Figure 4). The comparison against Constant and Visible Entropy rewards is a real experiment, not a construction that forces the generative-entropy reward to win. No load-bearing self-citations are present: the only author self-citation (ref. [6]) is contextual prior work on bid prediction and is not used to justify the core claim. No uniqueness theorem, no imported ansatz, and no renaming of a known result is load-bearing. The caveats noted in the paper—that the procedural dataset was not intended to capture a large variety of environments and that the posterior update rule is under-specified—are external-validity and reproducibility concerns, not circularity. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on two under-specified design choices (posterior saturation threshold, entropy aggregation box size), three domain assumptions (predicted maps as noisy observations, entropy-value correlation, distribution match), and the standard binary entropy definition. None of these are derived in the paper. The key numerical claim is an empirical comparison, not a first-principles derivation.

free parameters (2)

Posterior update saturation threshold = not reported
Section V says each predicted map updates the posterior probability 'up to a saturation threshold' but gives no value or functional form. The generative entropy field and all task rewards depend on this threshold.
Entropy aggregation box size = not reported
Section VI says Generative Entropy scales task reward with the total generative entropy 'in a box centered on the task point', but the box dimensions are not specified, so the reward computation is not fully reproducible.

assumptions (4)

standard math Binary entropy of an estimated occupancy probability is an appropriate measure of predictive uncertainty.
Section V Eq. 1 defines generative entropy using the standard binary entropy function; this is a definitional choice, not an empirically established fact.
domain assumption Predicted maps can be treated as noisy observations that update cell occupancy posteriors.
Section V states: 'Each time a predicted map is produced, it is treated like a noisy observation and used to update the posterior probability of every cell.' No observation noise model is given.
domain assumption High generative entropy correlates with high expected improvement in predicted-map accuracy.
This is the central hypothesis tested in Section VI. If it fails, prioritizing high entropy regions would not speed up convergence to an accurate map.
domain assumption Training and evaluation maps from the same procedural generator are representative of real urban reconnaissance scenes.
Sections III-C and VI use the same generator for training and testing, while the introduction motivates the method for reconnaissance scenarios outside this distribution.

invented entities (1)

Generative entropy
purpose: A scalar reward field used by the task allocator to prioritize exploration locations where the map predictor is uncertain.
Defined in Section V Eq. 1 as binary entropy of a posterior occupancy probability updated by predicted maps. It is a new metric introduced by the paper, and its value as an exploration signal is only demonstrated on the same procedural distribution used for training.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Map Prediction and Generative Entropy for Multi-Agent Exploration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BAT36SU7

@misc{pith2026250113189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Map Prediction and Generative Entropy for Multi-Agent Exploration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BAT36SU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13189}
}

read the original abstract

Traditionally, autonomous reconnaissance applications have acted on explicit sets of historical observations. Aided by recent breakthroughs in generative technologies, this work enables robot teams to act beyond what is currently known about the environment by inferring a distribution of reasonable interpretations of the scene. We developed a map predictor that inpaints the unknown space in a multi-agent 2D occupancy map during an exploration mission. From a comparison of several inpainting methods, we found that a fine-tuned latent diffusion inpainting model could provide rich and coherent interpretations of simulated urban environments with relatively little computation time. By iteratively inferring interpretations of the scene throughout an exploration run, we are able to identify areas that exhibit high uncertainty in the prediction, which we formalize with the concept of generative entropy. We prioritize tasks in regions of high generative entropy, hypothesizing that this will expedite convergence on an accurate predicted map of the scene. In our study we juxtapose this new paradigm of task ranking with the state of the art, which ranks regions to explore by those which maximize expected information recovery. We compare both of these methods in a simulated urban environment with three vehicles. Our results demonstrate that by using our new task ranking method, we can predict a correct scene significantly faster than with a traditional information-guided method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13189 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Map predictions for each model when 20%, 35%, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Top row: simulated exploration of an urban envi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Portion of map explored and accuracy of the predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Super odometry: Imu-centric lidar-visual-inertial estimator for challenging environments,

S. Zhao, H. Zhang, P. Wang, L. Nogueira, and S. Scherer, “Super odometry: Imu-centric lidar-visual-inertial estimator for challenging environments,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 8729–8736

work page 2021
[2]

Cerberus: Autonomous legged and aerial robotic exploration in the tunnel and urban circuits of the darpa subterranean challenge,

M. Tranzatto, F. Mascarich, L. Bernreiter, C. Godinho, M. Camurri, S. Khattak, T. Dang, V . Reijgwart, J. Loeje, D. Wisthet al., “Cerberus: Autonomous legged and aerial robotic exploration in the tunnel and urban circuits of the darpa subterranean challenge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07067, p. 3, 2022

arXiv 2022
[3]

Hydra-multi: Collabo- rative online construction of 3d scene graphs with multi-robot teams,

Y . Chang, N. Hughes, A. Ray, and L. Carlone, “Hydra-multi: Collabo- rative online construction of 3d scene graphs with multi-robot teams,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 10 995–11 002

work page 2023
[4]

Conceptgraphs: Open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for perception and planning,

Q. Gu, A. Kuwajerwala, S. Morin, K. M. Jatavallabhula, B. Sen, A. Agarwal, C. Rivera, W. Paul, K. Ellis, R. Chellappa et al. , “Conceptgraphs: Open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for perception and planning,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 5021–5028

2024
[5]

Experimental comparison of decentralized task allocation algorithms under imperfect communication,

S. Nayak, S. Yeotikar, E. Carrillo, E. Rudnick-Cohen, M. K. M. Jaffar, R. Patel, S. Azarm, J. W. Herrmann, H. Xu, and M. Otte, “Experimental comparison of decentralized task allocation algorithms under imperfect communication,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 572–579, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Bid prediction for multi-robot exploration with disrupted communi- cations,

B. Woosley, C. Nieto-Granda, J. G. Rogers, N. Fung, and A. Schang, “Bid prediction for multi-robot exploration with disrupted communi- cations,” in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 210–216

work page 2021
[7]

On mutual information- based control of range sensing robots for mapping applications,

B. J. Julian, S. Karaman, and D. Rus, “On mutual information- based control of range sensing robots for mapping applications,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1375– 1392, 2014

work page 2014
[8]

Information-theoretic mapping using cauchy-schwarz quadratic mutual information,

B. Charrow, S. Liu, V . Kumar, and N. Michael, “Information-theoretic mapping using cauchy-schwarz quadratic mutual information,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 4791–4798

work page 2015

Show all 27 references

[9]

An efficient and continuous approach to information-theoretic exploration,

T. Henderson, V . Sze, and S. Karaman, “An efficient and continuous approach to information-theoretic exploration,” in 2020 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 8566–8572

2020
[10]

High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,

R. Rombach, A. Blattmann, D. Lorenz, P. Esser, and B. Ommer, “High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 10 684–10 695

2022
[11]

Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion prob- abilistic models,

A. Lugmayr, M. Danelljan, A. Romero, F. Yu, R. Timofte, and L. Van Gool, “Repaint: Inpainting using denoising diffusion prob- abilistic models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2022, pp. 11 461–11 471

2022
[12]

Autoregressive model beats diffusion: Llama for scalable image generation,

P. Sun, Y . Jiang, S. Chen, S. Zhang, B. Peng, P. Luo, and Z. Yuan, “Autoregressive model beats diffusion: Llama for scalable image generation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06525 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[13]

Occupancy map inpainting for online robot navigation,

M. Wei, D. Lee, V . Isler, and D. Lee, “Occupancy map inpainting for online robot navigation,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 8551–8557

2021
[14]

Proxmap: Proximal occu- pancy map prediction for efficient indoor robot navigation,

V . D. Sharma, J. Chen, and P. Tokekar, “Proxmap: Proximal occu- pancy map prediction for efficient indoor robot navigation,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 7135–7140

2023
[15]

High-speed robot navigation using predicted occupancy maps,

K. D. Katyal, A. Polevoy, J. Moore, C. Knuth, and K. M. Popek, “High-speed robot navigation using predicted occupancy maps,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 5476–5482

2021
[16]

Seeing what a gan cannot generate,

D. Bau, J.-Y . Zhu, J. Wulff, W. Peebles, H. Strobelt, B. Zhou, and A. Torralba, “Seeing what a gan cannot generate,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2019, pp. 4502–4511

2019
[17]

Learned map prediction for enhanced mobile robot exploration,

R. Shrestha, F.-P. Tian, W. Feng, P. Tan, and R. Vaughan, “Learned map prediction for enhanced mobile robot exploration,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1197–1204

2019
[18]

Improving the efficiency of a decentralized tasking algorithm for uav teams with asynchronous communications,

L. Johnson, S. Ponda, H.-L. Choi, and J. How, “Improving the efficiency of a decentralized tasking algorithm for uav teams with asynchronous communications,” in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2010, p. 8421

2010
[19]

Deep learning for image inpainting: A survey,

H. Xiang, Q. Zou, M. A. Nawaz, X. Huang, F. Zhang, and H. Yu, “Deep learning for image inpainting: A survey,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 134, p. 109046, 2023

2023
[20]

Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions,

R. Suvorov, E. Logacheva, A. Mashikhin, A. Remizova, A. Ashukha, A. Silvestrov, N. Kong, H. Goka, K. Park, and V . Lempitsky, “Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07161 , 2021

2021 arXiv
[21]

Fast fourier convolution,

L. Chi, B. Jiang, and Y . Mu, “Fast fourier convolution,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. Balcan, and H. Lin, Eds., vol. 33. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020, pp. 4479–4488. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings....

2020
[22]

Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,

J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion probabilistic models,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11239

2020 arXiv
[23]

Diffusers: State-of-the-art diffusion models

P. von Platen, S. Patil, A. Lozhkov, P. Cuenca, N. Lambert, K. Rasul, M. Davaadorj, D. Nair, S. Paul, S. Liu, W. Berman, Y . Xu, and T. Wolf, “Diffusers: State-of-the-art diffusion models.” [Online]. Available: https://github.com/huggingface/diffusers
[24]

The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,

R. Zhang, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, E. Shechtman, and O. Wang, “The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 586–595

2018
[25]

Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium,

M. Heusel, H. Ramsauer, T. Unterthiner, B. Nessler, and S. Hochreiter, “Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

2017
[26]

Consensus-based decentralized auctions for robust task allocation,

H.-L. Choi, L. Brunet, and J. P. How, “Consensus-based decentralized auctions for robust task allocation,” IEEE transactions on robotics , vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 912–926, 2009

2009
[27]

Scene graph prediction with limited labels,

V . S. Chen, P. Varma, R. Krishna, M. Bernstein, C. Re, and L. Fei- Fei, “Scene graph prediction with limited labels,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2019, pp. 2580–2590

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Super odometry: Imu-centric lidar-visual-inertial estimator for challenging environments,

S. Zhao, H. Zhang, P. Wang, L. Nogueira, and S. Scherer, “Super odometry: Imu-centric lidar-visual-inertial estimator for challenging environments,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 8729–8736

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Cerberus: Autonomous legged and aerial robotic exploration in the tunnel and urban circuits of the darpa subterranean challenge,

M. Tranzatto, F. Mascarich, L. Bernreiter, C. Godinho, M. Camurri, S. Khattak, T. Dang, V . Reijgwart, J. Loeje, D. Wisthet al., “Cerberus: Autonomous legged and aerial robotic exploration in the tunnel and urban circuits of the darpa subterranean challenge,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.07067, p. 3, 2022

arXiv 2022

[3] [3]

Hydra-multi: Collabo- rative online construction of 3d scene graphs with multi-robot teams,

Y . Chang, N. Hughes, A. Ray, and L. Carlone, “Hydra-multi: Collabo- rative online construction of 3d scene graphs with multi-robot teams,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 10 995–11 002

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Conceptgraphs: Open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for perception and planning,

Q. Gu, A. Kuwajerwala, S. Morin, K. M. Jatavallabhula, B. Sen, A. Agarwal, C. Rivera, W. Paul, K. Ellis, R. Chellappa et al. , “Conceptgraphs: Open-vocabulary 3d scene graphs for perception and planning,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 5021–5028

2024

[5] [5]

Experimental comparison of decentralized task allocation algorithms under imperfect communication,

S. Nayak, S. Yeotikar, E. Carrillo, E. Rudnick-Cohen, M. K. M. Jaffar, R. Patel, S. Azarm, J. W. Herrmann, H. Xu, and M. Otte, “Experimental comparison of decentralized task allocation algorithms under imperfect communication,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 572–579, 2020

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Bid prediction for multi-robot exploration with disrupted communi- cations,

B. Woosley, C. Nieto-Granda, J. G. Rogers, N. Fung, and A. Schang, “Bid prediction for multi-robot exploration with disrupted communi- cations,” in 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 210–216

work page 2021

[7] [7]

On mutual information- based control of range sensing robots for mapping applications,

B. J. Julian, S. Karaman, and D. Rus, “On mutual information- based control of range sensing robots for mapping applications,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1375– 1392, 2014

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Information-theoretic mapping using cauchy-schwarz quadratic mutual information,

B. Charrow, S. Liu, V . Kumar, and N. Michael, “Information-theoretic mapping using cauchy-schwarz quadratic mutual information,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 4791–4798

work page 2015