Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

SuperLoc: The Key to Robust LiDAR-Inertial Localization Lies in Predicting Alignment Risks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LiDAR localization can predict when its scan alignment is about to fail, and actively fusing pose priors in the predicted weak directions improves accuracy by 54% on the SubT-MRS benchmark.

desk verdict A genuinely useful package and promising idea, but the printed confidence equations are internally inconsistent and the no-threshold claim doesn't hold; referee it, but expect heavy revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02901 v2 pith:DD5KGRG2 submitted 2024-12-03 cs.RO

Shibo Zhao , Honghao Zhu , Yuanjun Gao , Beomsoo Kim , Yuheng Qiu , Aaron M. Johnson , Sebastian Scherer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords LiDAR-inertiallocalizationalignmentriskpredictionobservabilityestimationdegeneracymitigationactivesensorfusionpoint-planeregistrationSubT-MRSbenchmarkmap-based
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

SuperLoc claims that the root cause of LiDAR localization failure in degraded environments is not outlier noise but insufficient geometric constraints, and that the missing constraints can be identified before optimization by counting how many point-plane correspondences in the current scan constrain each of the six motion directions. This predictive alignment-risk assessment, computed directly from raw scans, lets the estimator fuse a relative pose prior from auxiliary odometry with a per-direction weight before drift accumulates. The paper reports that this active, preemptive fusion yields a 54% accuracy improvement over the second-best published method on the SubT-MRS localization benchmark, and outlier rates as low as 0.50% in a 416 m cave run. If correct, it would shift degeneracy handling from post-hoc repair to pre-optimization prevention.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the observability confidence metric built from per-correspondence motion-direction labels. For each point-plane pair, the Jacobian row (Eq. 4) decomposes the contribution into a translation term along the surface normal $n_i$ and a rotation term along $p_i \times n_i$; the scan-level constraint matrix $C_w$ (Eq. 6) accumulates these rows. Each correspondence is labelled by the motion direction it most constrains, and the normalized label counts (Eqs. 7–8) become a scalar confidence in $[0,1]$ for each direction, assembled into $\Sigma_{\mathrm{cov}}$ (Eq. 9). This matrix does double duty: it predicts, before optimization, which direction will be weakly constrained, and it sets the per-direction weight of the pose-prior factor in the joint optimization (Eq. 11).

What would settle it

Run SuperLoc in a controlled long corridor with dense forward-facing returns but few lateral or vertical features, using motion-capture ground truth; if the confidence metric drops below 0.2 in a direction while the optimizer without active fusion stays within a small margin of the ground-truth trajectory, the risk prediction is producing false positives and the uniform-distribution hypothesis is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a scan's localizability can be read off, before any ICP optimization, from the geometry of its point-plane correspondences. Writing the residual per correspondence as $\Delta d_i = J_i \Delta x$ with $J_i = [(p_i \times n_i)^T,\ n_i^T]$, the accumulated matrix $C_w = \sum_i J_i^T J_i$ (Eq. 6) encodes how strongly each motion direction is constrained by the scene. SuperLoc assigns each correspondence an observability label (X, Y, Z, roll, pitch, yaw) according to the direction it constrains most, counts labels per direction, and normalizes to confidence metrics $\gamma_{\mathrm{trans}}$ and $\gamma_{\mathrm{rot}}$ (Eqs. 7–8), giving a diagonal covariance $\Sigma_{\mathrm{cov}}$ (Eq. 9). When any element falls below 0.2, the estimator treats that direction as at risk and actively fuses a relative pose prior from an alternative odometry source, weighted by $I - \Sigma_{\mathrm{cov}}$, so constraints are re-balanced before the optimizer can drift. On the SubT-MRS benchmark the resulting odometry reaches an average ATE of 0.272 m without loop closure, and on real cave, stair, and corridor runs the maps contain 0.50%, 8.03%, and 3.55% outliers respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that in well-structured environments observability labels should be roughly evenly spread across the six motion directions, so a low relative count in one direction reliably signals oncoming degeneracy; if an anisotropic but still localizable scene produces imbalanced counts, the metric will flag a false positive and the active fusion may bias the estimate toward auxiliary odometry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Degeneracy can be detected and acted on before ICP, rather than diagnosed afterward from the Hessian eigenvalues of a failed optimization.
  • A single fixed confidence trigger of 0.2 transfers across caves, corridors, stairs, and open areas without per-environment threshold tuning.
  • Actively re-balancing constraints with a pose prior yields map outlier rates of 0.50% (cave, 416 m), 8.03% (stairs, 270 m), and 3.55% (corridor, 690 m).
  • Without loop closure or post-processing, average ATE on SubT-MRS is 0.272 m, 54% lower than the second-best published result of 0.588 m.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the Jacobian decomposition depends only on correspondences with normals, the same pre-optimization observability count should extend to point-to-point and feature-based scan matching, not just the point-plane cost used here.
  • The confidence metric could serve as an online safety signal for autonomous systems, triggering a slow-down, operator alert, or handoff to another sensor modality when a direction loses confidence.
  • A natural stress test is to use the metric to veto or rank global relocalization candidates, since a weakly constrained scan should not be trusted to anchor a loop closure; the paper's own conclusion points toward this extension.
  • Under the uniform-distribution assumption, anisotropic but well-conditioned scenes should produce false positives; tracking how often active fusion degrades rather than improves accuracy in such scenes would quantify the cost of the assumption.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes SuperLoc, a LiDAR-inertial map-based localization system whose central idea is to predict alignment risk before point-cloud registration, estimate per-direction confidence from observability labels, and then actively fuse pose priors from an auxiliary odometry source in the predicted weak directions. The main contributions are the predictive risk metric (Sec. III-A and III-B), an active sensor-fusion factor weighted by the derived covariance (Sec. III-C), and an open-source release with new datasets from degraded environments. The paper reports large empirical gains: outlier rates as low as 0.50% in a 416 m cave run and an average ATE of about 0.272 m on the SubT-MRS benchmark without loop closure, improving over the second-best published method by roughly 54%.

Significance. If the method works as described, the pre-optimization alignment-risk idea is a valuable and timely contribution to robust LiDAR localization. The geometric derivation in Eqs. (1)-(6) is sound, the experimental improvements are large and measured against an external benchmark, and the open-source release with eight challenging datasets is a practical asset. These strengths are substantial. However, the manuscript overstates two load-bearing points: the confidence metric is claimed to range in [0,1] and to be threshold-free, while the stated equations and threshold choice do not support either claim. Resolving these internal inconsistencies is necessary before the central algorithm can be accepted as described.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-B, Eqs. (7)-(9) and III-C, Eq. (11)] The paper states that the normalized confidence metrics in Eqs. (7)-(8) are relative values ranging in [0,1], and then constructs Covprior = I6x6 - Σcov in Sec. III-C. This is internally inconsistent. Because each point-plane correspondence contributes exactly one observability label, the six counts Ni sum to Ntotal, and with the prefactor |O|=6 the entries of Σcov sum to 6. In any anisotropic but legitimate scene, at least one entry must exceed 1 (for example, a flat open area with mostly vertical normals gives γ_z close to 6, and a long corridor with mostly lateral normals gives a lateral entry well above 1). Substituting such values into Covprior produces negative diagonal entries, making Covprior indefinite and the quadratic prior term in Eq. (11) an invalid cost. Figure 3, which caps displayed confidence at 1.0, and the 0.2 trigger in Sec. III-B suggest that the released implementation clamps or renormalizes γ in a way that is not described. The authors must either correct the formula or state the exact normalization/clamping actually used, and prove that the claimed [0,1] range holds for that procedure.
  2. [III-B and Abstract/Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion claim that the method does not require heuristic threshold adjustment, but Sec. III-B introduces a fixed 0.2 trigger: "We found that when any element of Σcov is less than 0.2, there is a high likelihood of degradation." This threshold is a numerical value selected after evaluating confidence outputs from the same environments later used to demonstrate success, so it is a heuristic threshold in exactly the sense the paper claims to avoid. The no-threshold claim should be withdrawn or replaced with an honest statement that the relative metric reduces cross-environment threshold tuning, together with a description of how the 0.2 value was chosen and whether it was validated on held-out environments.
  3. [IV-B, Active Sensor Fusion experiments] The field experiments report large outlier-rate reductions, but the manuscript never specifies which "alternative odometry source" provides the pose prior in the cave, multi-floor, and corridor experiments. Since the active-fusion mechanism is the core contribution and its benefit depends on the quality and availability of that prior, the reader cannot determine whether the reported gains come from the alignment-risk prediction or from the auxiliary odometry. The same ambiguity affects the SubT-MRS evaluation, where the prior source is not stated explicitly. The authors should specify the auxiliary odometry used in each experiment, including whether it is Super Odometry [15], a fixed external odometry, or a variant that receives no localization information.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2] The figure legend includes the phrase "Post Prior," which appears to be a typo for "Pose Prior."
  2. [IV-B, Cave Experiments] The sentence "we employed a FARO scanner to establish a ground truth map with a precision error of is less than 2mm" contains a grammatical error and should read "with a precision error of less than 2 mm."
  3. [IV-C, Table III] The text states an average ATE of 0.271, while the table reports 0.272 as the average; the numbers should be reconciled, and the table should clarify how incomplete entries (marked with '-') are treated in the average.
  4. [IV-A, Fig. 3] The histograms in Fig. 3 are visually cluttered by the repeated axis labels and overlaid confidence values; increasing font size and using separate panels per direction would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the confidence metric is computed from per-correspondence geometry, and the headline gains are external benchmark measurements.

full rationale

SuperLoc's central derivation is self-contained: Eq. 6 is an observability matrix assembled from the point-plane residual Jacobians of Eq. 4, and Eqs. 7-9 are normalized counts of observability labels per motion direction. These quantities are computed directly from raw scan geometry before ICP optimization, not fitted to the target ATE or outlier numbers. The reported 54% accuracy improvement and the outlier percentages are measured against an external benchmark (SubT-MRS) and FARO ground-truth maps, so the claimed result is not constructed from the method's own definitions. The fixed 0.2 trigger in Sec. III-B was selected by inspecting the same kinds of degraded environments later used in evaluation, which is a mild calibration loop and is somewhat in tension with the paper's 'no heuristic threshold adjustment' claim, but it does not by construction force the final trajectory errors. The paper also relies on self-citations ([15] for implementation details, [30] for the benchmark dataset), but these are not load-bearing in the sense of deriving the target result from an unverified prior claim. The Eq. 7-8 normalization issue raised by the skeptic (the six gamma entries sum to 6, so not all can lie in [0,1], and Covprior can become indefinite) is a mathematical/correctness concern about the algorithm as written, not a circularity in the derivation chain. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces by definition or by fitted input to the claimed results.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The method introduces a confidence metric and a fusion weight rule, both derived from standard point-plane geometry; the 0.2 threshold is the only genuinely fitted constant, and the |O| normalization and 10 cm evaluation threshold are additional choices affecting the reported numbers.

free parameters (3)
  • Degeneracy trigger threshold = 0.2
    Sec. III-B: 'when any element of Sigma_cov is less than 0.2, there is a high likelihood of degradation.' Calibrated on the authors' cave, floor, and corridor experiments; contradicts abstract's no-threshold claim.
  • Normalization factor |O| = 6
    Eq. 7-8: scales label counts to [0,1] under uniform distribution, but allows values up to 6 for concentrated labels, so the stated range is inaccurate.
  • Outlier threshold in map evaluation = 10 cm
    Sec. IV: inliers/outliers defined with a 10 cm distance to ground-truth map; the reported outlier percentages depend directly on this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Observability labels are uniformly distributed across the six motion directions in well-structured environments.
    Sec. III-B: 'based on the hypothesis that in well-structured environments, observability should be uniformly distributed across all state directions.' This justifies the relative confidence normalization.
  • domain assumption Small rotation approximation holds for the initial correspondence phase.
    Eq. 2 assumes R_l ~ I + [r_l]x; if the initial pose error is large, the linearized observability matrix may misrepresent true constraints.
  • domain assumption The auxiliary odometry source is reliable in the degenerate direction.
    Sec. III-C: the pose prior factor trusts relative poses from an alternative odometry source; if that source drifts in the same degenerate direction, fusion entrenches the error.
  • domain assumption KD-tree correspondences from the current pose are representative of the optimal correspondences.
    Sec. III-A uses pre-optimization point-plane matches to compute the observability matrix; wrong matches would bias the risk prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SuperLoc: The Key to Robust LiDAR-Inertial Localization Lies in Predicting Alignment Risks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DD5KGRG2

@misc{pith2026241202901,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SuperLoc: The Key to Robust LiDAR-Inertial Localization Lies in Predicting Alignment Risks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DD5KGRG2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02901}
}
read the original abstract

Map-based LiDAR localization, while widely used in autonomous systems, faces significant challenges in degraded environments due to lacking distinct geometric features. This paper introduces SuperLoc, a robust LiDAR localization package that addresses key limitations in existing methods. SuperLoc features a novel predictive alignment risk assessment technique, enabling early detection and mitigation of potential failures before optimization. This approach significantly improves performance in challenging scenarios such as corridors, tunnels, and caves. Unlike existing degeneracy mitigation algorithms that rely on post-optimization analysis and heuristic thresholds, SuperLoc evaluates the localizability of raw sensor measurements. Experimental results demonstrate significant performance improvements over state-of-the-art methods across various degraded environments. Our approach achieves a 54% increase in accuracy and exhibits the highest robustness. To facilitate further research, we release our implementation along with datasets from eight challenging scenarios

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02901 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. SuperLoc is an open-source LiDAR-inertial localization system that not only predicts alignment risks, and estimates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System Overview of Proposed Method. The major contributions of this work are highlighted with a red square. The pipeline begins with LiDAR and IMU measurements, from which point, plane, and line features are extracted. Point￾plane correspondences are used for PCA to determine principal and normal directions, which are analyzed for observability. Confidence values of each state direction are used to generate an obser… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Real-Time Alignment Risk Analysis. From top to bottom: Cave, Multi-floor, and Long-corridor environments. Left: Observability scans, where red, green, and blue points represent accumulated observable features in the x, y, and z directions, respectively. Right: Histograms depicting real￾time confidence values [0, 1] for each direction. Lower con￾fidence values indicate higher alignment risks. cave and long-corridor e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This site poses significant challenges for LiDAR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Localization in MultiFloor Environments. Our method has significantly fewer outliers, with a rate of 8.03%, marking a 7.2-fold times improvement over the second-best method. The blue dashed square at the bottom highlights low confidence in the Z direction, where our me…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Localization in Long Corridor and Open Flat Environments. Our method has significantly fewer outliers, with a rate of 3.55%, marking a 7.8-fold times improvement over the second-best method (27.83%) over 690 meters of travel. The red, green dashed square at the bottom …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ARMOR: Adaptive Meshing with Reinforcement Optimization for Real-time 3D Monitoring in Unexposed Scenes

    cs.RO 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ARMOR couples scanblock-based spatio-temporal normal smoothing with a PPO agent that selects SDF sampling and meshing parameters, reporting improved underground mesh quality over PIN-SLAM.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [15]

    Super odometry: IMU-centric LIDAR-visual-inertial estimator for challeng- ing environments,

    S. Zhao, H. Zhang, P. Wang, L. Nogueira, and S. Scherer, “Super odometry: IMU-centric LIDAR-visual-inertial estimator for challeng- ing environments,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelli- gent Robots and Systems , 2021, pp. 8729–8736

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    An accurate closed-form estimate of icp’s covariance,

    A. Censi, “An accurate closed-form estimate of icp’s covariance,” in Proceedings 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2007, pp. 3167–3172

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    A new approach to 3d icp covariance estimation,

    M. Brossard, S. Bonnabel, and A. Barrau, “A new approach to 3d icp covariance estimation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 744–751, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Principled icp covariance modelling in perceptually degraded environments for the eels mission concept,

    W. Talbot, J. Nash, M. Paton, E. Ambrose, B. Metz, R. Thakker, R. Etheredge, M. Ono, and V . Ila, “Principled icp covariance modelling in perceptually degraded environments for the eels mission concept,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2023, pp. 10 763–10 770

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Prepared for the Worst: A Learning-Based Adversarial Attack for Resilience Analysis of the ICP Algorithm

    Z. Zhang, J. Laconte, D. Lisus, and T. D. Barfoot, “Prepared for the worst: A learning-based adversarial attack for resilience analysis of the icp algorithm,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.05666

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Toward certifying maps for safe registration-based localization under adverse conditions,

    J. Laconte, D. Lisus, and T. D. Barfoot, “Toward certifying maps for safe registration-based localization under adverse conditions,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1572–1579, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Estimating the localizability in tunnel-like environments using lidar and uwb,

    W. Zhen and S. Scherer, “Estimating the localizability in tunnel-like environments using lidar and uwb,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2019, pp. 4903–4908

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Lmapping: tightly-coupled lidar-inertial odometry and mapping for degraded environments,

    J. Zou, L. Shao, H. Tang, H. Chen, H. Bao, and X. Pan, “Lmapping: tightly-coupled lidar-inertial odometry and mapping for degraded environments,” Intelligent Service Robotics, vol. 16, pp. 1–15, 09 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    KISS-ICP: In defense of point-to-point ICP–simple, accurate, and robust registration if done the right way,

    I. Vizzo, T. Guadagnino, B. Mersch, L. Wiesmann, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “KISS-ICP: In defense of point-to-point ICP–simple, accurate, and robust registration if done the right way,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1029–1036, 2023

    2023

  2. [9]

    Open3d slam: Point cloud based mapping and localization for education,

    E. Jelavic, J. Nubert, and M. Hutter, “Open3d slam: Point cloud based mapping and localization for education,” 05 2022

    2022

  3. [10]

    Online lidar- slam for legged robots with robust registration and deep-learned loop closure,

    M. Ramezani, G. Tinchev, E. Iuganov, and M. Fallon, “Online lidar- slam for legged robots with robust registration and deep-learned loop closure,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020, pp. 4158–4164

    2020

  4. [11]

    A portable three-dimensional LIDAR-based system for long-term and wide-area people behavior measurement,

    K. Koide, J. Miura, and E. Menegatti, “A portable three-dimensional LIDAR-based system for long-term and wide-area people behavior measurement,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems , vol. 16, no. 2, p. 1729881419841532, 2019

    2019

  5. [12]

    Fast-LIO: A fast, robust LIDAR-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated Kalman filter,

    W. Xu and F. Zhang, “Fast-LIO: A fast, robust LIDAR-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated Kalman filter,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3317–3324, 2021

    2021

  6. [13]

    On degeneracy of optimization- based state estimation problems,

    J. Zhang, M. Kaess, and S. Singh, “On degeneracy of optimization- based state estimation problems,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2016, pp. 809–816

    2016

  7. [14]

    Degeneracy-aware factors with applications to underwater SLAM,

    A. Hinduja, B.-J. Ho, and M. Kaess, “Degeneracy-aware factors with applications to underwater SLAM,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2019, pp. 1293–1299

    2019

  8. [16]

    X-icp: Localizability-aware lidar registration for robust localization in ex- treme environments,

    T. Tuna, J. Nubert, Y . Nava, S. Khattak, and M. Hutter, “X-icp: Localizability-aware lidar registration for robust localization in ex- treme environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 40, pp. 452–471, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Informed, constrained, aligned: A field analysis on degeneracy-aware point cloud registration in the wild,

    T. Tuna, J. Nubert, P. Pfreundschuh, C. Cadena, S. Khattak, and M. Hutter, “Informed, constrained, aligned: A field analysis on degeneracy-aware point cloud registration in the wild,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11809, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    FAST- LIVO: Fast and tightly-coupled sparse-direct LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry,

    C. Zheng, Q. Zhu, W. Xu, X. Liu, Q. Guo, and F. Zhang, “FAST- LIVO: Fast and tightly-coupled sparse-direct LiDAR-inertial-visual odometry,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.00893 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    R3LIVE: A robust, real-time, rgb-colored, LiDAR-inertial-visual tightly-coupled state estimation and mapping package,

    J. Lin and F. Zhang, “R3LIVE: A robust, real-time, rgb-colored, LiDAR-inertial-visual tightly-coupled state estimation and mapping package,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion, 2022, pp. 10 672–10 678

    2022

  12. [20]

    Learning-based lo- calizability estimation for robust lidar localization,

    J. Nubert, E. Walther, S. Khattak, and M. Hutter, “Learning-based lo- calizability estimation for robust lidar localization,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 17–24

    2022

  13. [21]

    LIO- SAM: Tightly-coupled LIDAR inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,

    T. Shan, B. Englot, D. Meyers, W. Wang, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, “LIO- SAM: Tightly-coupled LIDAR inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2020, pp. 5135–5142

    2020

  14. [22]

    PALoc: Advancing SLAM benchmarking with prior-assisted 6-DoF trajectory generation and uncertainty estimation,

    X. Hu, L. Zheng, J. Wu, R. Geng, Y . Yu, H. Wei, X. Tang, L. Wang, J. Jiao, and M. Liu, “PALoc: Advancing SLAM benchmarking with prior-assisted 6-DoF trajectory generation and uncertainty estimation,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Tightly coupled range inertial localization on a 3D prior map based on sliding window factor graph optimization,

    K. Koide, S. Oishi, M. Yokozuka, and A. Banno, “Tightly coupled range inertial localization on a 3D prior map based on sliding window factor graph optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05540 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Direct lidar-inertial odometry and mapping: Perceptive and connective slam,

    K. Chen, R. Nemiroff, and B. T. Lopez, “Direct lidar-inertial odometry and mapping: Perceptive and connective slam,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.01843

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Liver: A tightly coupled lidar-inertial-visual state estimator with high robustness for underground environments,

    T. Wen, Y . Fang, B. Lu, X. Zhang, and C. Tang, “Liver: A tightly coupled lidar-inertial-visual state estimator with high robustness for underground environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2399–2406, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Traj-lio: A resilient multi-lidar multi-imu state estimator through sparse gaussian process,

    X. Zheng and J. Zhu, “Traj-lio: A resilient multi-lidar multi-imu state estimator through sparse gaussian process,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09189

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Geometri- cally stable sampling for the icp algorithm,

    N. Gelfand, L. Ikemoto, S. Rusinkiewicz, and M. Levoy, “Geometri- cally stable sampling for the icp algorithm,” in F ourth International Conference on 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling, 2003. 3DIM 2003. Proceedings. IEEE, 2003, pp. 260–267

    2003

  20. [28]

    Adaptive robust kernels for non-linear least squares problems,

    N. Chebrolu, T. L ¨abe, O. Vysotska, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Adaptive robust kernels for non-linear least squares problems,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2240–2247, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    IMU preinte- gration on manifold for efficient visual-inertial maximum-a-posteriori estimation,

    C. Forster, L. Carlone, F. Dellaert, and D. Scaramuzza, “IMU preinte- gration on manifold for efficient visual-inertial maximum-a-posteriori estimation,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , July 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    SubT-MRS dataset: Pushing slam towards all-weather environments,

    S. Zhao, Y . Gao, T. Wu, D. Singh, R. Jiang, H. Sun, M. Sarawata, Y . Qiu, W. Whittaker, I. Higgins, Y . Du, S. Su, C. Xu, J. Keller, J. Karhade, L. Nogueira, S. Saha, J. Zhang, W. Wang, C. Wang, and S. Scherer, “SubT-MRS dataset: Pushing slam towards all-weather environments,...

    2024

  23. [31]

    FAST-LIO2: Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry,

    W. Xu, Y . Cai, D. He, J. Lin, and F. Zhang, “FAST-LIO2: Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2053–2073, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Faster-LIO: Lightweight tightly coupled LIDAR-inertial odometry using parallel sparse incremental voxels,

    C. Bai, T. Xiao, Y . Chen, H. Wang, F. Zhang, and X. Gao, “Faster-LIO: Lightweight tightly coupled LIDAR-inertial odometry using parallel sparse incremental voxels,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4861–4868, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Direct lidar odometry: Fast localization with dense point clouds,

    K. Chen, B. T. Lopez, A.-a. Agha-mohammadi, and A. Mehta, “Direct lidar odometry: Fast localization with dense point clouds,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2000–2007, 2022

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.