Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Real-Time Kinematic Positioning and Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display for Outdoor Tracking: Hybrid System and Preliminary Assessment

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper builds an outdoor augmented-reality tracker that renders an RTK-positioned robot as a virtual marker on an optical see-through headset, with a measured average end-to-end error of 0.745 meters—roughly twelve times better than phon

desk verdict A genuinely preliminary but honest RTK+HoloLens integration report; the relative RTK-vs-GPS comparison is credible, but the absolute 0.745 m error number is not a clean accuracy measure due to the head-to-antenna offset in the evaluation protocol. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09412 v1 pith:GPMVWJFA submitted 2025-09-11 cs.HC

Muhannad Ismael , Maël Cornil This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords outdooraugmentedrealityopticalsee-throughhead-mounteddisplayRTKpositioningvisualSLAMUGVtrackingsemi-dynamicevaluationoccludedobjectsCBRNincidentmanagement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that an optical see-through head-mounted display can serve as a hands-free outdoor tracker for a robot whose view is blocked, by merging centimeter-accuracy RTK satellite positioning with the headset's built-in visual SLAM. The key idea is to calibrate once—wearer stands at the robot's RTK reference point facing north—and then convert every incoming RTK coordinate into the headset's own frame by distance and bearing, so the robot's virtual marker inherits RTK's accuracy while the headset tracks the wearer. A preliminary urban test reports an average end-to-end error of 0.745 meters for RTK versus 8.907 meters for a phone's GPS, with a nearly constant offset that the paper attributes to manual calibration rather than to the RTK/vSLAM mechanism. The paper also contributes a 'semi-dynamic' evaluation method for outdoor HMD tracking, and it matters because first responders in CBRN incidents could see occluded assets like UGVs without holding a tablet.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is a one-time alignment-plus-projection: the wearer stands at the UGV's RTK reference position and faces north, so the headset's negative z-axis lines up with world north. From then on, every UGV coordinate is reduced to a horizontal distance δ and a bearing angle β measured from that reference in world coordinates; because of the alignment, the same β works in the headset's frame, and the virtual object is placed at P_HoloLens_ref + (δ cos β, δ sin β, 0). This transform is what lets the hybrid system inherit RTK's high source accuracy while keeping the wearer untethered from continuous RTK corrections—visual SLAM handles the wearer's motion after cali

What would settle it

After the system is calibrated, place the UGV at a surveyed ground-truth location and record the rendered virtual marker; then repeat the calibration with the wearer deliberately facing 5, 10, and 20 degrees off north while keeping the feet at the same point. If the virtual marker shifts by the expected bearing-rotation amount, the manual heading alignment is the main error source; if it stays put, the error lies in the RTK, server, or rendering path instead.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that an optical see-through head-mounted display (OST-HMD) can visualize an RTK-tracked UGV outdoors in real time, even when the UGV is hidden behind obstacles. The central discovery is the integration recipe: after a one-time calibration in which the wearer stands at the UGV's RTK reference position and faces north, each incoming RTK coordinate is converted into the headset's local frame by a distance–bearing projection (Eqs. 1–2). The headset's visual SLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping) then keeps tracking the wearer, so RTK is used once to establish the reference rather than continuously re-positioning the headset; the authors argue this avoids noisy per-frame RT

Load-bearing premise

The whole accuracy story rests on the calibration step: the wearer must stand exactly at the UGV's RTK reference point and face true north, and the paper admits the wearer stands 'as close as possible,' so any initial position or heading error becomes a constant offset in every later virtual position.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In urban or occluded environments, a responder wearing the headset can continue to see the UGV's virtual marker even when buildings or trees hide the physical robot, because the marker is computed from RTK coordinates rather than camera detection.
  • The one-time calibration removes the need for a GNSS antenna mounted on the head, making the headset lighter and more mobile than earlier hybrid RTK+SLAM approaches that update user position with RTK every frame.
  • The semi-dynamic evaluation protocol—pausing the UGV at fixed locations and measuring camera-to-marker distance—gives a practical benchmark for outdoor HMD tracking when full trajectory synchronization is not feasible.
  • The RTK error in the test is tightly clustered (standard deviation ≈ 0.126 m) while GPS jumps by about 7.45 m, so the remaining 0.745 m average is a nearly constant offset; that means fixing calibration should directly lower the error without redesigning the pipeline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own calibration caveat implies that an automated orientation sensor (e.g., a compass fused into the headset) could shrink the end-to-end error toward RTK's nominal centimeter level; the authors list this idea as future work but do not quantify it.
  • The flat, height-zeroed projection in Eq. (2) assumes a locally level world; on slopes or over longer baselines a 3D geodetic transform including elevation would be needed, and might change the error budget materially.
  • The 0.1 s server refresh with TCP sockets adds a latency that grows with UGV speed; switching to UDP and predictive rendering, as the paper suggests, would be a natural extension to test before deploying with faster moving assets.
  • A task-level study with first responders—measuring whether the AR overlay accelerates locating a radiation source compared to a tablet map—would tell whether the reported technical accuracy actually translates into the operational benefit the paper motivates; no such user study is included.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 describes a hybrid outdoor tracking system that combines RTK positioning of a UGV with a Microsoft HoloLens 2 OST-HMD. A calibration step establishes the user's position and orientation from a single reference point; thereafter, UGV positions are transformed into HoloLens coordinates using distance and bearing, while vSLAM maintains the HoloLens's local world frame. The paper reports a 'semi-dynamic' evaluation at seven urban locations, claiming that RTK yields an average error of 0.745 m compared to 8.907 m for GPS (Section 4), and discusses limitations and future work in accuracy, networking, and visualization.

Significance. If the accuracy claim were validated, the system would offer a useful hands-free approach to visualizing occluded assets in outdoor CBRN scenarios, using a lightweight headset and an RTK rover without requiring an externally attached antenna. The system integration is clearly described, and the paper openly lists calibration and surveyed-position issues among its limitations. The main weakness is that the evaluation protocol does not actually measure tracking accuracy against an independent ground truth; the reported error is confounded by calibration and measurement geometry. Consequently, the central quantitative claim is not yet established, although the qualitative demonstration of feasibility is credible.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4 (semi-dynamic evaluation)] The reported error metric is the distance between the HoloLens camera and the virtual object while the wearer stands 'as close as possible' to the UGV/RTK antenna. This is not an independent measurement of the UGV's true position. The metric necessarily includes the head-to-antenna lever arm, the manual positioning error of the wearer, and the unmeasured orientation error from the calibration step (§3.5.1). Since none of these offsets is quantified or separated out, the average RTK error of 0.745 m cannot be interpreted as system accuracy. The paper's own §5.1 lists calibration as a direct accuracy limitation, which confirms the issue. Please add an independent ground-truth reference (e.g., surveyed check points or a total station) or reframe the result as a feasibility demo rather than an accuracy measurement.
  2. [§3.5.2, Eq. (2)] The coordinate transformation is inconsistent with the stated axis alignment. The paper states that the HoloLens's negative z-axis is aligned with north, yet Eq. (2) places the horizontal offset δ·sin(β) in the y component. In the evaluation (§4) the y-axis is then set to zero, which would discard the north-south component of the offset altogether. If north is -z, the displacement should lie in the x-z plane (e.g., (δ·sin(β), 0, -δ·cos(β)) or a similar form depending on the rotation convention), not in x-y. As written, the equations do not support the computation of the reported 2D error distances.
  3. [§3.5.1 and §4 (calibration)] The calibration procedure assumes the user can stand exactly at the RTK rover position and face true north, but no methodology for achieving or measuring these conditions is given. The paper says 'as close as possible' and 'face the north direction' without quantifying the residual errors. Because the reference position and orientation are fixed for the entire session, any error in either quantity is a constant systematic bias that propagates through Eqs. (1)-(2) to every displayed virtual object. A sensitivity analysis or an empirical measurement of calibration repeatability is needed before the accuracy claim can be assessed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1, RQ4] Typo: 'traking' should be 'tracking'.
  2. [§3.3 and §3.4] 'Anonymous web server' appears as a placeholder in multiple places. The actual server/service name should be provided for reproducibility.
  3. [Figure 8, §4] The axes and data are underspecified: the seven 'Locations' are not described, no error bars or per-location data table are given, and the y-axis label 'Error (inm)' contains a spacing error. Please clarify the standard deviation sentence as well: standard deviation of what, and computed over what samples?
  4. [General] The reference list contains 'Anonymous web server' and the acknowledgement mentions 'Anonymous'; these need to be resolved for the final version. Also, the VISIGRAPP paper reference appears only as a URL in a footnote rather than in the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the accuracy claim is an external empirical comparison, not a reduction to fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The derivation chain is: (1) calibration records a HoloLens reference pose and aligns the HoloLens frame with world north (Section 3.5.1); (2) the UGV's RTK coordinates are transformed into HoloLens coordinates using Eqs. (1)-(2) (Section 3.5.2); (3) the semi-dynamic evaluation compares the rendered virtual object position with the HoloLens camera position (Section 4). Each quantity has an independent source: RTK coordinates come from an external GNSS receiver, the HoloLens camera pose comes from vSLAM, and the error is the Euclidean distance between the virtual object and the camera. No parameter is fitted to the measured error, no prediction is derived from the outcome of that error, and no load-bearing claim rests on the authors' own prior work. The claimed RTK-vs-GPS comparison (0.745 m vs 8.907 m) is an empirical measurement, not a tautology. Section 5.1 explicitly lists calibration and surveyed-position accuracy as limitations, and Section 4 admits the user stands 'as close as possible' to the UGV rather than exactly at the antenna; this is a real measurement-validity concern (a constant lever-arm/calibration offset may inflate the reported error), but it does not make the derivation circular: the system's equations would still transform externally supplied RTK positions, and the error metric would reveal a mismatch rather than assume it away. The paper is self-contained against the external benchmark of RTK-versus-GPS accuracy, so the appropriate score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on standard math (bearing-distance transform), on prior domain results (RTK accuracy, HoloLens vSLAM), and on an unverified manual alignment process. No numeric parameters are fitted to the target outcome; the only user-chosen quantities are the 0.1 s refresh rate and the 1000-SPP surveyed-position average, neither of which is a free parameter tuned to minimize error.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption RTK provides centimeter-level positioning relative to a correctly surveyed base station.
    Relied on throughout; the paper's own system error is 0.745 m, which it attributes to integration, not RTK. Section 2.1 and Section 4.
  • domain assumption The HoloLens vSLAM maintains an accurate user pose after the initial RTK reference calibration.
    Needed so Eqs. (1)-(2) stay valid while the user moves; acknowledged as a limitation in Section 5.1.
  • ad hoc to paper A human can stand at the UGV's position and face north with sufficient accuracy for the calibration.
    Introduced by the proposed method in Section 3.5.1; the paper only says 'as close as possible' and does not quantify this error.
  • domain assumption The 1000-position SPP average gives a stable automatic surveyed position for the RTK station.
    Used to set up the RTK station without an official surveyed coordinate; mentioned in Section 3.4 and revisited in Section 5.1 as a limitation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Real-Time Kinematic Positioning and Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display for Outdoor Tracking: Hybrid System and Preliminary Assessment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GPMVWJFA

@misc{pith2026250909412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Real-Time Kinematic Positioning and Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display for Outdoor Tracking: Hybrid System and Preliminary Assessment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GPMVWJFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09412}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents an outdoor tracking system using Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) positioning and Optical See-Through Head Mounted Display(s) (OST-HMD(s)) in urban areas where the accurate tracking of objects is critical and where displaying occluded information is important for safety reasons. The approach presented here replaces 2D screens/tablets and offers distinct advantages, particularly in scenarios demanding hands-free operation. The integration of RTK, which provides centimeter-level accuracy of tracked objects, with OST-HMD represents a promising solution for outdoor applications. This paper provides valuable insights into leveraging the combined potential of RTK and OST-HMD for outdoor tracking tasks from the perspectives of systems integration, performance optimization, and usability. The main contributions of this paper are: \textbf{1)} a system for seamlessly merging RTK systems with OST-HMD to enable relatively precise and intuitive outdoor tracking, \textbf{2)} an approach to determine a global location to achieve the position relative to the world, \textbf{3)} an approach referred to as 'semi-dynamic' for system assessment. Moreover, we offer insights into several relevant future research topics aimed at improving the OST-HMD and RTK hybrid system for outdoor tracking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09412 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Tracking UGV using RTK systems. Fn, Fn+i and Fn+i+j are captured frames from Microsoft HoloLens v2. The white virtual rectangle refers to the RTK information derived from RTK rover system located on UGV. context in which they operate. Specifically, the accuracy of these systems in urban areas is no￾tably lower compared to open-sky environments (De Pace and Kaufmann, 2023). This discrep￾ancy can be attributed to vari… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System requirements for outdoor AR sys￾tem using RTK technology. 3.3 Server application We utilized Tomcat, a web hosting service built around the Java programming language. It offers a REST API as well as socket connections. This server is hosted on a web-based platform known as (Anonymous web server). The server receives the message from sensors and broadcasts to the OST-HMD. Since real-time communication is re￾qu… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. General schema of the proposed system lutions. Furthermore, RTK rover interfaces with the Raspberry Pi, which facilitates the transmis￾sion of the UGV’s position data to a web server known as (Anonymous web server). Moreover, an iOS application is developed and deployed on iPhone 11 Pro. The application provides GPS ca￾pabilities for location tracking and navigation us￾ing the CLLocationManager class. This informa￾t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: UGV consists of an antenna, Swift Naviga [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A prototype consisting of a UGV, RTK rover (including an antenna, Swift Navigation Piksi board, and Radio board), RTK station, tablet with a specific application enabling users to remotely com￾mand the UGV’s movements, and OST-HMD such as the HoloLens v2. 4 RESULTS To …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Tracking a UGV using RTK and GPS. Frame is captured from HoloLens v2. The virtual objects (rose and green rectangles) should be in the same position as the UGV such that the green rectan￾gle represents the GPS value derived from the iPhone, and the rose rectangle repre…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scatter plot illustrating the errors in dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    Arth, C., Pirchheim, C., Ventura, J., Schmalstieg, D., and Lepetit, V. (2015). Instant outdoor localization and slam initialization from 2.5 d maps. IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics , 21(11):1309--1318

    2015

  3. [3]

    Behzadan, A. H. and Kamat, V. R. (2005). Visualization of construction graphics in outdoor augmented reality. In Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2005. , pages 7--pp. IEEE

    2005

  4. [4]

    Benjumea, A., Teeti, I., Cuzzolin, F., and Bradley, A. (2021). YOLO-Z: improving small object detection in yolov5 for autonomous vehicles. CoRR , abs/2112.11798

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    and Fuchs-Kittowski, F

    Burkard, S. and Fuchs-Kittowski, F. (2020). User-aided global registration method using geospatial 3d data for large-scale mobile outdoor augmented reality. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct) , pages 104--109. IEEE

    2020

  6. [6]

    H., Stefanucci, J

    Creem-Regehr, S. H., Stefanucci, J. K., Thompson, W. B., Nash, N., and McCardell, M. (2015). Egocentric distance perception in the oculus rift (dk2). In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on applied perception , pages 47--50

    2015

  7. [7]

    and Karigiannis, J

    Dahne, P. and Karigiannis, J. N. (2002). Archeoguide: System architecture of a mobile outdoor augmented reality system. In Proceedings. International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality , pages 263--264. IEEE

    2002

  8. [8]

    and Kaufmann, H

    De Pace, F. and Kaufmann, H. (2023). A systematic evaluation of an rtk-gps device for wearable augmented reality. Virtual Reality , 27(4):3165--3179

    2023

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Erickson, A., Kim, K., Bruder, G., and Welch, G. F. (2020). Exploring the limitations of environment lighting on optical see-through head-mounted displays. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction , pages 1--8

    2020

  2. [10]

    Gal, O., Izac, C., Jean, F., Lain \'e , F., L \'e v \^e que, C., and Nguyen, A. (2001). Cartogam--a portable gamma camera for remote localisation of radioactive sources in nuclear facilities. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrom...

    2001

  3. [11]

    L., and Upchurch, B

    Gan-Mor, S., Clark, R. L., and Upchurch, B. L. (2007). Implement lateral position accuracy under rtk-gps tractor guidance. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , 59(1-2):31--38

    2007

  4. [12]

    H \"o llerer, T., Feiner, S., Terauchi, T., Rashid, G., and Hallaway, D. (1999). Exploring mars: developing indoor and outdoor user interfaces to a mobile augmented reality system. Computers & Graphics , 23(6):779--785

    1999

  5. [13]

    and Murray, D

    Klein, G. and Murray, D. (2007). Parallel tracking and mapping for small AR workspaces. In Proc. Sixth IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR'07) , Nara, Japan

    2007

  6. [14]

    Kluga, A., Mitrofanovs, I., Kluga, J., and Jeralovics, V. (2014). State and dynamic precision research using two gps receivers with rtk. In 2014 14th Biennial Baltic Electronic Conference (BEC) , pages 141--144. IEEE

    2014

  7. [15]

    N., Cohen, M

    Lim, H., Sinha, S. N., Cohen, M. F., and Uyttendaele, M. (2012). Real-time image-based 6-dof localization in large-scale environments. In 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1043--1050. IEEE

    2012

  8. [16]

    F., Elvezio, C., Bullock, J., Henderson, S., and Feiner, S

    Ling, F. F., Elvezio, C., Bullock, J., Henderson, S., and Feiner, S. (2019). A hybrid rtk gnss and slam outdoor augmented reality system. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) , pages 1044--1045

    2019

  9. [17]

    and Tsubouchi, T

    Morales, Y. and Tsubouchi, T. (2007). Dgps, rtk-gps and starfire dgps performance under tree shading environments. In 2007 IEEE International Conference on Integration Technology , pages 519--524. IEEE

    2007

  10. [18]

    Niu, Z., Zhao, X., Sun, J., Tao, L., and Zhu, B. (2020). A continuous positioning algorithm based on rtk and vi-slam with smartphones. IEEE Access , 8:185638--185650

    2020

  11. [19]

    Oskiper, T., Samarasekera, S., and Kumar, R. (2012). Multi-sensor navigation algorithm using monocular camera, imu and gps for large scale augmented reality. In 2012 IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR) , pages 71--80. IEEE

    2012

  12. [20]

    T., and LaViola, J

    Pfeil, K., Masnadi, S., Belga, J., Sera-Josef, J.-V. T., and LaViola, J. (2021). Distance perception with a video see-through head-mounted display. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages 1--9

    2021

  13. [21]

    Rao, J., Qiao, Y., Ren, F., Wang, J., and Du, Q. (2017). A mobile outdoor augmented reality method combining deep learning object detection and spatial relationships for geovisualization. Sensors , 17(9):1951

    2017

  14. [22]

    W., Evans, A., Dodson, A., Denby, B., Cooper, S., Hollands, R., et al

    Roberts, G. W., Evans, A., Dodson, A., Denby, B., Cooper, S., Hollands, R., et al. (2002). The use of augmented reality, gps and ins for subsurface data visualization. In FIG XXII international congress , volume 4, pages 1--12

    2002

  15. [23]

    N., and Usman, N

    Safrel, I., Julianto, E. N., and Usman, N. Q. (2018). Accuracy comparison between gps real time kinematic (rtk) method and total station to determine the coordinate of an area. Jurnal Teknik Sipil Dan Perencanaan , 20(2):123--130

    2018

  16. [24]

    Satheesan, A. (2024). Real-time augmented reality based operator assistance for driving cut-to-length forest machines

    2024

  17. [25]

    Schall, G., Wagner, D., Reitmayr, G., Taichmann, E., Wieser, M., Schmalstieg, D., and Hofmann-Wellenhof, B. (2009). Global pose estimation using multi-sensor fusion for outdoor augmented reality. In 2009 8th ieee international symposium on mixed and augmented reality , pages 1...

    2009

  18. [26]

    S., and Ali, F

    Singh, S., Singh, J., Shah, B., Sehra, S. S., and Ali, F. (2022). Augmented reality and gps-based resource efficient navigation system for outdoor environments: Integrating device camera, sensors, and storage. Sustainability , 14(19):12720

    2022

  19. [27]

    Stranner, M., Arth, C., Schmalstieg, D., and Fleck, P. (2019). A high-precision localization device for outdoor augmented reality. In 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct) , pages 37--41. IEEE

    2019

  20. [28]

    E., Hix, D., and Gabbard, J

    Swan, J. E., Hix, D., and Gabbard, J. L. (2003). Perceptual and ergonomic issues in mobile augmented reality for urban operations

    2003

  21. [29]

    Tomaszewski, D., Wielgosz, P., Rapi \'n ski, J., Krypiak-Gregorczyk, A., Ka \'z mierczak, R., Hern \'a ndez-Pajares, M., Yang, H., and Or \'u sP \'e rez, R. (2020). Assessment of centre national d’ \`e tudes spatiales real-time ionosphere maps in instantaneous precise real-tim...

    2020

  22. [30]

    u hmer, J., Cashman, T. J., Tekin, B., Sch \

    Ungureanu, D., Bogo, F., Galliani, S., Sama, P., Duan, X., Meekhof, C., St \"u hmer, J., Cashman, T. J., Tekin, B., Sch \"o nberger, J. L., et al. (2020). Hololens 2 research mode as a tool for computer vision research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.11239

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Wi \'s niewski, B., Bruniecki, K., and Moszy \'n ski, M. (2013). Evaluation of rtklib's positioning accuracy usingn low-cost gnss receiver and asg-eupos. TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation , 7(1):79--85

    2013

  24. [32]

    Zari, G., Condino, S., Cutolo, F., and Ferrari, V. (2023). Magic leap 1 versus microsoft hololens 2 for the visualization of 3d content obtained from radiological images. Sensors , 23(6):3040

    2023

  25. [33]

    and Kosecka, J

    Zhang, W. and Kosecka, J. (2006). Image based localization in urban environments. In Third international symposium on 3D data processing, visualization, and transmission (3DPVT'06) , pages 33--40. IEEE

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.