FAST-Calib: LiDAR-Camera Extrinsic Calibration in One Second

Chunran Zheng; Fu Zhang

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 23 references

FAST-Calib: LiDAR-Camera Extrinsic Calibration in One Second

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FAST-Calib claims LiDAR-camera extrinsics can be estimated in under one second with point-to-point residuals below 6.5 mm.

desk verdict FAST-Calib is a fast, open-source calibration pipeline with a real practical niche, but its sub-6.5 mm accuracy claim is a fitting residual, not an independent validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17210 v1 pith:L66IC7JD submitted 2025-07-23 cs.RO

Chunran Zheng , Fu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords LiDAR-cameracalibrationextrinsictarget-basedsolid-stateDARmechanicalangulargapedgeextractionellipsefittingKabschregistration

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 is trying to establish that target-based LiDAR-camera extrinsic calibration can be automatic, sub-second, and equally usable with mechanical and solid-state LiDARs. The proposed pipeline uses a board with four circular holes and four ArUco markers: hole edges are detected in the LiDAR point cloud by looking for large angular gaps in each point's local neighborhood, then an ellipse is fitted to each hole's edge points to undo the dilation caused by LiDAR spot spread. The fitted ellipse centers are registered against hole centers derived from the ArUco-detected board pose, and the transform is solved in closed form with Kabsch. The paper reports point-to-point registration residuals below 6.5 mm and total processing time under 0.7 s on Ouster, Livox Avia, and Mid360 configurations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a flat calibration board with four circular holes and four ArUco markers at known geometric positions. The mechanism that makes it scan-pattern agnostic is the angular-gap edge test: for each 2D point, compute the angles to all neighbors within a 3 cm radius (Eq. 1), sort them, and flag the point as an edge point if the largest gap between consecutive angles exceeds 25 degrees (Eq. 2). Edge points are clustered, and each cluster is fit with a general conic constrained to an ellipse (Eq. 3) using direct least squares; the analytic center (Eq. 4) is taken as the hole center, which compensates for edge dilation from LiDAR spot spread. Camera-side hole centers come from the ArUco markers' board pose, and the final transform is the closed-form Kabsch solution of the least-squares problem (Eq. 5), which naturally extends to $N$ captures by treating all $4N$ correspondences at once.

What would settle it

Use a board with machined hole centers at known coordinates, with the LiDAR-camera transform independently measured (e.g., by a motion-capture reference), and vary the board's incidence angle. If the estimated extrinsics drift by more than the reported 6.5 mm residual when spot dilation is large or holes are viewed near tangentially, the assumption that fitted ellipse centers equal true hole centers is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single target-based pipeline can deliver accurate extrinsic calibration in well under one second across scan-pattern families that previously required different tools. On the LiDAR side, the method avoids scan-line assumptions by classifying points as edge points from angular gaps in a 2D neighborhood, with a 25-degree threshold, and then replacing each circular hole's observed edge with a least-squares ellipse whose analytic center (Eq. 4) cancels the outward dilation caused by finite laser spot size. On the camera side, four ArUco markers on the same board give board pose, from which the four hole centers are derived. A closed-form Kabsch solution minimizes the 3D-3D distance (Eq. 5), and stacking $4N$ correspondences from multiple captures makes the joint optimization a single registration problem. The paper's evidence is five repeated calibrations on each of three LiDAR-camera pairs, with residuals below 6.5 mm and runtime under 0.7 s.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration is only as good as the assumption that each fitted ellipse's center in the LiDAR point cloud coincides with the physical hole center, even when sparse beams and spot spread distort the observed hole boundary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A calibration that takes under one second makes extrinsic re-calibration practical on production lines and in field deployment, not just in a dedicated off-line step.
The same board and code cover mechanical and solid-state LiDARs, so a mixed fleet can be calibrated with one procedure instead of one procedure per scan pattern.
Multi-scene joint calibration costs almost no extra time because captures are processed in parallel and the registration step is a single linear-algebra solve.
The 25-degree angular-gap rule is a purely geometric test, so new LiDAR models with unfamiliar scan patterns can be added without redesigning the detector.

Reading between the lines

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

The angular-gap detector is a local geometric test, so in principle it should transfer to other depth sensors with irregular point spacing, provided enough points land on the hole edge; that is an extrapolation beyond the three LiDAR models tested.
The reported 6.5 mm residual is a registration residual on the calibration board, not a direct measurement of true extrinsic error; an independent ground-truth pose would separate the two.
Because one capture is so fast, the method could support periodic online re-calibration while a board is briefly in view, if the board's approximate location can be supplied automatically.
The ellipse-fitting correction for spot spread may also improve other circle- or hole-based calibration targets, since the dilation artifact is not specific to this board.

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: FAST-Calib is a genuinely practical target-based calibration tool, open-sourced, and it runs in under a second. The accuracy headline, however, is not backed by the experiments as written. The sub-6.5 mm numbers are residuals of the same least-squares objective the extrinsic is fitted to minimize, so they demonstrate self-consistency, not absolute accuracy.

What's new: the combination of scan-pattern-agnostic edge detection via maximum angular gap, ellipse fitting to compensate for spot dilation, and multi-scene joint optimization. Each piece is standard—the board is from Velo2Cam, Kabsch is textbook—but the specific pipeline for solid-state LiDARs is new, and the paper is honest about reusing the target. The runtime breakdown is clear, and the consistency experiments across data combinations show low variance. Open-sourcing code and data is a real plus.

Where it's soft: the evaluation. Table I reports Eq. (5) residuals computed on the same 3D-3D correspondences used to estimate T_CL. Low residuals only show the fit converged. If the LiDAR hole centers are biased—by spot dilation, sparse beams, or PnP error on the ArUco side—Kabsch absorbs much of that bias and the residuals stay small. The Velo2Cam comparison uses the same metric, so it is also not an independent accuracy check. There is no held-out scene, no known ground-truth extrinsic, no reprojection on data not used in the fit. The dilation compensation via ellipse fitting is a claimed contribution but there is no ablation isolating it. Minor: for sparse mechanical LiDARs they fall back to FAST-LIVO2 odometry with slight motion, which is a reasonable practical choice but adds a dependency and possible drift.

The stress-test note is right: the central accuracy claim is not established. That said, the method itself is coherent and the engineering is credible. The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict with moderate confidence is fair.

Who this is for: robotics practitioners who need quick, automatic target-based calibration for solid-state or mechanical LiDAR-camera rigs. They will read it for the pipeline and the code. A researcher in calibration evaluation will find the validation gap instructive.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, but require major revision on the evaluation: an external accuracy assessment or held-out reprojection, and an ablation for the dilation compensation. The paper is worth a serious referee.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. FAST-Calib is a target-based LiDAR-camera extrinsic calibration pipeline. It uses a custom board with four circular holes and four ArUco markers. In the camera branch, ArUco pose estimation via PnP places the hole centers in the camera frame. In the LiDAR branch, pass-through ROI filtering, RANSAC plane segmentation, 8 mm voxel downsampling, and an angular-gap edge detector (Eqs. 1-2) extract hole-edge points, which are grouped and fit with ellipses (Eqs. 3-4) to compensate for spot-spread dilation; the ellipse centers give the hole centers in the LiDAR frame. The extrinsic transform is computed by Kabsch registration minimizing Eq. (5), extended to multiple captures. Experiments on Ouster OS1-128, Livox Avia, and Mid360 with a wide-angle camera report low residual values in Table I, consistency across data subsets in Fig. 3, and total runtime under 0.7 s in Table II. The code and dataset are open-sourced.

Significance. If the accuracy claim survives independent validation, FAST-Calib would be a practically valuable contribution: automatic, pattern-agnostic edge extraction that works for both mechanical and solid-state LiDARs; ellipse-based compensation for spot-spread dilation; joint multi-scene optimization; and very fast processing. The paper also releases code and data, which is a strength. However, the current evidence does not establish the central 'registration errors below 6.5 mm' claim, because the reported residuals are the objective being minimized; the significance therefore hinges on adding independent accuracy evaluation.

major comments (4)

[IV.B / Table I / Eq. (5)] The residuals reported in Table I are computed from Eq. (5), the exact least-squares cost minimized by the Kabsch registration, using the same point correspondences that produced the transform. Low values (0.10-0.65 cm) therefore demonstrate self-consistency between the extracted LiDAR and camera hole centers, not absolute accuracy. Any systematic bias shared by the LiDAR-side edge/ellipse extraction and the camera-side PnP pose (for example, a dilation-compensation bias or an ArUco pose bias) will be partially absorbed by the fitted transform while still yielding small residuals. The abstract's 'below 6.5 mm' is thus a fitting residual, not an independent accuracy figure. I ask for a held-out evaluation: leave-one-capture-out reprojection of LiDAR points into images, comparison against an independent ground-truth extrinsic (e.g., hand-eye or mechanical reference), or residuals computed on data not used in the fit.
[III.C / Eqs. (1)-(4)] The paper does not validate the assumption that the maximum-angular-gap rule with a 25 degree threshold and the subsequent ellipse fit recover true geometric hole centers for all three scan patterns. For sparse and irregular patterns (Mid360 in particular), edge arcs can be short and incomplete, making ellipse centers sensitive to missing data and to spot-spread dilation that may not be uniform. Since Table I cannot detect such bias, the paper should report hole-center extraction accuracy against the known physical board geometry (the hole radius and relative positions are known from Fig. 1) or compare LiDAR-extracted centers with centers obtained from a dense, high-resolution scan. Without this, the accuracy claim is not load-bearing.
[IV.B] The comparison with Velo2Cam is not fully interpretable because the paper states that Velo2Cam was 'adapted' to Livox Avia and Mid360 but does not describe how the ring-based depth-discontinuity detection is defined for non-repetitive or sparse scan patterns. The reader cannot tell whether Velo2Cam's large residuals on solid-state LiDARs reflect the method's known limitation or a non-fair adaptation. Please specify the adaptation and, if possible, include failure modes/criteria.
[IV.C / Table II] The reported 'total processing time' starts after data acquisition and accumulation; for sparse LiDARs the paper itself says accumulated scans may need FAST-LIVO2 odometry with pitch movements to densify the cloud. The title and abstract claim 'one second' calibration, but the time spent collecting and accumulating the point cloud is not counted. Please state explicitly that the runtime covers only the calibration computation after data collection, and if the claim is end-to-end, add the data-collection time.

minor comments (6)

[III.D / Eq. (5)] Equation (5) is typeset with a broken fraction; please fix the 1/(4N) notation so the normalization is clear.
[Table I / Abstract] Table I lists residuals in centimeters while the abstract quotes millimeters; state the conversion explicitly (e.g., 0.15 cm = 1.5 mm) to avoid confusion.
[III.B] The text says the average pose of the four detected ArUco markers is adopted, but averaging poses is not well-defined for rotations; specify whether you average translations and rotations separately (e.g., quaternion averaging) or select one marker.
[III.A] The statement that 16-line mechanical LiDARs may require FAST-LIVO2 odometry with pitch movements is not experimentally validated, since the evaluated sensors are OS1-128, Avia, and Mid360; please clarify that this is a recommendation rather than a validated procedure.
[Fig. 1 / III.B] The key physical dimensions of the board and the hole/marker layout appear only in the technical drawing; listing them in the text or a table would make the method easier to reproduce.
[Fig. 3] The random x-offset added to the scatter points makes the visual spread in the x-direction partly artificial; consider using a small, fixed jitter or a box plot so the reader can judge the actual variance.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The sub-6.5 mm accuracy claim is the training residual of the same least-squares objective used to fit the extrinsic, so the accuracy evidence is self-consistency, not independent validation.

fitted input called prediction [Section III-D (Eq. 5) and Section IV-B (Table I)]
"Under the assumption of a one-to-one correspondence between points p^C_i and p^L_i, the optimal transformation T_CL is estimated by minimizing the following least-squares error: (1/(4N)) sum ||p^C_i - T_CL p^L_i||^2 (5) ... The residuals in (5) are computed using the two sets of calibrated extrinsic parameters, and the quantitative results are presented in Table I. ... In all cases, the point-to-point registration residuals remain below 6.5 mm, demonstrating the high-precision alignment capability of FAST-Calib."

T_CL is obtained by minimizing exactly the same point-to-point least-squares cost in Eq. (5) over the same 4n hole-center correspondences. Reporting those minimized residuals in Table I as 'accuracy' therefore reports the training error of the fitted transform, not an independent measure of correctness. If the LiDAR-side hole centers from Eqs. (1)-(4) or the ArUco-derived camera centers are systematically biased, the Kabsch solution will partially absorb that bias while still yielding small residuals; low residuals on the fitting data cannot certify the extrinsics. The claim 'registration errors consistently below 6.5 mm' is thus a self-consistency statement unless evaluated on held-out scenes or against an external ground-truth extrinsic.

full rationale

The calibration derivation itself is not circular: the LiDAR hole centers come from angular-gap edge classification plus ellipse fitting, the camera hole centers come from ArUco/PnP and the known board geometry, and the extrinsic is a standard closed-form Kabsch registration of the resulting 3D-3D correspondences. Each stage has independent model content. The self-citation to FAST-LIVO2 (used only to aggregate sparse scans) and the adoption of the Velo2Cam target are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The significant circularity is confined to the accuracy evaluation: the reported 'registration errors' are the values of the very least-squares objective, Eq. (5), that defines the fitted T_CL, computed on the same correspondences used for fitting. Consequently the headline sub-6.5 mm figure demonstrates that the fitted transform is self-consistent with the extracted hole centers, but it does not independently validate the hole centers, the extrinsic, or the absolute accuracy relative to a ground-truth pose. A held-out reprojection check, an independent scene, or an external ground-truth extrinsic would be needed to make the accuracy claim non-circular. Because the central accuracy evidence reduces to the fitting objective, the circularity score is 6 rather than a lower value; however, the method's algorithmic contributions and open-source release remain independently substantive.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-chosen thresholds (angular gap, neighbor radius, voxel size, plane inlier distance, ellipse validation tolerances) and on unverified assumptions about the board being the dominant plane, the ArUco-derived board pose being accurate, and the fitted ellipse centers matching true hole centers. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)

Pass-through ROI bounds = user-specified, exact values not reported
Manual filtering ranges along X, Y, and Z; sensitivity is not analyzed.
RANSAC plane inlier threshold = 0.01 m
Points within 10 mm of the fitted plane count as inliers, as stated in Section III.C.1.
Voxel downsampling resolution = 8 mm
Downsampling before edge extraction affects edge point density and localization.
Angular gap neighbor radius = 0.03 m
Radius used to collect local neighbors in Eq. (1) for edge classification.
Angular gap threshold = 25 degrees
Maximum angular gap above which a point is classified as an edge point in Section III.C.2.
Ellipse semi-major tolerance = 4 cm
Accepted ellipses must have semi-major axis within 4 cm of the known hole radius.
Ellipse eccentricity threshold = "sufficiently low", not quantified
Used to reject non-circular fits, but the exact value is not given.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The calibration board is the dominant plane in the pass-through filtered LiDAR point cloud.
RANSAC selects the plane with the largest number of inliers; if a wall or floor dominates, the board plane is missed.
domain assumption ArUco marker poses from PnP with pre-calibrated camera intrinsics give an accurate board frame, so hole centers in the camera frame are known from the rigid target layout.
Relies on accurate marker detection and rigid board geometry; no uncertainty propagation is reported.
ad hoc to paper The maximum angular gap in local neighborhoods exceeding 25 degrees identifies hole-edge points for any LiDAR scan pattern.
Threshold chosen for this paper; no derivation or sensitivity analysis is provided.
domain assumption Ellipse fitting to the extracted edge clusters recovers the true hole center despite spot-spread dilation.
The dilation compensation claim is asserted in Section III.C.2 but is not derived or ablated.
standard math Kabsch/SVD gives the optimal rigid transform for known 3D-3D correspondences.
Standard closed-form least-squares result used in Eq. (5).
domain assumption Accumulated LiDAR scans merged with odometry motion are geometrically consistent enough to treat as a single static cloud.
Mechanical LiDAR sparse scans require pitch motion while running FAST-LIVO2; odometry drift is ignored.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FAST-Calib: LiDAR-Camera Extrinsic Calibration in One Second." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L66IC7JD

@misc{pith2026250717210,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FAST-Calib: LiDAR-Camera Extrinsic Calibration in One Second},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L66IC7JD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17210}
}

read the original abstract

This paper proposes FAST-Calib, a fast and user-friendly LiDAR-camera extrinsic calibration tool based on a custom-made 3D target. FAST-Calib supports both mechanical and solid-state LiDARs by leveraging an efficient and reliable edge extraction algorithm that is agnostic to LiDAR scan patterns. It also compensates for edge dilation artifacts caused by LiDAR spot spread through ellipse fitting, and supports joint optimization across multiple scenes. We validate FAST-Calib on three LiDAR models (Ouster, Avia, and Mid360), each paired with a wide-angle camera. Experimental results demonstrate superior accuracy and robustness compared to existing methods. With point-to-point registration errors consistently below 6.5mm and total processing time under 0.7s, FAST-Calib provides an efficient, accurate, and target-based automatic calibration pipeline. We have open-sourced our code and dataset on GitHub to benefit the robotics community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17210 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** System overview of FAST-Calib. Edge points are then grouped using Euclidean clustering. To identify circular hole candidates and compensate for edge dilation caused by LiDAR spot spread, we perform ellipse fitting on each cluster of edge points using the general conic form: Ax2 + Bxy + Cy2 + Dx + Ey + F = 0 (3) where (A, B, C, D, E, F) are the parameters to be estimated. We adopt the direct least squares method prop… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** (a) and (b) show the point clouds colored with the extrinsic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Behavioral pedestrian tracking using a camera and lidar sensors on a moving vehicle,

M. Dimitrievski, P. Veelaert, and W. Philips, “Behavioral pedestrian tracking using a camera and lidar sensors on a moving vehicle,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 391, 2019

work page 2019
[2]

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,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 4003–4009

work page 2022
[3]

FAST-LIVO2: Fast, direct lidar-inertial-visual odom- etry,

C. Zhenget al., “FAST-LIVO2: Fast, direct lidar-inertial-visual odom- etry,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Neural Surface Reconstruction and Rendering for LiDAR-Visual Systems

J. Liu, C. Zheng, Y . Wan, B. Wang, Y . Cai, and F. Zhang, “Neural surface reconstruction and rendering for lidar-visual systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05310, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[5]

Gs- sdf: Lidar-augmented gaussian splatting and neural sdf for geo- metrically consistent rendering and reconstruction,

J. Liu, Y . Wan, B. Wang, C. Zheng, J. Lin, and F. Zhang, “Gs- sdf: Lidar-augmented gaussian splatting and neural sdf for geo- metrically consistent rendering and reconstruction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10170, 2025

arXiv 2025
[6]

Gs- livo: Real-time lidar, inertial, and visual multi-sensor fused odometry with gaussian mapping,

S. Hong, C. Zheng, Y . Shen, C. Li, F. Zhang, T. Qin, and S. Shen, “Gs- livo: Real-time lidar, inertial, and visual multi-sensor fused odometry with gaussian mapping,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

2025
[7]

Fusion of 3d lidar and camera data for object detection in autonomous vehicle applications,

X. Zhao, P. Sun, Z. Xu, H. Min, and H. Yu, “Fusion of 3d lidar and camera data for object detection in autonomous vehicle applications,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 4901–4913, 2020

work page 2020
[8]

Deepfusion: Lidar-camera deep fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection,

Y . Li, A. W. Yu, T. Meng, B. Caine, J. Ngiam, D. Peng, J. Shen, Y . Lu, D. Zhou, Q. V . Leet al., “Deepfusion: Lidar-camera deep fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 17 182–17 191

work page 2022

Show all 23 references

[9]

Pixel-level extrinsic self calibration of high resolution lidar and camera in targetless environments,

C. Yuan, X. Liu, X. Hong, and F. Zhang, “Pixel-level extrinsic self calibration of high resolution lidar and camera in targetless environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7517–7524, 2021

2021
[10]

Mfcalib: Single-shot and automatic extrinsic calibration for lidar and camera in targetless environments based on multi-feature edge,

T. Ye, W. Xu, C. Zheng, and Y . Cui, “Mfcalib: Single-shot and automatic extrinsic calibration for lidar and camera in targetless environments based on multi-feature edge,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 864–871

2024
[11]

General, single-shot, target-less, and automatic lidar-camera extrinsic calibration toolbox,

K. Koide, S. Oishi, M. Yokozuka, and A. Banno, “General, single-shot, target-less, and automatic lidar-camera extrinsic calibration toolbox,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 11 301–11 307

2023
[12]

Automatic targetless extrinsic calibration of a 3d lidar and camera by maximizing mutual information,

G. Pandey, J. McBride, S. Savarese, and R. Eustice, “Automatic targetless extrinsic calibration of a 3d lidar and camera by maximizing mutual information,” inProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 26, no. 1, 2012, pp. 2053–2059

2012
[13]

Automatic extrinsic calibration method for lidar and camera sensor setups,

J. Beltr ´an, C. Guindel, A. De La Escalera, and F. Garc ´ıa, “Automatic extrinsic calibration method for lidar and camera sensor setups,”IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 17 677–17 689, 2022

2022
[14]

Joint camera intrinsic and lidar-camera extrinsic calibration,

G. Yan, F. He, C. Shi, P. Wei, X. Cai, and Y . Li, “Joint camera intrinsic and lidar-camera extrinsic calibration,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 11 446–11 452

2023
[15]

Camvox: A low-cost and accurate lidar-assisted visual slam system,

Y . Zhu, C. Zheng, C. Yuan, X. Huang, and X. Hong, “Camvox: A low-cost and accurate lidar-assisted visual slam system,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 5049–5055

2021
[16]

A new technique for fully autonomous and efficient 3 d robotics hand/eye calibration,

R. Y . Tsai, R. K. Lenzet al., “A new technique for fully autonomous and efficient 3 d robotics hand/eye calibration,”IEEE Transactions on robotics and automation, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 345–358, 1989

1989
[17]

Online targetless end-to-end camera-lidar self-calibration,

B. Nagy, L. Kov ´acs, and C. Benedek, “Online targetless end-to-end camera-lidar self-calibration,” in2019 16th International Conference on Machine Vision Applications (MVA). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–6

2019
[18]

A flexible new technique for camera calibration,

Z. Zhang, “A flexible new technique for camera calibration,”IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1330–1334, 2002

2002
[19]

Fast extrinsic calibration of a laser rangefinder to a camera,

R. Unnikrishnan and M. Hebert, “Fast extrinsic calibration of a laser rangefinder to a camera,”Robotics Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, Tech. Rep. CMU-RI-TR-05-09, 2005

2005
[20]

Automatic extrinsic calibration of a camera and a 3d lidar using line and plane correspondences,

L. Zhou, Z. Li, and M. Kaess, “Automatic extrinsic calibration of a camera and a 3d lidar using line and plane correspondences,” in2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 5562–5569

2018
[21]

Acsc: Automatic calibration for non-repetitive scanning solid-state lidar and camera systems,

J. Cui, J. Niu, Z. Ouyang, Y . He, and D. Liu, “Acsc: Automatic calibration for non-repetitive scanning solid-state lidar and camera systems,” 2020

2020
[22]

Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion,

S. Garrido-Jurado, R. Mu ˜noz-Salinas, F. J. Madrid-Cuevas, and M. J. Mar´ın-Jim´enez, “Automatic generation and detection of highly reliable fiducial markers under occlusion,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 2280–2292, 2014

2014
[23]

Direct least squares fitting of ellipses,

A. W. Fitzgibbon, M. Pilu, and R. B. Fisher, “Direct least squares fitting of ellipses,” inProceedings of 13th international conference on pattern recognition, vol. 1. IEEE, 1996, pp. 253–257

1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Behavioral pedestrian tracking using a camera and lidar sensors on a moving vehicle,

M. Dimitrievski, P. Veelaert, and W. Philips, “Behavioral pedestrian tracking using a camera and lidar sensors on a moving vehicle,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 391, 2019

work page 2019

[2] [2]

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,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 4003–4009

work page 2022

[3] [3]

FAST-LIVO2: Fast, direct lidar-inertial-visual odom- etry,

C. Zhenget al., “FAST-LIVO2: Fast, direct lidar-inertial-visual odom- etry,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Neural Surface Reconstruction and Rendering for LiDAR-Visual Systems

J. Liu, C. Zheng, Y . Wan, B. Wang, Y . Cai, and F. Zhang, “Neural surface reconstruction and rendering for lidar-visual systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05310, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Gs- sdf: Lidar-augmented gaussian splatting and neural sdf for geo- metrically consistent rendering and reconstruction,

J. Liu, Y . Wan, B. Wang, C. Zheng, J. Lin, and F. Zhang, “Gs- sdf: Lidar-augmented gaussian splatting and neural sdf for geo- metrically consistent rendering and reconstruction,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10170, 2025

arXiv 2025

[6] [6]

Gs- livo: Real-time lidar, inertial, and visual multi-sensor fused odometry with gaussian mapping,

S. Hong, C. Zheng, Y . Shen, C. Li, F. Zhang, T. Qin, and S. Shen, “Gs- livo: Real-time lidar, inertial, and visual multi-sensor fused odometry with gaussian mapping,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

2025

[7] [7]

Fusion of 3d lidar and camera data for object detection in autonomous vehicle applications,

X. Zhao, P. Sun, Z. Xu, H. Min, and H. Yu, “Fusion of 3d lidar and camera data for object detection in autonomous vehicle applications,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 4901–4913, 2020

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Deepfusion: Lidar-camera deep fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection,

Y . Li, A. W. Yu, T. Meng, B. Caine, J. Ngiam, D. Peng, J. Shen, Y . Lu, D. Zhou, Q. V . Leet al., “Deepfusion: Lidar-camera deep fusion for multi-modal 3d object detection,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2022, pp. 17 182–17 191

work page 2022