Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Transformation & Translation Occupancy Grid Mapping: 2-Dimensional Deep Learning Refined SLAM

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that 2D occupancy-grid SLAM can reach 3D SLAM-level accuracy by combining 3D LiDAR pose estimation with a GAN that cleans and completes the grid map, trained on errors generated by deep reinforcement learning.

desk verdict The TT-OGM pipeline is a genuine engineering step forward, but the paper's central cleaning gain rests on a DRL data generator that is never described, so the headline result is not yet reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19654 v1 pith:M5U7YUSW submitted 2025-04-28 cs.RO cs.AIcs.LG

Leon Davies , Baihua Li , Mohamad Saada , Simon S{o}lvsten , Qinggang Meng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.AIcs.LG
keywords 2DSLAMoccupancygridmappingLiDARodometryGANimage-to-imagetranslationdeepreinforcementlearningdatagenerationposeestimationerrorcorrection
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 sets out to solve a practical problem: 2D occupancy grid maps, though cheap and useful for navigation and floor plans, turn noisy and unreadable in large complex buildings when the robot moves dynamically. TT-OGM answers this by using full 3D LiDAR scans to estimate the robot pose, projecting each scan to a 2D frame so the grid inherits that accurate odometry, and then passing the grid through a GAN that removes artifacts and fills partially mapped regions. The authors report that on a real walk-through, their pipeline with GAN cleanup reached an unoccupied IoU of 0.8277 against a third-party floor plan, versus 0.6110 without the GAN, and that the same cleanup stage improved competing 3D-based pipelines. If correct, the method gives robots a real-time 2D mapping path whose quality is comparable to 3D SLAM, without extra sensors. The paper's load-bearing step is a deep-reinforcement-learning generator that produces synthetic erroneous maps for GAN training, since no real dataset of paired erroneous and clean occupancy grids exists.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Transformation and Translation stage plus a GAN cleanup module. Transformation computes scan-to-scan and scan-to-map transforms with Generalized ICP and a local submap, giving 6-DOF pose estimates from 3D LiDAR without an IMU; Translation converts each 3D scan into 2D azimuth-range bins, so the occupancy grid is built from pose estimates that 3D SLAM would normally produce. The cleanup module is a generator trained to map erroneous grids to pixel-perfect grids, with a query-selected attention mechanism choosing which patches anchor the PatchNCE contrastive loss and a PatchGAN discriminator providing the adversarial signal. The pre-filters and post-filters in the pipeline exist to push grid-cell intensities toward occupied, unoccupied, or unexplored values so the GAN sees and produces the discretized representation it was trained on.

What would settle it

Give the GAN a set of real erroneous occupancy grids whose true clean maps are known, for example by re-running a high-accuracy 3D SLAM with loop closure on the same LiDAR data, and measure whether GAN-cleaned output raises IoU consistently. The central claim is falsified if on diverse large scenes cleaning reduces IoU or introduces walls that are not in the ground truth, especially wherever the input grid lies outside the synthetic error distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an occupancy grid map can be decomposed into a geometry problem and a cleanup problem, and that solving each with a separate tool yields maps of 3D-SLAM quality. The geometry problem is handled by Transformation and Translation: consecutive 360-degree LiDAR point clouds are matched with GICP scan-to-scan and scan-to-map registration to recover 6-DOF egomotion, and each cloud is binned by azimuth and range into a 2D frame that matches the estimated pose. The cleanup problem is handled by an image-to-image GAN whose generator is a ResNet-style network trained with a PatchNCE contrastive loss and a PatchGAN discriminator, using unpaired erroneous and clean occupancy grids. The authors claim that on their real-world building walk-through, TT-OGM with the GAN achieved unoccupied IoU 0.8277 versus 0.6110 without it, and that the GAN also completes partial observations and removes sensor noise while realigning linear and angular offsets.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on whether the synthetic map errors used to train the cleaning network resemble errors a real LiDAR SLAM pipeline makes; if they do not, the network can remove correct map cells or invent structure, and the claimed accuracy gain disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot with only a 3D LiDAR can produce a clean 2D occupancy grid in real time in a large, dynamically navigated building, because the pose estimate comes from 3D scan matching rather than steady 2D odometry.
  • Other 3D LiDAR SLAM systems, not just TT-OGM, gain accuracy when their outputs are converted to 2D grids and passed through the same GAN cleanup; the paper reports higher unoccupied IoU for both F-LOAM and HDL after cleaning.
  • Occupancy grids become usable for distance-accurate tasks such as floor-plan creation, not just exploration and path planning, since the GAN can complete partial map regions and remove artifacts without human repair.
  • The DRL-based data generator supplies enough unpaired erroneous and clean occupancy grids to make deep-learning OGM cleanup feasible, which removes the main obstacle the paper identifies for applying learned cleanup to 2D SLAM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors' own numbers show the GAN is not universally safe: occupied IoU fell for F-LOAM and Gmapping after cleaning, so a production system should probabilistically gate cleanup on whether the input grid resembles the GAN's training distribution.
  • A direct test of the DRL generator's realism would be to measure the distribution distance between synthetic erroneous grids and real SLAM artifacts; if the distributions diverge, the same GAN architecture trained on real paired maps from loop-closure-corrected trajectories could be a drop-in replacement.
  • The same Transformation and Translation trick could be applied in reverse: a 2D occupancy grid and its pose graph could be lifted to a sparse 3D representation to exploit 3D loop-closure optimization, then projected back down, potentially improving 2D SLAM without any learned components.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TT-OGM, a 2D occupancy grid mapping system that applies 3D LiDAR pose estimation (GICP) to consecutive point clouds, projects the data to 2D, constructs an OGM, and then passes the map through a GAN-based cleaning and error-correction module. The GAN is trained on 75,000 paired erroneous/clean OGMs generated by a claimed DRL data generator. The authors evaluate the system on a single real-world dataset (Haslegrave) using IoU against a floor plan, provide qualitative results on the Radish dataset, and report real-time performance on an embedded Jetson platform.

Significance. The core idea of adapting 3D LiDAR-odometry pose estimation to produce 2D occupancy grids is plausible, and the paper includes useful components such as the GICP-based transformation stage, the projection pseudocode, and a comparison against multiple SLAM baselines. The real-time performance measurements on an embedded device are also a positive element. However, the central quantitative claim depends on an undocumented DRL data generator and on a single evaluation with no statistical rigor. As presented, the paper does not establish that the GAN's synthetic error distribution matches real SLAM errors, nor that the reported IoU improvements are robust, so the claimed advances cannot currently be verified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.5, Figure 8] The DRL data generator, listed as a novel contribution in Section 1 and referenced in Section 3.5 and Figure 8, is never described anywhere in the manuscript. There is no algorithm, state/action space, reward function, training procedure, or validation of the generated erroneous OGMs. Because the GAN's cleaning ability is the source of the claimed quality improvement, this missing description is load-bearing; the reader cannot assess whether the synthetic error distribution is representative of real LiDAR SLAM errors.
  2. [§3.4] The thresholds T1, T2, T3, T'1, and T'2 are described as 'learnable parameters, optimised by the performance of our GAN model', but no optimization method, objective, or data split is reported. If these thresholds are tuned on the same data used to produce the results in Table 1, the reported IoU improvements are potentially circular. The authors must specify how these parameters are learned and ensure they are selected on a validation set that is not used for the final evaluation.
  3. [Table 1] The main quantitative claim, that TT-OGM with the GAN reaches unoccupied IoU 0.8277 versus 0.6110, is based on a single dataset and a single run, with no error bars or significance testing. The same table shows that GAN cleaning decreases occupied IoU for F-LOAM (0.0382 to 0.0192) and Gmapping (0.0281 to 0.0247), indicating that the benefit is not consistent across methods. Multiple runs and per-method error bars are needed before claiming superiority.
  4. [§4.3, Table 4] The Radish dataset experiments are presented without any quantitative ground truth; the text invites readers to 'make their own judgements' from the images. This does not support the abstract's claim of generalisability. A quantitative metric, such as IoU against a reference map or a structured user study, is needed to substantiate the claimed generalization.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'far surpassing the capabilities of current SLAM algorithms' is too strong given the single-dataset evaluation and the inconsistent GAN improvements in Table 1; please soften the claim.
  2. [§3.2.2, Algorithm 1] Lines 10-14 of Algorithm 1 contain dead code: atan2(y, x) returns values in [-π, π], so the checks for θ > π and θ < -π are never true.
  3. [§3.4] In the paragraph after the threshold definitions, the phrase 'low intensity, Mi j = T3' appears to be a typo for 'Ii j = T3'; the intensity, not the map value, is being compared.
  4. [§4.1] 'too-scale floor plan' should be 'to-scale floor plan'.
  5. [§4.0.1] The training description does not state how the 75,000 samples are split into training, validation, and test sets; this split is important for interpreting the reported IoU values.
  6. [References] Reference [26] is incomplete; it appears to be a placeholder citation instead of a proper citation for the Radish dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central TT-OGM result is evaluated against an external floor plan and the GAN is trained on synthetic data, not on the test metric.

full rationale

The paper's main quantitative claim—TT-OGM with GAN achieving unoccupied IoU 0.8277 versus 0.6110 baseline—is compared against a ground-truth floor plan created by an unaffiliated third party, which provides independent grounding. The GAN is trained on 75,000 synthetic erroneous/clean OGM pairs generated by a DRL process, and the reported IoU is computed on a separate real-world dataset (Haslegrave), so the training objective and the evaluation metric are not the same. The preprocessing thresholds are described as 'learnable parameters, optimised by the performance of our GAN model,' but both the baseline and GAN maps pass through the same input filtration, and the improvement is attributed to the GAN rather than to the thresholds. No self-citation chain is load-bearing; the cited prior works (GICP, DLO, CUT, QSA, PatchGAN) are external and do not supply the paper's conclusions. The DRL generator is referenced but never specified, and Section 4.3 admits there is no ground truth for the Radish qualitative results; these are correctness and external-validity limitations, not circularity. Overall, no prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction, so the paper is not significantly circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows the map quality claim rests on hand-tuned filter thresholds and an undescribed synthetic data generator, plus a projection assumption that ignores height information. The claimed DRL generator is the largest unaccounted-for dependency.

free parameters (6)
  • T1 (input high-intensity threshold) = 0.12
    Called a learnable parameter, 'optimised by the performance of our GAN model' (Section 3.4).
  • T2 (lower bound of intensity occupation) = 0.93
    Input filter threshold, treated as learnable and optimized by GAN performance (Section 3.4).
  • T3 (upper bound of intensity occupation) = 0.96
    Input filter threshold, treated as learnable and optimized by GAN performance (Section 3.4).
  • T'1 (output high-intensity threshold) = 0.21
    Output filter threshold, treated as learnable (Section 3.4).
  • T'2 (output lower bound of intensity occupation) = 0.86
    Output filter threshold, treated as learnable (Section 3.4).
  • Voxel grid and box filter dimensions = 0.25 m voxel, 1 m box radius
    Hand-set preprocessing parameters in the Transformation stage (Section 3.2.1); not justified.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption All points in a 3D LiDAR scan project to valid occupied cells in 2D using only x,y and intensity, i.e., vertical structure assumption.
    The Translation stage (Algorithm 1) drops z and uses only x,y; no height filtering, so ceiling and floor returns could create false occupancy in the map.
  • domain assumption GICP scan-to-scan registration between adjacent scans provides accurate enough 6-DoF odometry when applied in the 2D context.
    The Transformation stage (Section 3.2.1) relies on GICP and an adapted Direct LiDAR Odometry pipeline without IMU; no standalone pose accuracy evaluation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The DRL-generated erroneous OGMs match real-world SLAM error distributions.
    Training of the GAN depends entirely on this, but the DRL process is not described in Section 3.5 or elsewhere.
  • domain assumption The ground truth floor plan is a fair reference for IoU comparison.
    Section 4.1 uses an unaffiliated floor plan, cardinally aligned; the authors note occupied IoU is low for all methods because floor plans omit many occupied features.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transformation & Translation Occupancy Grid Mapping: 2-Dimensional Deep Learning Refined SLAM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M5U7YUSW

@misc{pith2026250419654,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transformation & Translation Occupancy Grid Mapping: 2-Dimensional Deep Learning Refined SLAM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M5U7YUSW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19654}
}
read the original abstract

SLAM (Simultaneous Localisation and Mapping) is a crucial component for robotic systems, providing a map of an environment, the current location and previous trajectory of a robot. While 3D LiDAR SLAM has received notable improvements in recent years, 2D SLAM lags behind. Gradual drifts in odometry and pose estimation inaccuracies hinder modern 2D LiDAR-odometry algorithms in large complex environments. Dynamic robotic motion coupled with inherent estimation based SLAM processes introduce noise and errors, degrading map quality. Occupancy Grid Mapping (OGM) produces results that are often noisy and unclear. This is due to the fact that evidence based mapping represents maps according to uncertain observations. This is why OGMs are so popular in exploration or navigation tasks. However, this also limits OGMs' effectiveness for specific mapping based tasks such as floor plan creation in complex scenes. To address this, we propose our novel Transformation and Translation Occupancy Grid Mapping (TT-OGM). We adapt and enable accurate and robust pose estimation techniques from 3D SLAM to the world of 2D and mitigate errors to improve map quality using Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). We introduce a novel data generation method via deep reinforcement learning (DRL) to build datasets large enough for training a GAN for SLAM error correction. We demonstrate our SLAM in real-time on data collected at Loughborough University. We also prove its generalisability on a variety of large complex environments on a collection of large scale well-known 2D occupancy maps. Our novel approach enables the creation of high quality OGMs in complex scenes, far surpassing the capabilities of current SLAM algorithms in terms of quality, accuracy and reliability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19654 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Transformation & Translation Occupancy Grid Mapping - system overview. Accurate and noise free 2D SLAM from the singular input of consecutive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. TT-OGM system diagram: Producing a high quality and accurate occupancy grid map in real-time. Main stages: 1) Input of consecutive LiDAR point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results of box filter and voxel grid filtering incoming point clouds. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 3D LiDAR point cloud and translated 2D representation overlapped. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Diagram of filtering operation based on occupancy intensity. The filtered OGMe, from which low intensity cells are re￾moved and high intensity cells rounded up, undergoes an addi￾tional refinement process of floating point removal. In this process, pixels that have two…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results of filtering a occupancy grid map. (a) Unfiltered OGM. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A demonstration of the necessity of output filtering GAN model pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Training procedure for 2D occupancy grid cleaning through a GAN. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ground Truth Image of the Haslegrave SLAM Map used for IoU [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Loam: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time

    J. Zhang and S. Singh, “Loam: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time.” in Robotics: Science and systems, vol. 2, no. 9. Berkeley, CA, 2014, pp. 1–9

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Lego-loam: Lightweight and ground-optimized lidar odometry and mapping on variable terrain,

    T. Shan and B. Englot, “Lego-loam: Lightweight and ground-optimized lidar odometry and mapping on variable terrain,” in 2018 IEEE /RSJ In- ternational Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2018, pp. 4758–4765

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Direct lidar odometry: Fast localisation with dense point clouds,

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

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Macenski, S., Jambrecic I., “SLAM Toolbox: SLAM for the dynamic world“, Journal of Open Source Software, 6(61), 2783, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    “A flexible and scalable SLAM system with full 3D motion esti- mation.“ In 2011 IEEE international symposium on safety, security, and rescue robotics, pp

    Kohlbrecher, Stefan, Oskar V on Stryk, Johannes Meyer, and Uwe Klin- gauf. “A flexible and scalable SLAM system with full 3D motion esti- mation.“ In 2011 IEEE international symposium on safety, security, and rescue robotics, pp. 155-160. IEEE, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    A survey on lidar scanning mechanisms,

    T. Raj, F. Hanim Hashim, A. Baseri Huddin, M. F. Ibrahim, and A. Hus- sain, “A survey on lidar scanning mechanisms,” Electronics, vol. 9, no. 5, p. 741, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    “Convergence and consis- tency analysis for extended Kalman filter based SLAM.“ IEEE Transac- tions on robotics 23, no

    Huang, Shoudong, and Gamini Dissanayake. “Convergence and consis- tency analysis for extended Kalman filter based SLAM.“ IEEE Transac- tions on robotics 23, no. 5 (2007): 1036-1049

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Monte carlo localisation for mobile robots,

    F. Dellaert, D. Fox, W. Burgard, and S. Thrun, “Monte carlo localisation for mobile robots,” in Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, 1999, pp. 1322–1328 vol.2

    1999

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Improved techniques for grid mapping with rao-blackwellized particle filters,

    G. Grisetti, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “Improved techniques for grid mapping with rao-blackwellized particle filters,” IEEE transactions on Robotics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 34–46, 2007

    2007

  2. [10]

    “FastSLAM: A factored solution to the simultaneous localization and mapping problem.“ Aaai/iaai 593598 (2002)

    Montemerlo, Michael, Sebastian Thrun, Daphne Koller, and Ben Weg- breit. “FastSLAM: A factored solution to the simultaneous localization and mapping problem.“ Aaai/iaai 593598 (2002). 10 Table 3: Results of various SLAM algorithms on the Haslegrave Dataset. Gmapping RTAB (ICP)...

    2002

  3. [11]

    Bun- dle adjustment—a modern synthesis,

    B. Triggs, P. F. McLauchlan, R. I. Hartley, and A. W. Fitzgibbon, “Bun- dle adjustment—a modern synthesis,” in Vision Algorithms: Theory and Practice: International Workshop on Vision Algorithms Corfu, Greece, September 21–22, 1999 Proceedings. Springer, 2000, pp. 298–372

    1999

  4. [12]

    W. Hess, D. Kohler, H. Rapp and D. Andor, “Real-time loop clo- sure in 2D LIDAR SLAM,“ 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Stockholm, Sweden,pp. 1271-1278, doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487258, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    “The graph SLAM algorithm with applications to large-scale mapping of urban structures.“ The Inter- national Journal of Robotics Research 25, no

    Thrun, Sebastian, and Michael Montemerlo. “The graph SLAM algorithm with applications to large-scale mapping of urban structures.“ The Inter- national Journal of Robotics Research 25, no. 5-6 (2006): 403-429

    2006

  6. [14]

    Alberto Elfes, ”Occupancy grids: A probabilistic framework for robot perception and navigation” Carnegie Mellon University, 1989

    1989

  7. [15]

    IEEE, 1985

    Hans Moravec and Alberto Elfes, ”High resolution maps from wide an- gle sonar”, In Proceedings of 1985 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, volume 2, pages 116–121. IEEE, 1985

    1985

  8. [16]

    Moravec, ”Sensor fusion in certainty grids for mobile robots

    Hans P. Moravec, ”Sensor fusion in certainty grids for mobile robots. In Sensor Devices and Systems for Robotics”, pages 253–276. Springer, 1989

    1989

  9. [17]

    Mokssit, D

    S. Mokssit, D. B. Licea, B. Guermah and M. Ghogho, “Deep Learning Techniques for Visual SLAM: A Survey,“ in IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 20026-20050, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    “Deep learning for visual SLAM: the state-of- the-art and future trends.“ Electronics 12, no

    Favorskaya, Margarita N. “Deep learning for visual SLAM: the state-of- the-art and future trends.“ Electronics 12, no. 9 (2023): 2006

    2023

  11. [19]

    “Role of deep learning in loop closure detection for visual and lidar slam: A survey.“ Sensors 21, no

    Arshad, Saba, and Gon-Woo Kim. “Role of deep learning in loop closure detection for visual and lidar slam: A survey.“ Sensors 21, no. 4 (2021): 1243

    2021

  12. [20]

    Jun-Yan Zhu*, Taesung Park*, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A. Efros. “Un- paired Image-to-Image Translation using Cycle-Consistent Adversar- ial Networks“, in IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Contrastive learning for unpaired image-to-image translation,

    T. Park, A. A. Efros, R. Zhang, and J.-Y . Zhu, “Contrastive learning for unpaired image-to-image translation,” in European Conference on Com- puter Vision, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Qs-attn: Query- selected attention for contrastive learning in i2i translation,

    X. Hu, X. Zhou, Q. Huang, Z. Shi, L. Sun, and Q. Li, “Qs-attn: Query- selected attention for contrastive learning in i2i translation,” in Pro- ceedings of the IEEE /CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 18 291–18 300, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network,

    C. Ledig, L. Theis, F. Huszar, J. Caballero, A. Cunningham, A. Acosta, A. Aitken, A. Tejani, J. Totz, Z. Wang et al., “Photo-realistic single image super-resolution using a generative adversarial network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern re...

    2017

  16. [24]

    Correction by projection: Denoising images with generative adversarial networks,

    S. Tripathi, Z. C. Lipton, and T. Q. Nguyen, “Correction by projection: Denoising images with generative adversarial networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.04477, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Nwankwo, L., Rueckert, E. (2023). Understanding Why SLAM Algo- rithms Fail in Modern Indoor Environments. In: Petri ˇc, T., Ude, A., ˇZlajpah, L. (eds) Advances in Service and Industrial Robotics. RAAD

    2023

  18. [26]

    Mit libraries

    G. Grisetti, C. Stachniss, N. Roy, A. Howard, and D. Fox, “Mit libraries.” [Online]. Available: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/62236

  19. [27]

    “Real- time loop closure in 2D LIDAR SLAM.“ In 2016 IEEE international con- ference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp

    Hess, Wolfgang, Damon Kohler, Holger Rapp, and Daniel Andor. “Real- time loop closure in 2D LIDAR SLAM.“ In 2016 IEEE international con- ference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp. 1271-1278. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Efficient Sparse Pose Adjustment for 2D mapping[J]

    Kurt Konoli, Giorgio Grisetti, Rainer Kummerle, Benson Limketkai, Regis Vincent. Efficient Sparse Pose Adjustment for 2D mapping[J]. 2010 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, December 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Mur-Artal, Raul, Jose Maria Martinez Montiel, and Juan D. Tardos. “ORB-SLAM: a versatile and accurate monocular SLAM system.“ IEEE transactions on robotics 31, no. 5 (2015): 1147-1163

    2015

  22. [30]

    Method for registration of 3-d shapes,

    P. J. Besl and N. D. McKay, “Method for registration of 3-d shapes,”in Sensor fusion IV: control paradigms and data structures, vol. 1611. Spie, 1992, pp. 586–606

    1992

  23. [31]

    Segal, D

    A. Segal, D. Haehnel, and S. Thrun, Generalized-icp.” in Robotics: Sci- ence and Systems (RSS), 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    Generative adversarial net- works,

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “Generative adversarial net- works,”Communications of the ACM, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 139–144, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    “F-loam: Fast lidar odometry and mapping.“ In 2021 IEEE /RSJ International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp

    Wang, Han, Chen Wang, Chun-Lin Chen, and Lihua Xie. “F-loam: Fast lidar odometry and mapping.“ In 2021 IEEE /RSJ International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4390-4396. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    A portable three-dimensional lidar-based system for long-term and wide-area people behavior measure- ment,

    K. Koide, J. Miura, and E. Menegatti, “A portable three-dimensional lidar-based system for long-term and wide-area people behavior measure- ment,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 16, 02 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Super- glue:Learning feature matching with graph neural networks,

    P.-E. Sarlin, D. DeTone, T. Malisiewicz, and A. Rabinovich, “Super- glue:Learning feature matching with graph neural networks,” in Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recog- nition, pp. 4938–4947, 2020. 11 Table 4: Predictions made on sample...

    2020

  28. [36]

    D-lc-nets: Robust denoising and loop closing networks for lidar slam in complicated cir- cumstances with noisy point clouds,

    K. Liu, A. Xiao, J. Huang, K. Cui, Y . Xing, and S. Lu, “D-lc-nets: Robust denoising and loop closing networks for lidar slam in complicated cir- cumstances with noisy point clouds,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 12...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Lpd-net: 3d point cloud learning for large-scale place recognition and environment analysis,

    Z. Liu, S. Zhou, C. Suo, P. Yin, W. Chen, H. Wang, H. Li, and Y .-H. Liu, “Lpd-net: 3d point cloud learning for large-scale place recognition and environment analysis,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 2831–2840

    2019

  30. [38]

    Overlapnet: Loop closing for lidar-based slam,

    X. Chen, T. Labe, A. Milioto, T. Rohling, O. Vysotska, A. Haag, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Overlapnet: Loop closing for lidar-based slam,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.11344, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Map completion from partial observation using the global structure of multiple environmental maps

    Katsumata, Y ., Kanechika, A., Taniguchi, A., El Hafi, L., Hagiwara, Y ., & Taniguchi, T. “Map completion from partial observation using the global structure of multiple environmental maps”. Advanced Robotics, 36(5-6), 279-290, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Online global loop closure detection for large- scale multi-session graph-based slam,

    M. Labbe and F. Michaud, “Online global loop closure detection for large- scale multi-session graph-based slam,” in 2014 IEEE /RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2014, pp. 2661–2666

    2014

  33. [41]

    Perceptual losses for real-time style transfer and super-resolution,

    J. Johnson, A. Alahi, and L. Fei-Fei, “Perceptual losses for real-time style transfer and super-resolution,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11- 14, 2016, Proceedings, Part II 14. Springer, 2016, pp. 694–711

    2016

  34. [42]

    Style transfer by relaxed optimal transport and self-similarity,

    N. Kolkin, J. Salavon, and G. Shakhnarovich, “Style transfer by relaxed optimal transport and self-similarity,” in Proceedings of the IEEE /CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019, pp.10 051–10 060

    2019

  35. [43]

    “Fr ´echet inception distance (fid) for evaluating gans.“ China University of Mining Technology Beijing Graduate School (2021)

    Yu, Yu, Weibin Zhang, and Yun Deng. “Fr ´echet inception distance (fid) for evaluating gans.“ China University of Mining Technology Beijing Graduate School (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Houseexpo: A large-scale 2d indoor layout dataset for learning-based algorithms on mobile robots,

    L. Tingguang, H. Danny, L. Chenming, Z. Delong, W. Chaoqun, and M. Q.-H. Meng, “Houseexpo: A large-scale 2d indoor layout dataset for learning-based algorithms on mobile robots,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.09845, 2019

    1903 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Semantic scene completion from a single depth image,

    S. Song, F. Yu, A. Zeng, A. X. Chang, M. Savva, and T. Funkhouser, “Semantic scene completion from a single depth image,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 1746–1754. 12

    2017

  38. [2023]

    Springer, Cham

    Mechanisms and Machine Science, vol 135. Springer, Cham

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.