Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

OPAL: Visibility-aware LiDAR-to-OpenStreetMap Place Recognition via Adaptive Radial Fusion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 OPAL shows a single semantic LiDAR scan can be matched to an OpenStreetMap tile for meter-level localization, with a 15.98-point recall gain and 12x faster inference on KITTI 07.

desk verdict OPAL's visibility mask plus adaptive radial fusion is a genuine step for LiDAR-to-OSM place recognition, but the headline '12x faster' only counts descriptor generation, not the mandatory semantic-segmentation pass. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19258 v3 pith:RSPKITVK submitted 2025-04-27 cs.CV cs.RO

Shuhao Kang , Martin Y. Liao , Yan Xia , Olaf Wysocki , Boris Jutzi , Daniel Cremers This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords placerecognitionLiDARlocalizationOpenStreetMapcross-modalmatchingvisibilitymaskadaptiveradialfusionpointcloudsemanticsegmentation
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

OPAL tries to make OpenStreetMap (OSM) the reference database for LiDAR place recognition: a single semantic LiDAR scan is matched against small, geo-referenced map tiles to recover where the vehicle is, with no dense 3D map or aerial image needed. The paper argues that the obstacle is not the map's sparseness but the cross-modal mismatch in what each sensor 'sees,' so it supplies a deterministic visibility mask that keeps only cells mutually observable by both modalities, and an adaptive radial fusion module that learns to weight rings of polar BEV features when building the global descriptor. Trained only on KITTI, OPAL reports top-1 recalls of 21.82% and 45.41% at the 1 m threshold on KITTI sequences 00 and 07, beating the building-distance baseline by 4.73 and 15.98 percentage points, and a total descriptor time of 7.05 ms per query (roughly 12x faster than that baseline). If the claims hold, a vehicle can localize against a constantly updated, worldwide map in a few milliseconds, with accuracy largely set by the quality of the semantic segmentation of the scan.

What carries the argument

Two components carry the argument. The cross-modal visibility mask is a binary polar grid per modality: for LiDAR, cells are visible if their radius lies within the last measured return in the sector; for OSM, cells are visible unless they lie behind the nearest building polygon in the sector. This mask is concatenated to the semantic polar feature map and forces the encoders to align only mutually observable regions. The adaptive radial fusion (ARF) module is the aggregation head: it first computes angular average pooling (mean over sectors plus a cosine ring-position encoding), then lets a small set of trainable radial proposals refine these ring features through self-attention among proposals and cross-attention between proposals and ring features, with a residual connection; the output is flattened and projected to the global descriptor. ARF preserves the LiDAR's native ring structure and gives yaw-rotation robustness by averaging over the angular axis, while the learned proposals let the descriptor emphasize rings that carry distinctive structure.

What would settle it

A decisive test: take an unseen city sequence, run OPAL with its KITTI-trained segmenter, then rerun it after corrupting or degrading the predicted semantic labels (or after replacing the segmenter with one not trained on KITTI), keeping the OSM tiles fixed. If, under realistic label degradation, OPAL's $R@1$ at the 1 m threshold falls to or below the Building2 baseline's level, the reported superiority would be an artifact of label quality rather than of the visibility mask and radial fusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the viewpoint gap between a LiDAR scan and an OSM tile can be closed by explicit, deterministic visibility reasoning plus radial attention, rather than by learning occlusion from data. In OPAL, the point cloud is projected onto a polar BEV grid of 480 rings by 360 sectors; LiDAR visibility is read directly from the last range return in each sector, while OSM visibility is approximated by ray-casting behind the nearest building footprint in each sector. The two visibility-aware polar feature maps are encoded with separate PolarNet branches and aggregated by the adaptive radial fusion module, which uses angular average pooling and trainable radial queries with self- and cross-attention. On KITTI, this yields the reported $R@1$ improvement over Building2 and 7.05 ms inference, and on KITTI-360, where nothing is fine-tuned, OPAL still improves $R@5$ over Building2 on sequences 05, 06, and 09 by 14.55, 23.56, and 19.04 percentage points.

Load-bearing premise

The framework stands or falls on the assumption that semantic labels produced by the single off-the-shelf segmenter, trained only on KITTI, stay accurate on new scans in other cities, because both the visibility mask and the feature encoder consume those labels; the paper's own ablation shows recall at 10 m dropping from 66.40 with Cylinder3D labels to 60.30 with a weaker segmenter and rising to 74.68 with ground-truth labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • OSM alone is enough as a reference: each 100 m x 100 m tile costs about 186 KiB, versus tens of MiB for an aerial BEV image or gigabytes for a raw LiDAR map, so city-scale localization becomes cheap to store and update.
  • Descriptor extraction at 7.05 ms (over 140 FPS on an RTX 4090) makes single-scan localization usable in real-time pipelines, including as an initialization for SLAM.
  • Because angular average pooling plus radial attention is yaw-insensitive, random z-axis rotations of the query scan do not degrade recall, removing the need for an orientation prior at query time.
  • The zero-shot results on KITTI-360 indicate the model transfers across routes and sensors without fine-tuning, so updating the OSM reference does not require retraining.
  • Accuracy is governed by semantic label quality: switching from Rangenet++ to Cylinder3D labels or to ground-truth labels moves $R@10$ from 60.30 to 66.40 to 74.68, so better segmentation translates directly into better place recognition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves untested whether the visibility mask can be extended beyond buildings as occluders; in tree-lined or open areas, vegetation or terrain could serve the same role, and a learned or multi-class occlusion model would be a natural next experiment.
  • Because ARF is a generic radial aggregation mechanism, it could transfer to other radially parameterized cross-modal tasks (LiDAR-to-radar, radar-to-map, or LiDAR-to-semantic grid) where rotation invariance and radial structure matter.
  • The storage advantage of OSM could enable a continuously updated global localization service: weekly OSM snapshots mean a deployed vehicle could localize against a map that reflects new roads and buildings without re-mapping, something the paper motivates but does not demonstrate.
  • The paper's stated plan to add sequential frames or text/orientation priors suggests an upper bound: on KITTI 00, the 66.40% $R@10$ with predicted labels leaves room that temporal consistency could fill, but this is extrapolation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes OPAL, a single-frame LiDAR place recognition method that retrieves the location of a query scan from a database of OpenStreetMap tiles. The method projects both the semantic LiDAR point cloud and the OSM tile into a polar BEV representation, computes a deterministic cross-modal visibility mask, extracts features with a Siamese PolarNet encoder, and aggregates them via an adaptive radial fusion (ARF) module based on learnable radial proposals. The model is trained with circle loss on KITTI sequences 01/02/04/05/06/08 and evaluated on KITTI 00/07 plus zero-shot on KITTI-360. Results show improved recall over the baselines on KITTI 00/07 and on three of four KITTI-360 sequences, with a reported 7.05 ms descriptor generation time claimed as roughly 12x faster than the Building2 baseline. The paper includes ablations of the visibility mask, the aggregation module, semantic label quality, and robustness to rotation and noise.

Significance. The work addresses an important practical problem: localizing a single LiDAR scan without a dense prior map, using widely available, lightweight OSM data. The deterministic visibility mask is a clean idea that avoids learned occlusion estimation, and the ARF module is a sensible adaptation of learnable-query attention to the polar radial structure of LiDAR. The code release and detailed experiment setup support reproducibility. If the efficiency claims were fully measured, the system would be a useful contribution to real-time cross-modal localization. The accuracy gains on KITTI appear consistent across sequences and the zero-shot KITTI-360 results are mixed but honestly disclosed in the text.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 3; Abstract; Appendix B.1] The reported runtime and the abstract's '12x faster inference' claim exclude the mandatory Cylinder3D semantic segmentation pass. Section 3 states that the query point cloud is first enhanced with per-point semantic labels, and Appendix B.1 specifies that Cylinder3D pretrained on KITTI is used to predict those labels for every query. Table 3 is titled 'Descriptor generation runtime' and the point-cloud entry of 1.91 ms measures only the OPAL network after the semantic point cloud has been produced, so the 7.05 ms total is not an end-to-end query-processing time. The baselines SC and Building are described in Section 4.1 as operating on building points extracted from the raw scan, making the comparison not apples-to-apples unless the same semantic-segmentation cost is added to OPAL. The paper should report the complete per-query runtime including Cylinder3D (or an equivalent segmentation network), clearly separate offline OSM-tile preprocessing from online query processing, and revise the abstract's speed claim accordingly.
  2. [Abstract; Table 1; Table 2] The headline '15.98% higher recall at 1m threshold' is taken solely from KITTI sequence 07, where OPAL achieves 45.41 vs. Building2's 29.43 R@1. On KITTI sequence 00 the improvement is 4.73% (21.82 vs. 17.09), and on KITTI-360 sequence 00 OPAL is slightly worse than Building2 (14.92 vs. 17.12 R@1). The abstract should qualify the recall gain as sequence-specific and acknowledge that zero-shot performance is mixed, rather than presenting the single best sequence as a general statement of superiority.
  3. [Section 4.2, Tables 1 and 2] No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed experiments are reported for any of the learning-based methods. Since OPAL and C2L-PR are trained with stochastic optimization, the observed differences (e.g., the 4.73% gain on KITTI 00 and the 2.20% loss on KITTI-360 00) could be within run-to-run variance. Please report the mean and standard deviation over at least three training runs for the main tables, or otherwise justify that the differences are statistically meaningful.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1(a), Section 1] The caption of Figure 1(a) contains placeholder-like text 'Building?' that is not defined; please replace it with the actual element shown in the OSM tile.
  2. [Equation (6), Section 3.3] The self-attention formula Q' = softmax(Q Q^T / sqrt(C)) Q uses the same Q as query, key, and value, which is a non-standard self-attention variant; a short sentence explaining the design choice would improve readability.
  3. [Section 6 and Conclusion] The Conclusion states that OPAL 'consistently outperforms' state-of-the-art baselines, which is contradicted by the KITTI-360 sequence 00 result in Table 2; the wording should be softened to acknowledge the mixed zero-shot performance that is correctly disclosed in Section 4.2.
  4. [Table 3, Section 4.2] The table reports 7.05 ms for OPAL but does not list the runtime of Cylinder3D or clarify whether the OSM-tile time is incurred online or offline; adding a column or footnote for preprocessing/segmentation costs would make the efficiency comparison transparent.
  5. [Appendix D, Table 9] The paragraph on computational overhead states that OPAL runs in 7.05 ms with 88.18 M parameters and 30.59 G FLOPs 'for the whole process', but this appears to exclude the semantic-segmentation stage; please align the wording with the measured scope.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: OPAL's accuracy claims are trained and tested on disjoint splits, and the runtime caveat is a scope issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

OPAL's central derivation is not circular. The descriptors are learned end-to-end with circle loss on KITTI training sequences (01, 02, 04, 05, 06, 08) and evaluated on held-out KITTI 00/07 and zero-shot KITTI-360; no evaluation quantity is used in the loss or in the deterministic visibility masks (Eqs. 2 and 4). The adaptive radial fusion module (Eqs. 5-8) is a trained aggregation mechanism, and the ablation variants are trained from scratch rather than hand-fitted to test numbers. The reported accuracy gains are against baselines that are either externally defined or re-implemented independently, not against quantities produced by OPAL itself. The paper's own limitation section explicitly acknowledges the dependence on semantic-label quality, and Table 5 quantifies this with an external segmenter and ground-truth labels, so this is a stated scope condition rather than a hidden fit. The only notable scope issue is the runtime claim: Table 3 is explicitly titled 'Descriptor generation runtime', while Appendix B.1 shows that Cylinder3D semantic segmentation is a required preprocessing step whose cost is not included; this makes the 12x speed comparison incomplete, but it is an accounting/scope problem, not a circular reduction. Similarly, selecting the best variant using KITTI sequence 00 in the ablation study is a test-set selection concern, not a construction-level circularity. No load-bearing step reduces by definition to its inputs, and no self-citation is used to justify a central premise, so the paper receives a non-circular verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method is a learned neural network, so its free parameters are dominated by trained weights. The listed items are the hand-chosen hyperparameters and modeling assumptions that the reported accuracy depends on but that are not themselves derived from data. No new physical or geometric entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • polar grid size (ring count U, sector count V) = 480 rings, 360 sectors
    Selected in Section B.3 for the polar BEV grid; affects all feature maps and the ray-casting mask, but no sensitivity study is reported.
  • point cloud range filter = 3 m to 50 m
    Used to filter points before projection (Section B.3); defines L, the maximum range for radial rings and visibility masks.
  • OSM tile size and resolution = 100 m x 100 m, 0.5 m per pixel
    Rasterization parameters from Section B.1/B.3, following OrienterNet and Cho et al.; not ablated.
  • circle loss margins and scale = Delta_pos=0.2, Delta_neg=1.8, gamma=10
    Hyperparameters of Eq. (10) in Section B.3; standard values, but they directly shape the learned descriptor space.
  • global descriptor dimension = 2048
    Set in Appendix D; experiments compare against C2L-PR at 2048-D, but no sweep over descriptor size is shown.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Buildings in OSM are the primary occluders for sensor visibility in the evaluated urban and suburban scenes.
    Used in Eq. (4) to build the OSM visibility mask from building elements only; the paper does not validate this proxy against measured LiDAR occlusion patterns.
  • domain assumption Semantic labels from Cylinder3D pretrained on KITTI transfer to KITTI-360 in a zero-shot setting.
    Section B.1 generates all query labels this way; Table 5 shows R@10 varies from 60.30 to 74.68 with different label sources, so the transfer quality is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption The 3-channel rasterization of OpenStreetMap areas, ways, and nodes preserves information sufficient for place recognition.
    Follows OrienterNet (Section 3 and Appendix B.1); no alternative map encodings are compared.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of OPAL: Visibility-aware LiDAR-to-OpenStreetMap Place Recognition via Adaptive Radial Fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RSPKITVK

@misc{pith2026250419258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: OPAL: Visibility-aware LiDAR-to-OpenStreetMap Place Recognition via Adaptive Radial Fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RSPKITVK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19258}
}
read the original abstract

LiDAR place recognition is a critical capability for autonomous navigation and cross-modal localization in large-scale outdoor environments. Existing approaches predominantly depend on pre-built 3D dense maps or aerial imagery, which impose significant storage overhead and lack real-time adaptability. In this paper, we propose OPAL, a novel framework for LiDAR place recognition that leverages OpenStreetMap (OSM) as a lightweight and up-to-date prior. Our key innovation lies in bridging the domain disparity between sparse LiDAR scans and structured OSM data through two carefully designed components. First, a cross-modal visibility mask that identifies observable regions from both modalities to guide feature alignment. Second, an adaptive radial fusion module that dynamically consolidates radial features into discriminative global descriptors. Extensive experiments on KITTI and KITTI-360 datasets demonstrate OPAL's superiority, achieving 15.98% higher recall at 1m threshold for top-1 retrieved matches, along with 12x faster inference speed compared to the state-of-the-art approach. Code and data are publicly available at: https://github.com/kang-1-2-3/OPAL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Point cloud-to-OpenStreetMap (P2O) place recognition estimates the geographic loca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of proposed OPAL. Given a semantic point cloud frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Top-1 retrieved results @5m threshold on the 00 sequence of the KITTI dataset. Black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of LiDAR queries and their top-1 retrieved matches on KITTI. Red rectangles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Recall curves @5m of top-N candidates on the KITTI and KITTI-360 datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Failure cases. The red rectangle represents the wrong retrieved top-1 result and the green rectangle represents the GT OSM tile. References [1] A. Geiger, P. Lenz, and R. Urtasun. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In 2012 IEEE confe…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Details of semantic point cloud. Figures (a) and (c) display the raw point clouds, while (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of areas, ways, nodes channels and full OSM tile. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of LiDAR queries and their top-1 retrieved matches on KITTI and KITTI-360 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. OSMLoc: Single Image-Based Visual Localization in OpenStreetMap with Fused Geometric and Semantic Guidance

    cs.CV 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    OSMLoc localizes a single photo against OpenStreetMap maps by combining a frozen visual foundation model, a depth-guided bird's-eye-view transform, and semantic map alignment, outperforming prior I2O baselines on same...

  2. Place Recognition Meet Multiple Modalitie: A Comprehensive Review, Current Challenges and Future Directions

    cs.CV 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey of visual, LiDAR, and cross-modal place recognition with a unified code library, but riddled with errors and disclaimer-ridden experimental comparisons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Geiger, P

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, and R. Urtasun. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In 2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3354–3361. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  2. [2]

    Arandjelovic, P

    R. Arandjelovic, P. Gronat, A. Torii, T. Pajdla, and J. Sivic. Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly supervised place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5297–5307, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Hausler, S

    S. Hausler, S. Garg, M. Xu, M. Milford, and T. Fischer. Patch-netvlad: Multi-scale fusion of locally-global descriptors for place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 14141–14152, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    S. Zhu, L. Yang, C. Chen, M. Shah, X. Shen, and H. Wang. R2former: Unified retrieval and reranking transformer for place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19370–19380, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    J. Yu, H. Ye, J. Jiao, P. Tan, and H. Zhang. Gv-bench: Benchmarking local feature matching for geometric verification of long-term loop closure detection. In2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 7922–7928. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Y . Xia, Y . Xu, C. Wang, and U. Stilla. Vpc-net: Completion of 3d vehicles from mls point clouds. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 174:166–181, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    X. Chen, T. L ¨abe, A. Milioto, T. R¨ohling, O. Vysotska, A. Haag, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss. Overlapnet: Loop closing for lidar-based slam. Robotics: Science and Systems XVI, 2020. 9

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    M. A. Uy and G. H. Lee. Pointnetvlad: Deep point cloud based retrieval for large-scale place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 4470–4479, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    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, pages 2831–2840, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Y . Xia, Y . Xu, S. Li, R. Wang, J. Du, D. Cremers, and U. Stilla. Soe-net: A self-attention and orientation encoding network for point cloud based place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 11348–11357, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Luo, S.-Y

    L. Luo, S.-Y . Cao, X. Li, J. Xu, R. Ai, Z. Yu, and X. Chen. Bevplace++: Fast, robust, and lightweight lidar global localization for unmanned ground vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    T. Y . Tang, D. De Martini, and P. Newman. Get to the point: Learning lidar place recogni- tion and metric localisation using overhead imagery. Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, 2021, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    H. Fan, A. Zipf, Q. Fu, and P. Neis. Quality assessment for building footprints data on open- streetmap. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 28(4):700–719, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Sarlin, D

    P.-E. Sarlin, D. DeTone, T.-Y . Yang, A. Avetisyan, J. Straub, T. Malisiewicz, S. R. Bulo, R. Newcombe, P. Kontschieder, and V . Balntas. Orienternet: Visual localization in 2d pub- lic maps with neural matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Y . Liao, X. Chen, S. Kang, J. Li, Z. Dong, H. Fan, and B. Yang. Osmloc: Single image-based visual localization in openstreetmap with geometric and semantic guidances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08665, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Y . Cho, G. Kim, S. Lee, and J.-H. Ryu. Openstreetmap-based lidar global localization in urban environment without a prior lidar map. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 7(2): 4999–5006, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Lee and J.-H

    S. Lee and J.-H. Ryu. Autonomous vehicle localization without prior high-definition map. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Y . Liao, J. Xie, and A. Geiger. Kitti-360: A novel dataset and benchmarks for urban scene understanding in 2d and 3d. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(3):3292–3310, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 652–660, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Z. Fan, Z. Song, H. Liu, Z. Lu, J. He, and X. Du. Svt-net: Super light-weight sparse voxel transformer for large scale place recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artifi- cial intelligence, volume 36, pages 551–560, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Zhang, H

    W. Zhang, H. Zhou, Z. Dong, Q. Yan, and C. Xiao. Rank-pointretrieval: Reranking point cloud retrieval via a visually consistent registration evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    J. Ma, J. Zhang, J. Xu, R. Ai, W. Gu, and X. Chen. Overlaptransformer: An efficient and yaw-angle-invariant transformer network for lidar-based place recognition. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3):6958–6965, 2022. 10

    2022

  15. [23]

    Komorowski

    J. Komorowski. Minkloc3d: Point cloud based large-scale place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 1790–1799, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Y . Xia, M. Gladkova, R. Wang, Q. Li, U. Stilla, J. F. Henriques, and D. Cremers. Casspr: Cross attention single scan place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 8461–8472, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Cattaneo, M

    D. Cattaneo, M. Vaghi, S. Fontana, A. L. Ballardini, and D. G. Sorrenti. Global visual lo- calization in lidar-maps through shared 2d-3d embedding space. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 4365–4371. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    Y .-J. Li, M. Gladkova, Y . Xia, R. Wang, and D. Cremers. Vxp: V oxel-cross-pixel large-scale image-lidar place recognition. In 2025 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    H. Xu, H. Liu, S. Huang, and Y . Sun. C2l-pr: Cross-modal camera-to-lidar place recognition via modality alignment and orientation voting. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Kolmet, Q

    M. Kolmet, Q. Zhou, A. O ˇsep, and L. Leal-Taix´e. Text2pos: Text-to-point-cloud cross-modal localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6687–6696, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Y . Xia, L. Shi, Z. Ding, J. F. Henriques, and D. Cremers. Text2loc: 3d point cloud localization from natural language. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 14958–14967, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Y . Xia, Z. Li, Y .-J. Li, L. Shi, H. Cao, J. F. Henriques, and D. Cremers. Uniloc: Towards universal place recognition using any single modality.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12079, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Floros, B

    G. Floros, B. Van Der Zander, and B. Leibe. Openstreetslam: Global vehicle localization using openstreetmaps. In 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , pages 1054–1059. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  24. [32]

    Ruchti, B

    P. Ruchti, B. Steder, M. Ruhnke, and W. Burgard. Localization on openstreetmap data using a 3d laser scanner. In 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 5260–5265. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Vysotska and C

    O. Vysotska and C. Stachniss. Exploiting building information from publicly available maps in graph-based slam. In 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 4511–4516. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Suger and W

    B. Suger and W. Burgard. Global outer-urban navigation with openstreetmap. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1417–1422. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    F. Yan, O. Vysotska, and C. Stachniss. Global localization on openstreetmap using 4-bit se- mantic descriptors. In 2019 European conference on mobile robots (ECMR), pages 1–7. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Bieringer, O

    A. Bieringer, O. Wysocki, S. Tuttas, L. Hoegner, and C. Holst. Analyzing the impact of semantic LoD3 building models on image-based vehicle localization. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 10:55–62, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Z. Li, Y . Wang, R. Zhang, F. Ding, C. Wei, and J.-G. Lu. A lidar-openstreetmap matching method for vehicle global position initialization based on boundary directional feature extrac- tion. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    M. Fan, M. Chen, C. Hu, and S. Zhou. Occˆ 2net: Robust image matching based on 3d occupancy estimation for occluded regions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 9652–9662, 2023. 11

    2023

  31. [39]

    Wysocki, Y

    O. Wysocki, Y . Xia, M. Wysocki, E. Grilli, L. Hoegner, D. Cremers, and U. Stilla. Scan2LoD3: Reconstructing semantic 3D building models at LoD3 using ray casting and Bayesian net- works. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pages 6...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Zhang, Z

    Y . Zhang, Z. Zhou, P. David, X. Yue, Z. Xi, B. Gong, and H. Foroosh. Polarnet: An improved grid representation for online lidar point clouds semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9601–9610, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    X. Xu, S. Lu, J. Wu, H. Lu, Q. Zhu, Y . Liao, R. Xiong, and Y . Wang. Ring++: Roto-translation invariant gram for global localization on a sparse scan map. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 39(6):4616–4635, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    S. Lu, X. Xu, L. Tang, R. Xiong, and Y . Wang. Deepring: Learning roto-translation invariant representation for lidar based place recognition. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 1904–1911. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polo- sukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017

    2017

  36. [44]

    Carion, F

    N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In European conference on computer vision , pages 213–

  37. [45]

    Ali-Bey, B

    A. Ali-Bey, B. Chaib-draa, and P. Gigu`ere. Boq: A place is worth a bag of learnable queries. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17794–17803, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Kim and A

    G. Kim and A. Kim. Scan context: Egocentric spatial descriptor for place recognition within 3d point cloud map. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 4802–4809. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    Ali-Bey, B

    A. Ali-Bey, B. Chaib-Draa, and P. Giguere. Mixvpr: Feature mixing for visual place recogni- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision , pages 2998–3007, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Milioto, I

    A. Milioto, I. Vizzo, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss. Rangenet++: Fast and accurate lidar semantic segmentation. In 2019 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pages 4213–4220. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    X. Zhu, H. Zhou, T. Wang, F. Hong, W. Li, Y . Ma, H. Li, R. Yang, and D. Lin. Cylindrical and asymmetrical 3d convolution networks for lidar-based perception. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(10):6807–6822, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Behley, M

    J. Behley, M. Garbade, A. Milioto, J. Quenzel, S. Behnke, C. Stachniss, and J. Gall. Se- mantickitti: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of lidar sequences. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9297–9307, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Y . Sun, C. Cheng, Y . Zhang, C. Zhang, L. Zheng, Z. Wang, and Y . Wei. Circle loss: A unified perspective of pair similarity optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6398–6407, 2020. 12 A Complementary Datasets ...

    2020

Pith tools

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