Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 30 references

Lifelong 3D Mapping Framework for Hand-held & Robot-mounted LiDAR Mapping Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lifelong 3D mapping framework claims that a single current base map plus stored positive and negative differences can reconstruct any earlier clean LiDAR session map and report changes between any two sessions, without keeping the…

desk verdict The delta-based map version control is genuinely new and the integrated system is substantial, but the central reconstruction claim is never validated and is structurally doubtful for non-convex environments. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18110 v1 pith:THZU6RNS submitted 2025-01-30 cs.RO cs.CV

Liudi Yang , Sai Manoj Prakhya , Senhua Zhu , Ziyuan Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords lifelongmappingLiDARdynamicobjectremovalmapalignmentchangedetectionversioncontrolpointcloudmulti-session
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

Long-lived robots and digital twins need maps that stay current as the world changes, but re-storing each new LiDAR session is wasteful. This paper proposes a modular pipeline that takes any sequence of session maps, removes moving objects, aligns them into one reference frame, detects what appeared and disappeared, and then keeps only a single current base map together with the detected differences and per-session boundaries. The central claim is that this compact representation is enough to reconstruct any earlier clean session map on demand and to answer queries about changes between any two sessions, without archiving the original heavy maps. The reported storage saving grows with the number of sessions, reaching about 94% on a 27-session, 1.5-year dataset. If the reconstruction is truly lossless, lifelong mapping becomes a version-control problem instead of a data-retention problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reconstruction identity in Eq. (1): $M'_s(k) = \mathrm{HullFilter}_k\{M_b(t) + \sum_{i=t}^{k} (\mathrm{baseND}(i-1) - \mathrm{sessionPD}(i))\}$, where $M_b(t)$ is the current base map, $\mathrm{baseND}$ and $\mathrm{sessionPD}$ are the stored negative and positive difference point sets, and $\mathrm{HullFilter}_k$ crops the accumulated cloud to the convex hull boundary stored for session $k$. That equation is fed by the map change detection module, which uses radius-based nearest-neighbour searches to separate each map into coexisting, overlapping, and non-overlapping parts and bird's-eye-view height descriptors to locate changed pixels, and by a two-stage alignment (feature-descriptor matching followed by a normal-distributions-transform fine registration) that puts sessions in a common frame. All the later claims — storage savings, historical reconstruction, inter-session change queries — hang on this equation being reversible under real alignment errors.

What would settle it

Take a multi-session dataset of the kind used in the paper, reconstruct each historical session map using Eq. (1), and compute the mean nearest-neighbor distance (Chamfer distance) between each reconstruction and the original clean session map before the originals are discarded. If the mean distance is comparable to or larger than the map resolution (0.2–0.5 m), or if the convex-hull crop removes or adds visible geometry at the map edges, then the exact-reconstruction claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a way to turn a growing pile of large 3D LiDAR maps into a version-controlled single map. Each new session is cleaned of dynamic points, aligned to the current base map, and compared with it; the differences are classified as negative (present in the base map but absent in the new session) and positive (present in the new session but absent in the base map). The base map is then updated by removing the negative differences and adding the positive ones. The system keeps only the current base map, the saved positive and negative difference sets, and the convex-hull boundary of each session map. Its claim is that Eq. (1) can walk this store backwards: add the saved negative differences back and subtract the positive differences in reverse order, then crop with the requested session's boundary, to reproduce any earlier clean session map exactly enough for practical use — so users can retrieve any historical map or diff any two sessions without the raw session data.

Load-bearing premise

The reconstruction equation assumes that adding and subtracting the saved difference point sets to the current base map, then cropping with a session's convex-hull boundary, exactly restores every earlier map even when session alignment has small errors and the stored difference points are imperfect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • As more sessions are added, stored data grows only by the size of detected differences, so memory use flattens: the paper reports efficiency rising from about 40% at 3 sessions to 94% at 27 sessions.
  • Any earlier clean session map can be reconstructed through Eq. (1) without the original raw map, so long-running deployments can archive a compact delta store instead of full-resolution session dumps.
  • Users can obtain the changes between any two sessions by reconstructing both and running the change detection module, enabling temporal queries such as which objects appeared or disappeared.
  • Because the dynamic removal step does not assume horizontal LiDAR or planar motion, the same pipeline is claimed to work for hand-held scanners and robot-mounted SLAM systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same delta store could support incremental semantic annotation: because every positive and negative difference is localized, a label added to one session's object could be propagated through time by replaying the deltas instead of re-segmenting every map.
  • A testable extension is to replace the convex-hull boundary with a tighter crop, such as an alpha shape or a per-session occupancy boundary; non-convex session footprints, like an L-shaped building or a corridor network, would expose whether the hull filter is the accuracy-limiting component of Eq. (1).
  • The reported 94% saving on the year-long dataset compares stored deltas against downsampled maps; the paper does not report how the same representation behaves when input maps are kept at full resolution, so the scaling of reconstruction error with point density remains an open check.
  • If reconstruction fidelity holds across dozens of sessions, the framework turns 'what changed over the last year?' into a single replay operation, suggesting a natural product-level query: diff any two historical states without storing either state at full resolution.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a modular lifelong 3D mapping framework for hand-held and robot-mounted LiDAR mapping. It consists of four components: a dynamic point removal pipeline based on OctoMap, plane regression and k-NN voting; a two-stage multi-session map alignment using PCA-SHOT descriptors, RANSAC and NDT; a BEV-image-based map change detection module that outputs positive and negative differences; and a map version control system that maintains a single base map and stores deltas plus boundary points. The paper claims that this design permits reconstruction of any previous clean session map and querying of inter-session changes without storing the original session maps. Experiments cover SemanticKITTI, NCLT, MulRan, LT-ParkingLot and two hand-held XGrid datasets, with quantitative results for dynamic removal, alignment, change detection and memory efficiency.

Significance. The potential practical value is real: a robust lifelong mapping pipeline that separates dynamic-object removal, alignment, change detection and version control could simplify long-term map maintenance, and the memory-efficiency numbers in Table V are encouraging. The paper is also stronger than many module papers in evaluating each component on multiple real-world datasets and comparing against ERASOR, Removert, Ground-Octomap, ICP, NDT and LT-Mapper. The dynamic-object-removal results on SemanticKITTI reach competitive F1 scores. However, the central novel claim—lossless or near-lossless reconstruction of arbitrary previous session maps through Eq. (1)—is not validated quantitatively at all, and the alignment evaluation uses the test data for parameter selection. These gaps currently prevent the paper from fully supporting its headline functionality.

major comments (4)
  1. [III-E, Eq. (1)] The central version-control claim is not quantitatively supported. The reconstruction formula M'_s(k)=HullFilter_k{M_b(t)+ sum_i (base_ND(i-1) - session_PD(i))} is never compared with the original session map. This is load-bearing because Table IV shows the delta point sets are not exact: PD precision is as low as 0.769 and ND recall as low as 0.690, so errors accumulate over the summation. In addition, the base map deliberately retains occluded points from earlier sessions (Sec. III-A, Fig. 4(b)), and a convex-hull boundary cannot remove such interior points when a session's true extent is non-convex (e.g., L-shaped corridors or multi-storey structures). At minimum, report quantitative reconstruction error per session (e.g., Chamfer distance and pointwise precision/recall against the original clean session maps) and include at least one non-convex or multi-level environment.
  2. [IV-B, Table III] The multi-session alignment comparison is weakened by parameter selection on the test maps. Section III-C states that the optimal alignment is chosen by selecting the registration with the lowest Chamfer distance, and Table III reports only the resulting average Chamfer distance. This means the reported numbers can reflect fitting to the test data, not a generalizable parameter setting. Please use a held-out validation split for grid-search selection, or report results over repeated runs with error bars and cross-validation, and state explicitly how parameters were chosen for each dataset.
  3. [IV-C, Table IV] The quantitative change-detection evaluation uses manually introduced relocations as ground truth, and a detected point is counted as true if a ground-truth change lies in 'its small radial neighborhood.' This tolerance and the manually constructed changes need sensitivity analysis; without reporting the radius and its effect, the precision/recall numbers in Table IV are difficult to interpret. Moreover, because Table IV also shows ND recall of 0.798 (XGrid-Outdoor) and PD recall of 0.690 (XGrid-Parking), the deltas stored by the version control are not exact, reinforcing the need for the reconstruction validation requested above.
  4. [IV-A, Fig. 6] The sensor-setup-agnostic dynamic removal claim is only quantitatively validated on SemanticKITTI, a robot-mounted automotive setup; the hand-held XGrid results are qualitative. Section III-B itself notes that the optional height filter may not work for drone or multi-storey hand-held mapping and that 1-3% of static points are typically misclassified. To support the hand-held claim, add a quantitative evaluation on hand-held data with annotated or simulated dynamic objects, or explicitly restrict the claim to ground-like single-level hand-held scenarios.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III-C] The abstract says 'without manual parameter fine-tuning' and Sec. III calls the alignment 'automatic parameter-free', but Sec. III-C and Table I describe a grid search over six hyperparameters; please replace 'parameter-free' with 'automatic' or clarify that parameters are selected automatically.
  2. [III-E, Eq. (1)] Equation (1) and the accompanying example do not specify the index handling for k=t (base_ND(t-1) is not defined) and do not state whether the HullFilter is applied before or after adding deltas; define the notation and boundary cases.
  3. [Multiple locations] Typos and wording: 'VERION' in Table V caption, 'very unique' repeated in abstract and introduction, 'Lets look' in Sec. III-E, and 'Negative difference is the objects' in Fig. 3 caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: each module is validated against external datasets and baselines, and the version-control reconstruction is the algebraic inverse of the stored deltas rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Dynamic point removal, multi-session alignment, and map change detection are each quantified on external datasets (SemanticKITTI, NCLT, LT-ParkingLot, MulRan, XGrid) against independent or existing baselines (ERASOR, Removert, Ground-Octomap, ICP, NDT, LT-Mapper, KNN, PCL-OC), so the reported numbers are empirical measurements rather than consequences of the method's assumptions. The version-control reconstruction in Eq. (1) is the algebraic inverse of the forward delta update: storing positive and negative differences and adding them back to the current base map recovers an earlier base map by construction, and the convex-hull boundary crops it; this is a definitional property of a delta-based version-control system, not a prediction fitted to data. The self-citations to the authors' prior descriptors (PCA-SHOT, B-SHOT, 3D-HoPD) are not load-bearing because alternatives are tested and the descriptors are evaluated on external maps. The paper's known gaps, such as the absence of any quantitative comparison of reconstructed maps with the original session maps (Sec. IV-C reports only qualitative change detection and memory efficiency), the non-convex boundary cropping limitation, and the imperfect change-detection precision and recall, are correctness and validation concerns rather than circular derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework is purely algorithmic and introduces no new physical entities. Its central claims rest on the correctness of the delta and boundary representation, which is assumed but not quantitatively validated.

free parameters (5)
  • Plane add-back ratio threshold
    Used in dynamic point removal to decide whether a detected plane is large enough to be added back into the static map; no value or tuning procedure is given (Sec. III-B).
  • KNN voting parameters
    Number of neighbors and search radii for classifying OctoMap unknown points as static or dynamic and for radial reassignment in dynamic point removal; not specified (Sec. III-B).
  • Radial search radius for change detection and reconstruction
    Used in kNN spatial filters for map change detection and for point removal in Eq. (1); described only as 'very small radius' (Sec. III-D and III-E).
  • BEV grid resolution and intensity difference threshold
    BEV descriptors compare pixel intensities to detect changes; a resolution of 0.05-0.15 m is recommended but the intensity difference threshold is not stated (Sec. III-D).
  • Alignment hyperparameters = Kr, PCds, Nn, FDr, NDTr, NDTss with ranges in Table I
    Six parameters for keypoint extraction, descriptor matching, and NDT registration; automatically grid-searched, but the search ranges are chosen by the authors and the final selection uses Chamfer distance on the test maps (Sec. III-C).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math RANSAC plane regression can robustly identify large planar structures in a submap built from 10-50 LiDAR frames.
    Invoked in Sec. III-B to fill residual holes in static maps by adding detected planes back.
  • domain assumption OctoMap occupancy probabilities, given known poses, correctly separate static from dynamic points.
    Used as the starting point of the dynamic point removal pipeline in Sec. III-B.
  • domain assumption PCA-SHOT descriptor matching plus NDT registration can recover the rigid transform between two session maps when enough correspondences exist.
    Underlies the multi-session map alignment module in Sec. III-C.
  • domain assumption BEV height images and kNN radial neighborhoods faithfully represent 3D map differences for change detection.
    Used in Sec. III-D to identify positive and negative changes between aligned maps.
  • domain assumption The convex hull of a session map's points is a sufficient boundary to crop a reconstructed base map back to exactly that session's extent.
    Essential to Eq. (1) in Sec. III-E for reconstructing previous session maps; never quantitatively validated.
  • domain assumption kNN radial search with very small radius can add and remove delta points without introducing errors.
    Used in Eq. (1) for forward and backward map version control in Sec. III-E.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lifelong 3D Mapping Framework for Hand-held & Robot-mounted LiDAR Mapping Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/THZU6RNS

@misc{pith2026250118110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lifelong 3D Mapping Framework for Hand-held & Robot-mounted LiDAR Mapping Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/THZU6RNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18110}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a lifelong 3D mapping framework that is modular, cloud-native by design and more importantly, works for both hand-held and robot-mounted 3D LiDAR mapping systems. Our proposed framework comprises of dynamic point removal, multi-session map alignment, map change detection and map version control. First, our sensor-setup agnostic dynamic point removal algorithm works seamlessly with both hand-held and robot-mounted setups to produce clean static 3D maps. Second, the multi-session map alignment aligns these clean static maps automatically, without manual parameter fine-tuning, into a single reference frame, using a two stage approach based on feature descriptor matching and fine registration. Third, our novel map change detection identifies positive and negative changes between two aligned maps. Finally, the map version control maintains a single base map that represents the current state of the environment, and stores the detected positive and negative changes, and boundary information. Our unique map version control system can reconstruct any of the previous clean session maps and allows users to query changes between any two random mapping sessions, all without storing any input raw session maps, making it very unique. Extensive experiments are performed using hand-held commercial LiDAR mapping devices and open-source robot-mounted LiDAR SLAM algorithms to evaluate each module and the whole 3D lifelong mapping framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18110 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Users can upload multi-session 3D maps collected from any [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our proposed sensor-setup agnostic dynamic point removal pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. , it takes as input, base map(t) and session map(t + 1) and outputs the negative changes in base map(t) as base ND(t) and the positive changes in session map(t + 1) as session P D(t + 1). The base ND(t) denotes the 3D map data that was present in base map(t) but disappeared in session map(t + 1), while session P D(t + 1) indicates the new 3D data that appeared in session map(t + 1) and was absent in base map(t) [PI… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of Complete Workflow. (a) Initialization of base map. Grey points are static and red points are dynamic. (b) session map(t + 1) first goes through dynamic object removal and is then aligned to base map(t). The map change detection detects negative changes …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multi-Session map alignment results on multiple datasets with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dynamic object removal on SemanticKITTI and XGrid dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the map change detection on XGrid-Outdoor, LT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    LT-mapper: A Modular Framework for LiDAR-based Lifelong Mapping

    Giseop Kim and Ayoung Kim. LT-mapper: A Modular Framework for LiDAR-based Lifelong Mapping. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 7995–8002. IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Geometry-based graph pruning for lifelong slam

    Gerhard Kurz, Matthias Holoch, and Peter Biber. Geometry-based graph pruning for lifelong slam. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Nandan Banerjee, Dimitri Lisin, Jimmy Briggs, Martin Llofriu, and Mario E. Munich. Lifelong Mapping using Adaptive Local Maps. In 2019 European Conference on Mobile Robots (ECMR) , 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    A general framework for lifelong localization and mapping in changing environment

    Min Zhao, Xin Guo, Le Song, Baoxing Qin, Xuesong Shi, Gim Hee Lee, and Guanghui Sun. A general framework for lifelong localization and mapping in changing environment. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Life- long Localization in Changing Environments

    Gian Diego Tipaldi, Daniel Meyer-Delius, and Wolfram Burgard. Life- long Localization in Changing Environments. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 32(14):1662–1678, 2013

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    L ´azaro, Roberto Capobianco, and Giorgio Grisetti

    Mar ´ıa T. L ´azaro, Roberto Capobianco, and Giorgio Grisetti. Efficient long-term mapping in dynamic environments. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Remove, then Revert: Static Point cloud Map Construction using Multiresolution Range Images

    Giseop Kim and Ayoung Kim. Remove, then Revert: Static Point cloud Map Construction using Multiresolution Range Images. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 10758–10765, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    The Peoplere- mover—Removing Dynamic Objects From 3-D Point Cloud Data by Traversing a V oxel Occupancy Grid

    Johannes Schauer and Andreas N ¨uchter. The Peoplere- mover—Removing Dynamic Objects From 3-D Point Cloud Data by Traversing a V oxel Occupancy Grid. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(3):1679–1686, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    ERASOR: Ego- centric Ratio of Pseudo Occupancy-based Dynamic Object Removal for Static 3D Point Cloud Map Building

    Hyungtae Lim, Sungwon Hwang, and Hyun Myung. ERASOR: Ego- centric Ratio of Pseudo Occupancy-based Dynamic Object Removal for Static 3D Point Cloud Map Building. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2):2272–2279, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    OctoMap: An efficient probabilistic 3D mapping framework based on octrees

    Armin Hornung, Kai Wurm, Maren Bennewitz, Cyrill Stachniss, and Wolfram Burgard. OctoMap: An efficient probabilistic 3D mapping framework based on octrees. Autonomous Robots, 34, 04 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Static map generation from 3D LiDAR point clouds exploiting ground segmentation

    Mehul Arora, Louis Wiesmann, Xieyuanli Chen, and Cyrill Stachniss. Static map generation from 3D LiDAR point clouds exploiting ground segmentation. Robotics and Autonomous Systems , 159:104287, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Multiple relative pose graphs for robust cooperative mapping

    Been Kim, Michael Kaess, Luke Fletcher, John Leonard, Abraham Bachrach, Nicholas Roy, and Seth Teller. Multiple relative pose graphs for robust cooperative mapping. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 3185–3192, 2010

    2010

  5. [13]

    Iterative global similarity points: A robust coarse-to-fine integration solution for pairwise 3d point cloud registration

    Pan Yue, Yang Bisheng, Liang Fuxun, and Dong Zhen. Iterative global similarity points: A robust coarse-to-fine integration solution for pairwise 3d point cloud registration. In 2018 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    3dhopd: A fast low-dimensional 3-d descriptor

    Sai Manoj Prakhya, Jie Lin, Vijay Chandrasekhar, Weisi Lin, and Bingbing Liu. 3dhopd: A fast low-dimensional 3-d descriptor. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2(3):1472–1479, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    B-shot: a binary 3d feature descriptor for fast keypoint matching on 3d point clouds

    Sai Manoj Prakhya, Bingbing Liu, Weisi Lin, Vinit Jakhetiya, and Sharath Chandra Guntuku. B-shot: a binary 3d feature descriptor for fast keypoint matching on 3d point clouds. Autonomous Robots, 41:1501– 1520, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Change detection of urban objects using 3d point clouds: A review

    Uwe Stilla and Yusheng Xu. Change detection of urban objects using 3d point clouds: A review. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 197:228–255, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Accurate 3d compar- ison of complex topography with terrestrial laser scanner: Application to the rangitikei canyon (nz)

    Dimitri Lague, Nicolas Brodu, and J ´erˆome Leroux. Accurate 3d compar- ison of complex topography with terrestrial laser scanner: Application to the rangitikei canyon (nz). ISPRS journal of photogrammetry and remote sensing, 82:10–26, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    A fast voxel-based indicator for change detection using low resolution octrees

    Joachim Gehrung, Marcus Hebel, Michael Arens, and Uwe Stilla. A fast voxel-based indicator for change detection using low resolution octrees. ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , 4:357–364, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Ogayar-Anguita, Alfonso L ´opez-Ruiz, Rafael J

    Carlos J. Ogayar-Anguita, Alfonso L ´opez-Ruiz, Rafael J. Segura- S´anchez, and Antonio J. Rueda-Ruiz. A version control system for point clouds. Remote Sensing, 15(18), 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Bioslam: A bioinspired lifelong memory system for general place recognition

    Peng Yin, Abulikemu Abuduweili, and Sebastian others. Bioslam: A bioinspired lifelong memory system for general place recognition. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Lifelong mapping in the wild: Novel strategies for ensuring map stability and accuracy over time evaluated on thousands of robots

    Nandan Banerjee, Dimitri Lisin, Lenser, et al. Lifelong mapping in the wild: Novel strategies for ensuring map stability and accuracy over time evaluated on thousands of robots. Robotics and Autonomous Systems , 164:104403, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Long-term 3D Map Maintenance in Dynamic En- vironments

    Francois Pomerleau, Philipp Kr ¨usi, Francis Colas, Paul Furgale, and Roland Siegwart. Long-term 3D Map Maintenance in Dynamic En- vironments. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 3712–3719, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Lifelong update of semantic maps in dynamic environments

    Manjunath Narayana, Andreas Kolling, Lucio Nardelli, and Phil Fong. Lifelong update of semantic maps in dynamic environments. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 6164–6171, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Scan Context: Egocentric Spatial Descriptor for Place Recognition within 3D Point Cloud Map

    Giseop Kim and Ayoung Kim. Scan Context: Egocentric Spatial Descriptor for Place Recognition within 3D Point Cloud Map . In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , Madrid, Oct. 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Fast and accurate scan registration through minimization of the distance between compact 3d ndt representations

    Todor Stoyanov, Martin Magnusson, Henrik Andreasson, and Achim J Lilienthal. Fast and accurate scan registration through minimization of the distance between compact 3d ndt representations. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 31(12):1377–1393, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    On Creating Low Dimensional 3D Feature Descriptors with PCA

    Sai Manoj Prakhya, Bingbing Liu, Weisi Lin, Kun Li, and Yong Xiao. On Creating Low Dimensional 3D Feature Descriptors with PCA. In TENCON 2017 - IEEE Region 10 Conference , pages 315–320, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    V oxelized GICP for Fast and Accurate 3D Point Cloud Registration

    Kenji Koide, Masashi Yokozuka, Shuji Oishi, and Atsuhiko Banno. V oxelized GICP for Fast and Accurate 3D Point Cloud Registration. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 11054–11059, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Behley, M

    J. Behley, M. Garbade, A. Milioto, J. Quenzel, S. Behnke, J. Gall, and C. Stachniss. Towards 3D LiDAR-based Semantic Scene Understanding of 3D Point Cloud Sequences: The SemanticKITTI Dataset. The International Journal on Robotics Research , 40(8-9):959–967, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Ushani, and Ryan M

    Nicholas Carlevaris-Bianco, Arash K. Ushani, and Ryan M. Eustice. University of Michigan North Campus Long-term Vision and LiDAR Dataset . International Journal of Robotics Research , 35(9), 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    MulRan: Multimodal Range Dataset for Urban Place Recognition

    Giseop Kim, Yeong Sang Park, Younghun Cho, Jinyong Jeong, and Ayoung Kim. MulRan: Multimodal Range Dataset for Urban Place Recognition. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 6246–6253, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.