Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

SmartPNT-MSF: A Multi-Sensor Fusion Dataset for Positioning and Navigation Research

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SmartPNT-MSF is a public multi-sensor dataset whose post-processed GNSS/SINS ground truth is centimeter-level and whose visual, LiDAR, and fused data run standard navigation pipelines.

desk verdict A useful new multi-sensor fusion dataset with a sound concept, but the paper overstates ground-truth accuracy and leaves an unmeasured lever arm as a load-bearing assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19079 v2 pith:W5XJVG5I submitted 2025-07-25 cs.RO cs.LG

Feng Zhu , Zihang Zhang , Kangcheng Teng , Abduhelil Yakup , Xiaohong Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.LG
keywords multi-sensorfusionGNSS/SINSintegrationSLAMdatasetLiDARvisual-inertialodometrygroundtruthautonomousnavigationbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper presents SmartPNT-MSF, a public multi-sensor dataset for positioning and navigation research. It combines GNSS receivers, multiple IMUs, cameras, and LiDAR on two platforms, with 21 collected sequences spanning open sky, urban streets, tree-lined roads, elevated roads, and tunnels. The central claim is that the dataset provides high-precision ground truth from post-processed tightly coupled GNSS/SINS integration, with internal consistency metrics (position forward-reverse separation below 5 cm, heading below 0.005 degrees) supporting that claim. If true, the dataset would give navigation researchers a standardized benchmark with more sensor variety and scene coverage than existing public datasets, and the paper's validation runs of visual-inertial, LiDAR-inertial, and fused pipelines suggest it is usable for algorithm development.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ground-truth reference chain: static precise point positioning fixes the base-station coordinates, commercial post-processing software computes a tightly coupled GNSS/SINS solution with forward-backward smoothing using the highest-grade IMU on the platform, and the smoothed trajectory is exported as a 57-column text file of position, velocity, attitude, covariance, satellite counts, dilution-of-precision values, and forward-reverse separations, then transformed to each sensor's optical or mechanical center using published lever arms and rotation offsets. This chain produces the single reference against which every algorithm in the dataset is scored.

What would settle it

Measure the as-built lever arms on either platform and compare them with the published values; a disagreement beyond a few millimeters would shift the exported ground truth for every non-IMU sensor. Alternatively, take one sequence through a tunnel, recompute an independent fixed-ambiguity PPP-RTK trajectory for the open-sky portions, and check whether the dataset's GNSS/INS truth stays within its claimed centimeter-level bounds where satellite signals are available.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that a multi-sensor fusion dataset can be built around a trustworthy, sensor-centered ground-truth reference: the trajectory is computed by tightly coupled GNSS/SINS post-processing with forward-backward smoothing using the best IMU on the platform, then exported to the center of each sensor using lever-arm offsets. The dataset is standardized in naming, formats, and documentation, and it is released through a web portal with map-based trajectory visualization and on-demand segment and sensor selection. Validation results, a monocular visual-inertial odometry run with about 3.9 m mean absolute trajectory error, a LiDAR-inertial SLAM run with about 1.3 m error, and a vision-LiDAR-inertial fusion run with closed loops and stable attitude, are offered as evidence that both visual and LiDAR data meet the input requirements of modern navigation algorithms.

Load-bearing premise

The lever-arm distances between sensors were taken from design drawings rather than measured on the physical platform, so the published ground truth at each sensor center is only as good as those design values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can evaluate vision-only, LiDAR-only, and fused navigation algorithms against the same sensor-centered ground truth, making cross-algorithm comparison fair and direct.
  • Standardized folder naming, RINEX/IMR/rosbag formats, and bundled precise ephemeris and clock products lower the barrier to reproducing GNSS/SINS processing and SLAM experiments.
  • The map-based download platform with on-demand trajectory segmentation lets users isolate specific scenes, such as tunnels or elevated roads, for targeted stress testing.
  • If the ground truth holds, the dataset supports a broader class of applications than typical single-platform benchmarks, including multi-antenna attitude determination and multi-grade IMU comparisons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive next test would be an independent as-built survey of the sensor mounts; if the design lever arms differ from measured ones by even a few millimeters, the per-sensor ground truth would shift, so users should request measured calibration files before trusting sub-decimeter claims.
  • The reported SLAM errors come from a small number of representative sequences and are partly qualitative; a full multi-sequence benchmark with per-sequence absolute and relative pose errors would turn 'usable' into quantitative rankings.
  • Because the platform supports on-demand trajectory segmentation, it invites a natural stress test: evaluate algorithms on tunnel segments where GNSS is denied, using open-sky portions as anchors, which is exactly the regime where multi-sensor fusion claims to help.
  • The paper's internal consistency metrics, such as forward-reverse separation and PDOP, are quality indicators rather than absolute accuracy; comparing the ground truth against an independent fixed-ambiguity PPP-RTK solution would close that gap.
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 manuscript presents SmartPNT-MSF, a multi-sensor fusion positioning and navigation dataset collected with two platforms (a remote-controlled UGV carrying the mini system, and an SUV carrying both mini and mate systems) and comprising GNSS, IMU, camera, and LiDAR data across six sequences in open-sky, urban, tree-lined, elevated-road, and tunnel scenarios. It describes the sensor configuration, coordinate frames, lever-arm parameters, camera/LiDAR calibration, data formats and naming conventions, an online download/visualization platform, and the generation of ground truth via post-processed tightly coupled GNSS/SINS integration using NovAtel Inertial Explorer. The dataset is evaluated by running the open-source algorithms VINS-Mono, LIO-SAM, and LVI-SAM, with supporting metrics including PDOP, satellite count, forward-reverse separation (FRS), and reported APE/RPE numbers for the SLAM runs.

Significance. If the ground-truth and calibration claims are substantiated, SmartPNT-MSF would be a useful complement to existing multi-sensor fusion benchmarks because it combines GNSS/SINS, vision, and LiDAR on two platforms with multiple IMU grades, provides standardized formats and an accessible download/visualization platform, and includes scenario diversity. The authors have also validated the data with established open-source algorithms, which is a concrete strength. However, the high-precision and 'millimeter-level' ground-truth claims currently rest on internal consistency metrics rather than absolute accuracy checks, and the unmeasured lever-arm parameters create a risk of systematic bias that the presented validation cannot detect.

major comments (4)
  1. [II.B and IV.A] The lever-arm parameters between the IMUs and GNSS antenna phase centers are stated to be based on 'theoretical values from the design phase' rather than on post-installation measurement. This is load-bearing: the ground truth is produced by tightly coupled GNSS/SINS processing in which the lever arm enters the measurement model, and the same offsets are then used to export reference trajectories to each sensor center. The validation reported in IV.A (NSAT, PDOP, FRS) measures satellite geometry and forward-reverse consistency, not absolute accuracy, so it cannot detect a constant lever-arm bias. The authors should either measure and report the actual lever arms with uncertainty, or provide a sensitivity analysis showing the effect of plausible misalignment and offset errors on the exported ground truth and SLAM evaluation.
  2. [IV opening and IV.A] The paper claims 'millimeter-level verifiable benchmarks' while the only quantitative ground-truth evidence shown in IV.A is a position FRS that stays 'within 5 cm' for most epochs, with attitude FRS below 0.001 degrees for roll/pitch and 0.005 degrees for heading. FRS is an internal forward-reverse consistency measure, not a measure of absolute accuracy against an independent reference, so the wording 'millimeter-level' is not supported by the presented data. The authors should either use a qualified phrase such as 'centimeter-level internal consistency' or provide an external accuracy check, for example against surveyed control points or an independent high-accuracy trajectory.
  3. [IV.C] Section IV.C first states that 'specific quantitative indicators of data quality—such as feature point matching rate, trajectory error, and data integrity—have not yet been calculated and analyzed,' and then, a few paragraphs later, reports APE/RPE results for VINS-Mono and LIO-SAM (ATE approximately 3.9 m and 1.3 m; RPE approximately 0.12 m and 0.06 m). This direct contradiction must be resolved: either the quantitative trajectory error analysis was performed and the earlier sentence is wrong, or the numeric APE/RPE values should be removed from the validation. In addition, the text alternates between 'APE' and 'ATE' labels, and the terminology should be made consistent throughout the section.
  4. [IV.C and IV.D] The feasibility verification is based on a single representative sequence for each algorithm (July 2, 2024 data for VINS-Mono and LIO-SAM; a campus UGV sequence for LVI-SAM), while the dataset's stated value is its coverage of six sequences and five distinct scenarios. The qualitative conclusion that 'the dataset is suitable for multi-sensor fusion-based navigation tasks using vision and LiDAR' would be much more strongly supported by a table reporting APE/RPE or end-point errors for all six sequences, with the specific sequences used clearly identified. Without such a presentation, the evaluation does not yet demonstrate that the claimed usability holds across the dataset's full diversity.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Tables 4 and 5] Table 4 is used first for the six data groups and then again for the 2-sigma position errors of the GNSS/SINS evaluation, which will confuse readers; renumber the tables sequentially through the manuscript.
  2. [III.A] The naming example refers to 'HG4930', which does not appear in Table 1's IMU list; if this is a typo for I300, FSAS, or another sensor, correct it and use a sensor name that actually appears in the dataset.
  3. [II.C] The Zhang Zhengyou camera calibration method is described without a citation, and the LiDAR calibration paragraph ends with descriptions of update step, point size, IntensityColor, and OverlapFilter buttons, which appear to be software-interface details unrelated to the calibration methodology; either cite the method and move or remove the UI description.
  4. [IV.D and Fig. 10] The text uses 'LIV-SAM' once in Section IV.D while 'LVI-SAM' is used elsewhere, and the label 'Ptch' in Fig. 10 should be 'Pitch'; these typos should be corrected for consistency.
  5. [V] The conclusion mentions 'odometers' as a sensor type, but no odometer data are described in Section II or Table 1; either add the sensor to the dataset description or remove the term.
  6. [References] Reference [15] duplicates reference [4] (the same GNSS/SINS dataset paper), and reference [18] is cited at the end of a sentence about base station coordinate strategy where it appears to be irrelevant; please check the duplicate entry and the citation placement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ground truth is produced by an external estimator and validation uses open-source SLAM baselines and external calibration tools.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are that SmartPNT-MSF provides high-precision ground truth and usable multi-sensor data. The derivation chain for ground truth is not circular: reference trajectories are computed with NovAtel Inertial Explorer 8.90 ('The ground truth was calculated using NovAtel Inertial Explorer post-processing software, version 8.90'), an external commercial package, from raw GNSS/IMU observations and precise products, not from the dataset's own claims or from the quantities being predicted. The quality indicators used (NSAT, PDOP, FRS) are internal consistency and satellite-geometry diagnostics; while FRS is not an independent accuracy certificate, the paper does not define ground truth in terms of those metrics, and they do not enter as fitted parameters that force the reported conclusions. Camera and LiDAR calibration uses external methods (Zhang Zhengyou, kalibr, manufacturer intrinsics), and the feasibility validation runs open-source SLAM systems (VINS-Mono, LIO-SAM, LVI-SAM) whose trajectories are estimated without ingesting the ground-truth file. The only self-citations are to the authors' earlier GNSS/SINS dataset paper [4]/[15], used for related-work context and general processing remarks; no load-bearing conclusion is derived from that citation. The acknowledged use of theoretical design-phase lever-arm values (Section II.B: 'Lever-arm parameters... were based on theoretical values from the design phase') is a genuine accuracy and uncertainty limitation, but it is an input assumption rather than a circular reduction: the exported ground truth is produced by an external estimator and is not defined as the value of that lever-arm parameter. Similarly, the admitted absence of quantitative data-quality metrics in Section IV.C weakens the validation claim but does not make the validation equal to its inputs. Overall, no step reduces a predicted result to a fitted parameter, to a self-citation, or to the target claim by construction.

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

No free parameters are fit to data. The central claim rests on domain assumptions about ground truth accuracy, lever-arm correctness, and calibration validity.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The post-processed tightly coupled GNSS/SINS solution from Inertial Explorer 8.90 provides ground truth accurate enough for benchmarking.
    The paper relies on IE 8.90 and precise products to produce ground truth, but only internal consistency (FRS) is reported, not absolute accuracy against an independent reference.
  • domain assumption Theoretical lever-arm values match physical installation tolerances.
    Section II.B states lever-arm parameters are based on theoretical design values; if they are off, multi-sensor alignment and ground truth are degraded.
  • domain assumption Standard calibration methods (Zhang, kalibr) yield correct intrinsic and extrinsic parameters for cameras and LiDAR.
    The paper does not provide independent verification of calibration accuracy beyond the algorithms running successfully.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SmartPNT-MSF: A Multi-Sensor Fusion Dataset for Positioning and Navigation Research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W5XJVG5I

@misc{pith2026250719079,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SmartPNT-MSF: A Multi-Sensor Fusion Dataset for Positioning and Navigation Research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W5XJVG5I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19079}
}
read the original abstract

High-precision navigation and positioning systems are critical for applications in autonomous vehicles and mobile mapping, where robust and continuous localization is essential. To test and enhance the performance of algorithms, some research institutions and companies have successively constructed and publicly released datasets. However, existing datasets still suffer from limitations in sensor diversity and environmental coverage. To address these shortcomings and advance development in related fields, the SmartPNT Multisource Integrated Navigation, Positioning, and Attitude Dataset has been developed. This dataset integrates data from multiple sensors, including Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), Inertial Measurement Units (IMU), optical cameras, and LiDAR, to provide a rich and versatile resource for research in multi-sensor fusion and high-precision navigation. The dataset construction process is thoroughly documented, encompassing sensor configurations, coordinate system definitions, and calibration procedures for both cameras and LiDAR. A standardized framework for data collection and processing ensures consistency and scalability, enabling large-scale analysis. Validation using state-of-the-art Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) algorithms, such as VINS-Mono and LIO-SAM, demonstrates the dataset's applicability for advanced navigation research. Covering a wide range of real-world scenarios, including urban areas, campuses, tunnels, and suburban environments, the dataset offers a valuable tool for advancing navigation technologies and addressing challenges in complex environments. By providing a publicly accessible, high-quality dataset, this work aims to bridge gaps in sensor diversity, data accessibility, and environmental representation, fostering further innovation in the field.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    X. Mao, D. Arnold, M. Kalarus, S. Padovan, and A. Jä ggi, ‘GNSS-based precise orbit determination for maneuvering LEO satellites’, GPS Solut. , vol. 27, no. 3, p. 147, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10291-023-01494-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10291-023-01494-6 2023

  2. [2]

    Wan et al

    G. Wan et al. , ‘Robust and precise vehicle localization based on multi -sensor fusion in diverse city scenes’, in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Brisbane, QLD: IEEE, May 2018, pp. 4670 –4677. doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2018.8461224

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Maciuk, ‘The applications of GNSS systems in logistics’, Bud

    K. Maciuk, ‘The applications of GNSS systems in logistics’, Bud. Archit., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 181–188, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.24358/Bud-Arch_18_173_13

    work page doi:10.24358/bud-arch_18_173_13 2018

  4. [4]

    F. Zhu, X. Chen, Q. Cai, and X. Zhang, ‘A large -scale diverse GNSS/SINS dataset: Construction, publication, and application’, IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. , vol. 73, pp. 1 –13, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2024.3488156

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    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, Providence, RI: IEEE, Jun. 2012, pp. 3354–3361. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2012.6248074

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Mur-Artal and J

    R. Mur-Artal and J. D. Tardos, ‘ORB -SLAM2: An open - source SLAM system for monocular, stereo, and RGB -D cameras’, IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1255 –1262, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TRO.2017.2705103

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    H. Wang, C. Wang, C. -L. Chen, and L. Xie, ‘F -LOAM : Fast LiDAR odometry and mapping’, in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Prague, Czech Republic: IEEE, Sep. 2021, pp. 4390 –

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Maddern, G

    W. Maddern, G. Pascoe, C. Linegar, and P. Newman, ‘1 year, 1000 km: The oxford RobotCar dataset’, Int. J. Robot. Res., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3 –15, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1177/0278364916679498

    doi:10.1177/0278364916679498 2017

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Burri et al., ‘The EuRoC micro aerial vehicle datasets’, Int

    M. Burri et al., ‘The EuRoC micro aerial vehicle datasets’, Int. J. Robot. Res. , vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1157 –1163, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1177/0278364915620033

    2016 doi

  2. [10]

    Caesar et al

    H. Caesar et al. , ‘nuScenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving’, May 05, 2020, arXiv: arXiv:1903.11027. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1903.11027

    2020 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Wen et al., ‘UrbanLoco: A full sensor suite dataset for mapping and localization in urban scenes’, Apr

    W. Wen et al., ‘UrbanLoco: A full sensor suite dataset for mapping and localization in urban scenes’, Apr. 03, 2020, arXiv: arXiv:1912.09513. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1912.09513

    2020 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    Choi et al., ‘KAIST multi -spectral day/night data set for autonomous and assisted driving’, IEEE Trans

    Y. Choi et al., ‘KAIST multi -spectral day/night data set for autonomous and assisted driving’, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. , vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 934 –948, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TITS.2018.2791533

    2018

  5. [13]

    The overall trajectory is highly consistent with the reference value

    The result graph shows the trajectory estimation and accuracy evaluation results of LIO -SAM in the same scenario. The overall trajectory is highly consistent with the reference value. The reconstruction accuracy in the x and y directions is excellent. There are slight fluctua...

  6. [14]

    Yan et al

    G. Yan et al. , ‘OpenCalib: A Multi -sensor Calibration Toolbox for Autonomous Driving’, May 30, 2022, arXiv: arXiv:2205.14087. Accessed: Aug. 25, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.14087

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    G. Yan, J. Pi, C. Wang, X. Cai, and Y. Li, ‘An Extrinsic Calibration Method between LiDAR and GNSS/INS for Autonomous Driving’, Feb. 28, 2023, arXiv: arXiv:2209.07694. Accessed: Aug. 25, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.07694

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Gałdyn, R

    F. Gałdyn, R. Zajdel, and K. Sośnica, ‘RINEXAV: GNSS global network selection open -source software based on qualitative analysis of RINEX files’, SoftwareX, vol. 22, p. 101372, May 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.softx.2023.101372

    2023

  9. [17]

    F. Zhu, X. Chen, Q. Cai, and X. Zhang, ‘A large -scale diverse GNSS/SINS dataset: construction, publication, and application’

  10. [18]

    Ligocki, A

    A. Ligocki, A. Jelinek, and L. Zalud, ‘Brno Urban Dataset -- The New Data for Self -Driving Agents and Mapping Tasks’, in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , May 2020, pp. 3284 –3290. doi: 10.1109/ICRA40945.2020.9197277

    2020

  11. [19]

    Kawamoto, N

    S. Kawamoto, N. Takamatsu, and S. Abe, ‘RINGO: A RINEX pre -processing software for multi -GNSS data’, Earth Planets Space , vol. 75, no. 1, p. 54, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40623-023-01811-w

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Wen et al., ‘UrbanLoco: A Full Sensor Suite Dataset for Mapping and Localization in Urban Scenes’, Apr

    W. Wen et al., ‘UrbanLoco: A Full Sensor Suite Dataset for Mapping and Localization in Urban Scenes’, Apr. 02, 2020, arXiv: arXiv:1912.09513. Accessed: Aug. 25, 2024. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.09513

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Glaner and R

    M. Glaner and R. Weber, ‘PPP with integer ambiguity resolution for GPS and Galileo using satellite products from different analysis centers’, GPS Solut., vol. 25, no. 3, p. 102, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10291-021-01140-z

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    T. Qin, P. Li, and S. Shen, ‘VINS -Mono: A Robust and Versatile Monocular Visual -Inertial State Estimator’, IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1004 –1020, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TRO.2018.2853729

    2018

  15. [23]

    Durrant -Whyte and T

    H. Durrant -Whyte and T. Bailey, ‘Simultaneous localization and mapping: Part I’, IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. , vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 99 –110, Jun. 2006, doi: 10.1109/MRA.2006.1638022

    2006 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Concha, G

    A. Concha, G. Loianno, V. Kumar, and J. Civera, ‘Visual-inertial direct SLAM’, in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , Stockholm, Sweden: IEEE, May 2016, pp. 1331 –1338. doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2016.7487266

    2016

  17. [25]

    T. Shan, B. Englot, D. Meyers, W. Wang, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, ‘LIO-SAM: Tightly-coupled Lidar Inertial Odometry via Smoothing and Mapping’, Jul. 14, 2020, arXiv: arXiv:2007.00258. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2007.00258

    2020 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Jia et al., ‘Visual-SLAM classical framework and key techniques: A review’, Sensors, vol

    G. Jia et al., ‘Visual-SLAM classical framework and key techniques: A review’, Sensors, vol. 22, no. 12, p. 4582, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.3390/s22124582

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    K. Wang, C. Cao, S. Ma, and F. Ren, ‘An optimization - based multi -sensor fusion approach towards global drift -free motion estimation’, IEEE Sens. J., vol. 21, no. 10, pp. 12228 – 12235, May 2021, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2021.3064446

    2021

  20. [28]

    T. Shan, B. Englot, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, ‘LVI -SAM: Tightly-coupled lidar -visual-inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping’, in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , Xi’an, China: IEEE, May

    2021

  21. [29]

    S. Cao, X. Lu, and S. Shen, ‘GVINS: Tightly Coupled GNSS–Visual–Inertial Fusion for Smooth and Consistent State Estimation’, IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2004–2021, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TRO.2021.3133730

    2004

  22. [2021]

    Feng Zhu is an associate professor with the School of Geodesy and Geomatics, Wuhan University

    doi: 10.1109/icra48506.2021.9561996. Feng Zhu is an associate professor with the School of Geodesy and Geomatics, Wuhan University. He received his B.Sc. (2012), M.Sc. (2015), and Ph.D. (2019) degrees in Geodesy and Engineering Surveying (all with distinction) from Wuhan Unive...

    2012

  23. [4396]

    doi: 10.1109/IROS51168.2021.9636655

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.