Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The Oxford Spires Dataset: Benchmarking Large-Scale LiDAR-Visual Localisation, Reconstruction and Radiance Field Methods

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read On a new LiDAR-verified outdoor benchmark, state-of-the-art radiance field methods overfit their training camera poses and underperform multi-view stereo in 3D reconstruction.

desk verdict A valuable new dataset with a useful 3D reconstruction comparison, but the headline NVS claim is confounded by appearance and coverage effects, and the localisation GT has a circularity worth fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10546 v2 pith:YGT3SXKV submitted 2024-11-15 cs.CV cs.RO

Yifu Tao , Miguel Ángel Muñoz-Bañón , Lintong Zhang , Jiahao Wang , Lanke Frank Tarimo Fu , Maurice Fallon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords datasetLiDAR-visualSLAMterrestrialDARscannergroundtruthlocalisationbenchmark3Dreconstructionnovel-viewsynthesisneuralradiancefieldsGaussiansplatting
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 introduces the Oxford Spires Dataset, a large outdoor multi-sensor collection from six historic sites, built around three synchronised colour cameras, a 64-beam LiDAR, and an IMU, with millimetre-accurate ground-truth 3D models obtained from a terrestrial LiDAR scanner (TLS). The authors use it to construct three benchmarks—localisation, 3D reconstruction, and novel-view synthesis—and report how current SLAM, SfM, MVS, and radiance field methods perform. Their main finding is that state-of-the-art radiance field methods (NeRF-based and 3D Gaussian Splatting-based) overfit the poses and images they train on: they render well from near-training viewpoints but degrade sharply when rendered from distant trajectories, and they reconstruct less accurate 3D geometry than classical multi-view stereo using the same photographs. If this holds, radiance field methods will need explicit geometry or depth regularisation before they can be used as the map representation in outdoor SLAM, and this dataset provides the measurement tool to track that progress.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the dataset and its ground-truth pipeline: a handheld unit with three synchronised fisheye colour cameras, a wide field-of-view 64-beam LiDAR, and an IMU, paired with survey-grade TLS scans used as reference 3D models. Ground-truth trajectories are produced by ICP-registering motion-undistorted LiDAR scans to the TLS map, following the methodology of the Newer College dataset. The decisive evaluation mechanism is the novel-view synthesis protocol, which distinguishes in-sequence test images (held-out frames from the training trajectory) from out-of-sequence test images (frames from a separate trajectory with viewpoints far from training); this separation is what exposes the overfitting that standard benchmarks miss. Reconstruction quality is scored by F-score at 5 cm and 10 cm thresholds against the TLS map.

What would settle it

An independent survey of one site, such as total-station or GPS ground-control markers placed in the scene, that reveals trajectory errors significantly above 2 cm would change the localisation rankings; conversely, a depth-regularised radiance field that closes the out-of-sequence PSNR and reconstruction-F-score gap would directly weaken the paper's claim that current radiance field representations cannot generalise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, given the same visual inputs and ground truth from a millimetre-accurate TLS map, state-of-the-art radiance field methods do not generalise beyond their training trajectory: they overfit to the training poses/images, and their 3D geometry is less accurate than that of multi-view stereo systems. The paper demonstrates this with an out-of-sequence evaluation in which test images come from trajectories far from the training trajectory, causing visible artefacts such as elongated Gaussians along training view directions and incorrect view-dependent colours. A further claim is that the three-camera wide field-of-view configuration provides view constraints that make vision-only SfM (COLMAP) competitive with LiDAR SLAM in several sequences.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's localisation rankings assume the ICP-registered ground-truth trajectories are accurate to about 1–2 cm, which is validated by reprojecting the LiDAR scans into the TLS map—a self-consistency check rather than an independent survey.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Radiance field methods intended for outdoor SLAM must incorporate explicit geometry or depth supervision rather than relying on photometric training alone.
  • Novel-view-synthesis benchmarks should include test viewpoints distant from the training trajectory, not only held-out frames sampled from it.
  • Classical multi-view stereo pipelines remain a stronger baseline than current NeRF and 3D Gaussian Splatting methods for metric 3D reconstruction in large outdoor scenes.
  • The dataset offers the first outdoor benchmark combining three colour cameras, LiDAR, IMU, and millimetre-accurate TLS ground truth in a single evaluation suite for SLAM, SfM, MVS, and radiance field methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not run: train radiance fields with the provided LiDAR-aligned depth images and measure whether the in-sequence/out-of-sequence gap shrinks; if it does, depth supervision is the direct remedy.
  • The auto-exposure limitation the authors flag suggests that appearance-embedding techniques (per-frame appearance codes) will be needed for colour-consistent merged reconstructions, but the paper does not evaluate them.
  • The out-of-sequence protocol could be applied to the learning-based radiance SLAM systems the paper lists as future work (for example Gaussian Splatting SLAM); those systems may show even stronger overfitting because they optimise geometry online.
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 introduces the Oxford Spires Dataset, a large-scale outdoor multi-modal dataset captured at six Oxford heritage sites with three synchronised fisheye RGB cameras, a 64-beam LiDAR, and an IMU, together with millimetre-accurate ground-truth 3D models from a Terrestrial LiDAR Scanner. It describes sensor calibration, data formats, processed SLAM/SfM outputs, and three benchmarks: LiDAR-visual localisation, 3D reconstruction, and novel-view synthesis. The paper evaluates several LiDAR-inertial SLAM systems, COLMAP, OpenMVS, and two radiance-field families (Nerfacto and Splatfacto), and reports two headline findings: radiance-field methods overfit to training poses/images and do not generalise to out-of-sequence viewpoints, and radiance-field reconstructions underperform MVS when given the same visual inputs.

Significance. If the dataset is released as described, it is a valuable community resource: it provides outdoor colour multi-camera imagery, LiDAR and inertial data with TLS-based ground truth for both trajectories and dense 3D models, and it ships parsing and evaluation software. The three-camera configuration and the out-of-sequence NVS benchmark are useful additions beyond existing outdoor SLAM datasets. The paper also gives concrete multi-method baselines across three tasks, which is helpful for future benchmarking. However, the two headline claims about radiance-field methods are currently supported by experiments that do not fully isolate pose generalisation from appearance and scene-content confounds, and the localisation ground truth is generated with the same system that is then evaluated. These issues are fixable with additional analyses, but they affect the paper's central conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.1.7, Sec. 5.1.4, Table 3] The localisation ground truth is computed by ICP-registering LiDAR point clouds that were motion-undistorted with VILENS-SLAM (Sec. 5.1.4) to the TLS map (Sec. 5.1.7). VILENS-SLAM and HBA (which consumes VILENS-SLAM's output, Sec. 6.1) are then evaluated against this ground truth in Table 3. This gives VILENS-SLAM an advantage because its own motion estimate is already embedded in the input point clouds used to create the ground truth, while other LiDAR SLAM systems must undistort with their own odometry. The stated validation, projecting the LiDAR scans into the map and comparing to the TLS map, is a self-consistency check against the same map used for the registrations and does not independently establish the claimed 1-2 cm accuracy. Please provide an independent accuracy assessment (e.g., surveyed checkpoints, manual feature correspondences, or cross-validation with COLMAP poses) and report whether the Table 3 ranking is robust to an alternative ground-truth generation protocol.
  2. [Sec. 6.3.2, Table 5, Fig. 12] The out-of-sequence NVS benchmark selects test images from a separate trajectory that are "far away apart or have very different view directions" (Sec. 6.3.2). This protocol confounds pose extrapolation with appearance shifts caused by auto-exposure and different capture times, which the paper itself acknowledges in Fig. 12, and with scene content (facades, sky, shadowed surfaces) that no training ray observed. PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS are all sensitive to these confounds, and the paper gives no per-pixel visibility or coverage statistics of test images against training frustums. The manual test selection is also not described with enough precision for exact reproduction. Consequently, the drop in Table 5 does not, by itself, establish the claim that radiance-field methods overfit to training poses/images. Please report coverage statistics, repeat the split multiple times with error bars, add an appearance-normalised control (e.g., exposure-corrected images or same-surface/different-pose held-out frames), and clarify how the conclusion would be affected if the test set were restricted to pixels whose underlying surfaces are visible in the training set. The evidence is also based on only two method families (Nerfacto and Splatfacto), which is a narrow basis for the abstract's general statement about state-of-the-art radiance-field methods.
  3. [Sec. 6.2, Table 4] The reconstruction comparison for Nerfacto uses point clouds generated by calculating expected depth and colour along training rays (Sec. 6.2). This extraction procedure may not be the most representative way to obtain a geometric reconstruction from a radiance field, and it can penalise Nerfacto relative to OpenMVS in ways that are unrelated to the underlying scene representation. Please justify this choice more explicitly, or additionally report results with an alternative extraction (e.g., density-thresholded marching cubes or a mesh extracted from the learned field), so that the conclusion "radiance-field methods underperform MVS" is not an artefact of the chosen point-cloud extraction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] The symbol ✗ is used for both SC-LIO-SAM failures and a Fast-LIVO2 missing entry (e.g., Christ Church College 03), but no legend explains the difference between "failed", "not run", and "did not converge"; please add one.
  2. [Sec. 6.3.3] The sentence "LPIPS increased by 9.6% and SSIM by 2% on average" is ambiguous because an increase in LPIPS is a degradation; please state the sign of the change relative to the metric's semantics.
  3. [References] The reference list contains two entries for the same paper (Matsuki et al. 2024a and 2024b, both titled "Gaussian Splatting SLAM"); these should be merged into a single reference.
  4. [Sec. 6.3.2] The phrase "far away apart" should be "far apart".
  5. [Fig. 12] The figure caption does not specify which panel is the evaluation image and which is the rendered image, nor how the per-frame appearance-averaging was performed; please make the comparison easier to interpret.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Localisation ground truth is built from VILENS-SLAM's own undistorted scans and an offline VILENS-ICP pipeline, then VILENS-SLAM is scored against it (Tab. 3); the NVS and reconstruction benchmarks are otherwise self-contained, so partial circularity.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.1, 5.1.4, 5.1.7, 6.1 (Table 3)]
    "To obtain a synchronised LiDAR point cloud for a synchronised set of three camera images, we motion-correct a LiDAR point cloud with IMU preintegration using VILENS (Wisth et al. 2023). ... We provide the estimated trajectory and the motion undistorted point clouds output by LiDAR-inertial SLAM (VILENS-SLAM (Wisth et al. 2023; Ramezani et al. 2020a)). ... The ground truth trajectory is computed by ICP registering each undistorted LiDAR point cloud (as described in Sec. 5.1.4) to the merged TLS map ... we use an offline version of VILENS (Wisth et al."

    VILENS-SLAM is both the tool that produces the reference and a method being scored. The GT trajectory (Sec. 5.1.7) is made by ICP-registering point clouds that were motion-undistorted with VILENS (Sec. 3.1) and provided as VILENS-SLAM outputs (Sec. 5.1.4); an offline VILENS-ICP pipeline produces the poses. Section 6.1 then reports VILENS-SLAM's ATE against this same GT (Tab. 3). The stated validation ('projecting the individual LiDAR scans into a map and comparing them to the TLS map') is a residual of the same ICP fit to the same TLS map, so it does not independently confirm the 1-2 cm accuracy claim. The TLS map is external, and other methods are compared against the same GT, so the circularity is partial; the NVS and reconstruction claims are separate.

full rationale

The paper's headline radiance-field finding--that Nerfacto/Splatfacto overfit training poses and underperform MVS--is not circular. The out-of-sequence test images are manually separated from training poses (Sec. 6.3.2), the methods are trained on COLMAP poses (Sec. 5.1.5) and scored with standard metrics (Sec. 6.3.1); no equation in the paper defines the reported drop in terms of the inputs. The skeptic's point that the protocol conflates pose extrapolation with appearance shift and unseen scene content is a validity or confound concern, not a definitional reduction; the paper even acknowledges the appearance confound in Fig. 12 and Sec. 7. The one genuine circular step is the localisation GT: it is generated from VILENS-undistorted scans and an offline VILENS-ICP pipeline, and VILENS-SLAM is evaluated against it. This affects the localisation benchmark and the 1-2 cm accuracy claim but does not determine the NVS/reconstruction conclusions, so the overall score is 4.

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

The paper makes no theoretical predictions. Its claims depend on protocol choices (F-score thresholds, iteration counts, image subsampling), on the accuracy of the TLS maps and the ICP-derived ground truth, and on the assumption that default parameter settings for off-the-shelf methods are representative. The localisation ground truth uses output from one of the evaluated systems, which is the strongest contamination and is documented in the red flags.

free parameters (4)
  • F-score thresholds = 5 cm and 10 cm
    Hand-chosen thresholds for precision and recall in the reconstruction benchmark (Sec 6.2.1). No sensitivity analysis is reported, and the ranking between VILENS-SLAM, OpenMVS and Nerfacto could change with different thresholds.
  • Training iterations for NVS methods = 5000
    All radiance field methods are trained for 5000 iterations (Sec 6.3). Results may change with more iterations or per-method tuning.
  • Image spacing for COLMAP subset = 1 m
    Images are spaced 1 m apart for the SfM and radiance-field inputs (Sec 5.1.5). This choice affects pose estimation and the density of training views.
  • In-sequence test selection density = 1-in-10 images
    One in every ten images is held out as the in-sequence test set (Sec 6.3). The reported PSNR, SSIM and LPIPS values depend on this sampling density.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption ICP registration of each LiDAR frame to the TLS map is globally correct and gives 1-2 cm accuracy
    Sec 5.1.7 states this accuracy but validates it only by reprojecting registered scans into the same TLS map, so it is a self-consistency assumption rather than an independently verified error bound.
  • domain assumption TLS cloud-to-cloud registration error (3-7 mm) does not bias F-scores at 5 cm and 10 cm thresholds
    Sec 3.2 reports average cloud-to-cloud errors of 3-7 mm after Leica registration. This is assumed small enough not to affect the reconstruction benchmark comparisons.
  • domain assumption The manually merged COLMAP model used for out-of-sequence test sets is globally consistent and does not introduce registration drift
    Sec 6.3.2 merges images from different sequences using COLMAP to create out-of-sequence poses. No uncertainty or drift analysis is provided for this merged model.
  • domain assumption Off-the-shelf methods are run with default or standard parameters, so relative performance reflects method limitations rather than tuning
    The authors state in Sec 6.1.2 that methods could potentially perform better with further parameter tuning, yet the benchmark conclusions are drawn from these default runs.
  • domain assumption Dynamic objects and pedestrians do not materially affect the reconstruction and NVS metrics
    The TLS map is static, but no dynamic-object filtering is described for the reconstruction or NVS benchmarks, so moving pedestrians could add noise to the comparisons.
  • standard math Umeyama Sim(3) alignment correctly resolves the scale between COLMAP trajectories and the LiDAR-based metric ground truth
    Sec 5.1.5 uses Umeyama's method to estimate a Sim(3) transform. This is a standard procedure, but any residual scale error would propagate into metric comparisons of MVS and radiance field reconstructions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Oxford Spires Dataset: Benchmarking Large-Scale LiDAR-Visual Localisation, Reconstruction and Radiance Field Methods." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YGT3SXKV

@misc{pith2026241110546,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Oxford Spires Dataset: Benchmarking Large-Scale LiDAR-Visual Localisation, Reconstruction and Radiance Field Methods},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YGT3SXKV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10546}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a large-scale multi-modal dataset captured in and around well-known landmarks in Oxford using a custom-built multi-sensor perception unit as well as a millimetre-accurate map from a Terrestrial LiDAR Scanner (TLS). The perception unit includes three synchronised global shutter colour cameras, an automotive 3D LiDAR scanner, and an inertial sensor - all precisely calibrated. We also establish benchmarks for tasks involving localisation, reconstruction, and novel-view synthesis, which enable the evaluation of Simultaneous Localisation and Mapping (SLAM) methods, Structure-from-Motion (SfM) and Multi-view Stereo (MVS) methods as well as radiance field methods such as Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF) and 3D Gaussian Splatting. To evaluate 3D reconstruction the TLS 3D models are used as ground truth. Localisation ground truth is computed by registering the mobile LiDAR scans to the TLS 3D models. Radiance field methods are evaluated not only with poses sampled from the input trajectory, but also from viewpoints that are from trajectories which are distant from the training poses. Our evaluation demonstrates a key limitation of state-of-the-art radiance field methods: we show that they tend to overfit to the training poses/images and do not generalise well to out-of-sequence poses. They also underperform in 3D reconstruction compared to MVS systems using the same visual inputs. Our dataset and benchmarks are intended to facilitate better integration of radiance field methods and SLAM systems. The raw and processed data, along with software for parsing and evaluation, can be accessed at https://dynamic.robots.ox.ac.uk/datasets/oxford-spires/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10546 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Point cloud of the Radcliffe Camera and the Bodleian Library captured by the TLS. Note the scale bar in the bottom-right corner. Bottom: Views of the TLS maps from other sites. Each column is a different site. The upper images show views of colour point clouds while the lower images were taken by the scanner’s cameras. radiance field methods including Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF) (Mildenhall et al. 2021) and 3… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An isometric view of the sensor setup highlighting the coordinate frames of the cameras, the IMU and the LiDAR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Leica RTC360 TLS and the Frontier device in Blenheim Palace (left) and Christ Church College (right). Field-of-View of 360◦ × 300◦ . The final 3D point accuracy is 1.9 mm at 10 m and 5.3 mm at 40 m. The point clouds are coloured using 432 mega-pixel images captured by three cameras. Scans are registered in the field and re-optimised later using Leica’s Cyclone REGISTER 360 Plus software. The average cloud-to-cloud e… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: LiDAR point clouds overlaid on the camera images. This demonstrates the quality of camera intrinsics calibration and camera-LiDAR extrinsics calibration. In the left camera, the regions of the building without LiDAR points are due to the LiDAR’s limited sensing range. …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: File structure of the Oxford Spires dataset: For each sequence, we provide the raw images and LiDAR point clouds, ground truth trajectory, LiDAR SLAM trajectory (including undistorted point clouds synchronised to images), and COLMAP trajectory. For each site, we provid…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Image rendered from TLS map in Keble College. Bottom: Depth image corresponding to the rendered image. then ran COLMAP on this set of images. At walking speed, this results in a frequency of about 1 Hz. For each sequence, the total number of images was less than 2…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of SLAM trajectories (in red) and LiDAR point cloud maps (in blue) for four sequences from the dataset. For this site, we provide two outdoor trajectories of walking through streets and squares around the described area. The recordings contain many details of …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A top-down view showing a representative performance of the different systems for Sequence 01 at Blenheim Palace. The sequence starts and ends in the lower left. The environment where this sequence was collected can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparison between the reconstructions achieved by the different methods. The reconstructions in the first three columns are coloured by point-to-point distance to the ground truth model. ground reconstructions. In comparison, OpenMVS filters some of the reconstructio…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Illustrative results of Splatfacto-big when evaluated using in-sequence (green) and out-of-sequence (red) trajectories. When the rendering viewpoint is quite different from the training trajectory, the rendered images exhibit many more artefacts. The in-sequence and o…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between an evaluation image and a rendered image from Nerfacto (Tancik et al. 2023). The PSNR metric is affected not only by the visual scene, but also by the lighting difference. Nerfacto uses per-frame appearance encodings (Martin-Brualla et al. 2021) whi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. A Comprehensive Evaluation of LiDAR Odometry Techniques

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A seven-dataset ablation shows planar features with plane-to-plane residuals, IMU dewarping, and constant velocity initialization work best for LiDAR odometry.

  2. Boxi: Design Decisions in the Context of Algorithmic Performance for Robotics

    cs.RO 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using a 7.1 kg robot sensor payload and seven real-world environments, the study quantifies how time offsets, extrinsic calibration errors, IMU grade, and camera and LiDAR choice affect odometry accuracy.

  3. PINGS: Gaussian Splatting Meets Distance Fields within a Point-Based Implicit Neural Map

    cs.RO 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PINGS jointly builds a signed distance field and a Gaussian splatting radiance field in one point-based neural map, using geometric consistency to improve both.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aan s H, Jensen RR, Vogiatzis G, Tola E and Dahl AB (2016) Large-scale data for multiple-view stereopsis. Intl. J. of Computer Vision 120: 153--168

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    IEEE Int

    Barron JT, Mildenhall B, Verbin D, Srinivasan PP and Hedman P (2022) Mip-NeRF 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) : 5470--5479

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    In: IEEE Int

    Barron JT and Tsai YT (2017) Fast fourier color constancy. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . pp. 886--894

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    In: Sensor fusion IV : control paradigms and data structures , volume 1611

    Besl PJ and McKay ND (1992) Method for registration of 3-d shapes. In: Sensor fusion IV : control paradigms and data structures , volume 1611. Spie, pp. 586--606

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    In: IEEE Intl

    Brizi L, Giacomini E, Di Giammarino L, Ferrari S, Salem O, De Rebotti L and Grisetti G (2024) VBR : A vision benchmark in Rome . In: IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Burri M, Nikolic J, Gohl P, Schneider T, Rehder J, Omari S, Achtelik MW and Siegwart R (2016) The EuRoC micro aerial vehicle datasets. Intl. J. of Robotics Research 35(10): 1157--1163

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Carlevaris-Bianco N, Ushani AK and Eustice RM (2016) University of Michigan North Campus long-term vision and lidar dataset. Intl. J. of Robotics Research 35(9): 1023--1035

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    In: IEEE Intl

    Chang A, Dai A, Funkhouser T, Halber M, Niessner M, Savva M, Song S, Zeng A and Zhang Y (2017) Matterport3D : Learning from RGB-D data in indoor environments. In: IEEE Intl. Conf. on 3D Vision. pp. 667--676

    work page 2017

Show all 72 references
  1. [9]

    In: IEEE Int

    Dai A, Chang AX, Savva M, Halber M, Funkhouser T and Nie ner M (2017) ScanNet : Richly-annotated 3D reconstructions of indoor scenes. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . pp. 5828--5839

    2017

  2. [10]

    In: IEEE/RSJ Intl

    Fu LFT, Chebrolu N and Fallon M (2023) Extrinsic calibration of camera to LIDAR using a differentiable checkerboard model. In: IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 1825--1831

    2023

  3. [11]

    Geiger A, Lenz P, Stiller C and Urtasun R (2013) Vision meets robotics: The KITTI dataset. Intl. J. of Robotics Research 32(11): 1231--1237

    2013

  4. [12]

    In: IEEE Intl

    Handa A, Whelan T, McDonald J and Davison AJ (2014) A benchmark for RGB-D visual odometry, 3D reconstruction and SLAM . In: IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 1524--1531

    2014

  5. [13]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(3): 7518--7525

    Helmberger M, Morin K, Berner B, Kumar N, Cioffi G and Scaramuzza D (2022) The Hilti SLAM challenge dataset. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(3): 7518--7525

    2022

  6. [14]

    Autonomous Robots 34: 189--206

    Hornung A, Wurm KM, Bennewitz M, Stachniss C and Burgard W (2013) OctoMap : An efficient probabilistic 3D mapping framework based on octrees. Autonomous Robots 34: 189--206

    2013

  7. [15]

    Jeong J, Cho Y, Shin YS, Roh H and Kim A (2019) Complex urban dataset with multi-level sensors from highly diverse urban environments. Intl. J. of Robotics Research 38(6): 642--657

    2019

  8. [16]

    In: 2021 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA)

    Jiang P, Osteen P, Wigness M and Saripalli S (2021) Rellis-3D dataset: Data, benchmarks and analysis. In: 2021 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 1110--1116

    2021

  9. [17]

    IEEE Trans

    Kannala J and Brandt S (2006) A generic camera model and calibration method for conventional, wide-angle, and fish-eye lenses. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell. 28(8): 1335--1340

    2006

  10. [18]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 42(4): 1--14

    Kerbl B, Kopanas G, Leimk \"u hler T and Drettakis G (2023) 3D Gaussian Splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 42(4): 1--14

    2023

  11. [19]

    In: IEEE/RSJ Intl

    Kim G and Kim A (2018) Scan context: Egocentric spatial descriptor for place recognition within 3D point cloud map. In: IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 4802--4809

    2018

  12. [20]

    In: International Conference on Electronics, Information, and Communication (ICEIC)

    Kim G, Yun S, Kim J and Kim A (2022) SC-LiDAR-SLAM : a front-end agnostic versatile LiDAR SLAM system. In: International Conference on Electronics, Information, and Communication (ICEIC). IEEE, pp. 1--6

    2022

  13. [21]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 36(4): 1--13

    Knapitsch A, Park J, Zhou QY and Koltun V (2017) Tanks and Temples : Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 36(4): 1--13

    2017

  14. [22]

    Li H, Zou Y, Chen N, Lin J, Liu X, Xu W, Zheng C, Li R, He D, Kong F, Cai Y, Liu Z, Zhou S, Xue K and Zhang F (2024) MARS-LVIG dataset: A multi-sensor aerial robots SLAM dataset for LiDAR-visual-inertial-GNSS fusion. Intl. J. of Robotics Research 43(8): 1114--1127

    2024

  15. [23]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 61: 1--16

    Li J, Wu W, Yang B, Zou X, Yang Y, Zhao X and Dong Z (2023) Whu-helmet: a helmet-based multisensor SLAM dataset for the evaluation of real-time 3D mapping in large-scale gnss-denied environments. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 61: 1--16

    2023

  16. [24]

    IEEE Trans

    Lin J, Yuan C, Cai Y, Li H, Ren Y, Zou Y, Hong X and Zhang F (2023) ImMesh : An immediate LiDAR localization and meshing framework. IEEE Trans. Robotics 39(6): 4312--4331

    2023

  17. [25]

    IEEE Trans

    Lin J and Zhang F (2024) R 3 live++: A robust, real-time, radiance reconstruction package with a tightly-coupled lidar-inertial-visual state estimator. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Machine Intell

    2024

  18. [26]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8(3): 1523--1530

    Liu X, Liu Z, Kong F and Zhang F (2023) Large-scale LiDAR consistent mapping using hierarchical LiDAR bundle adjustment. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8(3): 1523--1530

    2023

  19. [27]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 9(3): 2798--2805

    Liu Y, Fu Y, Qin M, Xu Y, Xu B, Chen F, Goossens B, Sun PZ, Yu H, Liu C, Chen L, Tao W and Zhao H (2024) BotanicGarden : A high-quality dataset for robot navigation in unstructured natural environments. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 9(3): 2798--2805

    2024

  20. [28]

    In: IEEE Int

    Martin-Brualla R, Radwan N, Sajjadi MSM, Barron JT, Dosovitskiy A and Duckworth D (2021) NeRF in the Wild: Neural Radiance Fields for Unconstrained Photo Collections . In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . pp. 7210--7219

    2021

  21. [29]

    In: IEEE Int

    Matsuki H, Murai R, Kelly PH and Davison AJ (2024 a ) Gaussian splatting SLAM . In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . pp. 18039--18048

    2024

  22. [30]

    In: IEEE Int

    Matsuki H, Murai R, Kelly PH and Davison AJ (2024 b ) Gaussian splatting SLAM . In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . pp. 18039--18048

    2024

  23. [31]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38(4): 1--14

    Mildenhall B, Srinivasan PP, Ortiz-Cayon R, Kalantari NK, Ramamoorthi R, Ng R and Kar A (2019) Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38(4): 1--14

    2019

  24. [32]

    Communications of the ACM 65(1): 99--106

    Mildenhall B, Srinivasan PP, Tancik M, Barron JT, Ramamoorthi R and Ng R (2021) NeRF : Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Communications of the ACM 65(1): 99--106

    2021

  25. [33]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 41(4): 1--15

    M \"u ller T, Evans A, Schied C and Keller A (2022) Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 41(4): 1--15

    2022

  26. [34]

    In: IEEE Int

    Murai R, Dexheimer E and Davison AJ (2025) MASt3R-SLAM : Real-time dense SLAM with 3D reconstruction priors. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2025

  27. [35]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 9(8): 7286--7293

    Nair AD, Kindle J, Levchev P and Scaramuzza D (2024) Hilti SLAM Challenge 2023: Benchmarking single + multi-session SLAM across sensor constellations in construction. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 9(8): 7286--7293

    2024

  28. [36]

    In: IEEE Int

    Nguyen TM, Yuan S, Nguyen TH, Yin P, Cao H, Xie L, Wozniak M, Jensfelt P, Thiel M, Ziegenbein J and Blunder N (2024) MCD : Diverse large-scale multi-campus dataset for robot perception. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . pp. 22304--22313

    2024

  29. [37]

    IEEE Trans

    Pan Y, Zhong X, Wiesmann L, Posewsky T, Behley J and Stachniss C (2024) PIN-SLAM : LiDAR SLAM using a point-based implicit neural representation for achieving global map consistency. IEEE Trans. Robotics

    2024

  30. [38]

    In: IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

    Ramezani M, Tinchev G, Iuganov E and Fallon M (2020 a ) Online LiDAR-SLAM for legged robots with robust registration and deep-learned loop closure. In: IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters. pp. 4158--4164

    2020

  31. [39]

    In: IEEE/RSJ Intl

    Ramezani M, Wang Y, Camurri M, Wisth D, Mattamala M and Fallon M (2020 b ) The Newer College dataset: Handheld lidar, inertial and vision with ground truth. In: IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 4353--4360

    2020

  32. [40]

    In: IEEE Intl

    Rehder J, Nikolic J, Schneider T, Hinzmann T and Siegwart R (2016) Extending kalibr: Calibrating the extrinsics of multiple IMUs and of individual axes. In: IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 4304--4311

    2016

  33. [41]

    In: IEEE Int

    Rematas K, Liu A, Srinivasan PP, Barron JT, Tagliasacchi A, Funkhouser T and Ferrari V (2022) Urban radiance fields. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . pp. 12932--12942

    2022

  34. [42]

    Sarlin PE, Dusmanu M, Sch\"onberger JL, Speciale P, Gruber L, Larsson V, Miksik O and Pollefeys M (2022) LaMAR : Benchmarking localization and mapping for augmented reality . In: Eur. Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV). pp. 686--704

    2022

  35. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02506

    Schmidt F, Blessing C, Enzweiler M and Valada A (2024) ROVER : A multi-season dataset for visual SLAM . arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.02506

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    In: IEEE Int

    Sch\" o nberger JL and Frahm JM (2016) Structure-from-Motion revisited. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . pp. 4104--4113

    2016

  37. [45]

    In: IEEE Int

    Schops T, Schonberger JL, Galliani S, Sattler T, Schindler K, Pollefeys M and Geiger A (2017) A multi-view stereo benchmark with high-resolution images and multi-camera videos. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . pp. 3260--3269

    2017

  38. [46]

    In: IEEE/RSJ Intl

    Schubert D, Goll T, Demmel N, Usenko V, Stueckler J and Cremers D (2018) The TUM VI benchmark for evaluating visual-inertial odometry. In: IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 1680--1687

    2018

  39. [47]

    In: IEEE Int

    Seitz SM, Curless B, Diebel J, Scharstein D and Szeliski R (2006) A comparison and evaluation of multi-view stereo reconstruction algorithms. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , volume 1. IEEE, pp. 519--528

    2006

  40. [48]

    In: IEEE/RSJ Intl

    Shan T, Englot B, Meyers D, Wang W, Ratti C and Daniela R (2020) LIO-SAM : Tightly-coupled lidar inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping. In: IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 5135--5142

    2020

  41. [49]

    Smith M, Baldwin I, Churchill W, Paul R and Newman P (2009) The New College vision and laser data set. Intl. J. of Robotics Research 28(5): 595--599

    2009

  42. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05797

    Straub J, Whelan T, Ma L, Chen Y, Wijmans E, Green S, Engel JJ, Mur-Artal R, Ren C, Verma S, Clarkson A, Yan M, Budge B, Yan Y, Pan X, Yon J, Zou Y, Leon K, Carter N, Briales J, Gillingham T, Mueggler E, Pesqueira L, Savva M, Batra D, Strasdat HM, Nardi RD, Goesele M, Lovegrov...

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    In: IEEE/RSJ Intl

    Sturm J, Engelhard N, Endres F, Burgard W and Cremers D (2012) A benchmark for the evaluation of RGB-D SLAM systems. In: IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 573--580

    2012

  44. [52]

    In: Intl

    Sucar E, Liu S, Ortiz J and Davison AJ (2021) iMAP : Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time. In: Intl. Conf. on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 6229--6238

    2021

  45. [53]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09346

    Sun T, Hao Y, Huang S, Savarese S, Schindler K, Pollefeys M and Armeni I (2023) Nothing Stands Still : A spatiotemporal benchmark on 3D point cloud registration under large geometric and temporal change. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09346

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    In: SIGGRAPH

    Tancik M, Weber E, Ng E, Li R, Yi B, Wang T, Kristoffersen A, Austin J, Salahi K, Ahuja A, Mcallister D, Kerr J and Kanazawa A (2023) Nerfstudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development. In: SIGGRAPH. pp. 1--12

    2023

  47. [55]

    Teed Z and Deng J (2021) DROID-SLAM : Deep visual SLAM for monocular, stereo, and RGB-D cameras 34: 16558--16569

    2021

  48. [56]

    IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13(4): 600--612

    Wang Z, Bovik A, Sheikh H and Simoncelli E (2004) Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13(4): 600--612

    2004

  49. [57]

    Wei H, Jiao J, Hu X, Yu J, Xie X, Wu J, Zhu Y, Liu Y, Wang L and Liu M (2024) FusionPortableV2 : A unified multi-sensor dataset for generalized SLAM across diverse platforms and scalable environments. Intl. J. of Robotics Research

    2024

  50. [58]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6(2): 1004--1011

    Wisth D, Camurri M, Das S and Fallon M (2021) Unified multi-modal landmark tracking for tightly coupled lidar-visual-inertial odometry. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6(2): 1004--1011

    2021

  51. [59]

    IEEE Trans

    Wisth D, Camurri M and Fallon M (2023) VILENS : Visual, inertial, lidar, and leg odometry for all-terrain legged robots. IEEE Trans. Robotics 39(1): 309--326

    2023

  52. [60]

    IEEE Trans

    Xu W, Cai Y, He D, Lin J and Zhang F (2022) Fast-LIO2 : Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry. IEEE Trans. Robotics 38(4): 2053--2073

    2022

  53. [61]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06765

    Ye V, Li R, Kerr J, Turkulainen M, Yi B, Pan Z, Seiskari O, Ye J, Hu J, Tancik M and Kanazawa A (2024) gsplat: An open-source library for Gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06765

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    In: Intl

    Yeshwanth C, Liu YC, Nie ner M and Dai A (2023) ScanNet++ : A high-fidelity dataset of 3D indoor scenes. In: Intl. Conf. on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 12--22

    2023

  55. [63]

    (2019) Woodscape: A multi-task, multi-camera fisheye dataset for autonomous driving

    Yogamani S, Hughes C, Horgan J, Sistu G, Varley P, O'Dea D, Uric \'a r M, Milz S, Simon M, Amende K et al. (2019) Woodscape: A multi-task, multi-camera fisheye dataset for autonomous driving. In: Intl. Conf. on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 9308--9318

    2019

  56. [64]

    Zhang D, Wang C, Wang W, Li P, Qin M and Wang H (2024) Gaussian in the wild: 3D gaussian splatting for unconstrained image collections. In: Eur. Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV). Springer, pp. 341--359

    2024

  57. [65]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8(1): 408--415

    Zhang L, Helmberger M, Fu LFT, Wisth D, Camurri M, Scaramuzza D and Fallon M (2022) Hilti-Oxford dataset: A millimeter-accurate benchmark for simultaneous localization and mapping. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8(1): 408--415

    2022

  58. [66]

    In: IEEE Int

    Zhang R, Isola P, Efros AA, Shechtman E and Wang O (2018) The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . pp. 586--595

    2018

  59. [67]

    (2024) Fast-LIVO2 : Fast, direct lidar-inertial-visual odometry

    Zheng C, Xu W, Zou Z, Hua T, Yuan C, He D, Zhou B, Liu Z, Lin J, Zhu F et al. (2024) Fast-LIVO2 : Fast, direct lidar-inertial-visual odometry. IEEE Transactions on Robotics

    2024

  60. [68]

    In: IEEE Int

    Zhu Z, Peng S, Larsson V, Xu W, Bao H, Cui Z, Oswald MR and Pollefeys M (2022) NICE-SLAM : Neural implicit scalable encoding for SLAM . In: IEEE Int. Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . pp. 12786--12796

    2022

  61. [69]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence...

  62. [70]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  63. [71]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence aft...

  64. [72]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.