Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

MapEval: Towards Unified, Robust and Efficient SLAM Map Evaluation Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 MapEval claims voxel-wise Gaussian Wasserstein distances make SLAM map evaluation 100–500 times faster while preserving measurement quality.

desk verdict Useful, practical map-evaluation framework with a sound core metric, but the robustness claim needs fixing because the metric silently ignores gross outliers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17928 v2 pith:SHWFPMMV submitted 2024-11-26 cs.RO

Xiangcheng Hu , Jin Wu , Mingkai Jia , Hongyu Yan , Yi Jiang , Binqian Jiang , Wei Zhang , Wei He
show 1 more author
Ping Tan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords SLAMmapevaluationpointcloudmapsWassersteindistancevoxelizedGaussianapproximationqualityassessmentlocalconsistencyglobalgeometricaccuracycomputationalefficiency
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

A SLAM system's output is a point cloud map, but judging whether that map is good has been ad hoc: trajectory error is used as a proxy, and point-cloud metrics like Chamfer distance are slow, noise-sensitive, and measure only global geometry. MapEval claims to fix this by approximating the point distribution inside each voxel as a Gaussian and computing the Wasserstein distance between corresponding voxels. This yields Average Wasserstein Distance (AWD) for global accuracy and Spatial Consistency Score (SCS) for local consistency under one error standard. The paper reports that the resulting evaluation is stable against noise and outliers and runs 100 to 500 times faster than Chamfer distance and mean map entropy on million-point maps. If correct, this gives the SLAM community a practical, unified way to compare maps from different systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the voxelized Gaussian approximation: both ground-truth and estimated maps are partitioned into identical voxels, each voxel's points are summarized by a mean vector and covariance matrix, and the closed-form L2 Wasserstein distance between corresponding Gaussians is computed. AWD is the average of these distances over all voxels; SCS is the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean of Wasserstein distances over neighboring voxels, with lower values indicating more consistent local error. This shifts the cost from nearest-neighbor searches or linear programming over millions of points to a single pass through occupied voxels, because voxel statistics are computed in one sweep and the Wasserstein distance between two Gaussians is a constant-time matrix expression.

What would settle it

Take a voxel whose true points lie on two parallel thin surfaces (two sides of a wall) and an estimated voxel that contains only one of those surfaces with similar mean and covariance; if AWD for the corrupted voxel is close to AWD for the correct voxel while the point-level Chamfer distance to the ground truth is orders of magnitude larger, the Gaussian summary has discarded exactly the geometry the metric claims to measure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that a Gaussian approximation per fixed-size voxel makes the Wasserstein distance computationally tractable for massive SLAM maps while preserving its ability to separate global displacement (voxel means) from local structural change (voxel covariances). AWD averages these voxel-wise distances to measure global geometric accuracy, and SCS measures how uniformly the errors are spread across neighboring voxels. Experiments on indoor and outdoor sequences, including a parking-lot scene where PALoc beats FAST-LIO2 in localization accuracy, show AWD capturing global drift that Chamfer distance misses, and SCS exposing the global-versus-local trade-off introduced by loop closure. The reported speedup is at least 100–500 times over Chamfer distance and Mean Map Entropy with comparable or more stable evaluation behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the points inside each 2–4 m voxel are well described by a Gaussian cloud; for sparse maps of thin walls, edges, or partially covered surfaces this approximation breaks down, and the Wasserstein distance between fitted Gaussians loses its geometric meaning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Million-point maps that took minutes to hours to score with Chamfer distance or mean map entropy can be scored in seconds, making routine map evaluation practical on real SLAM outputs.
  • AWD gives a global accuracy number that tracks known drift: in the S14 parking lot, PALoc's loop-closure improvement is visible in AWD but nearly invisible in Chamfer distance.
  • SCS reveals a trade-off that single-number global metrics hide: loop closure can improve global geometry while slightly degrading local consistency.
  • The framework standardizes the evaluation pipeline (registration, thresholded correspondence, voxelized error) so maps from different SLAM systems can be compared on the same ground truth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because AWD and SCS are computed from differentiable Gaussian parameters, the same error signal could plausibly be reused as a cost in loop-closure optimization or as a training loss for learned mapping, though the paper does not pursue this.
  • The CDF and 3-sigma error bound could be turned into an automatic region flagger that points operators to the exact voxels needing remapping instead of requiring manual error-map inspection.
  • Practical cross-dataset comparison would require fixing the voxel size per environment type (2–3 m indoors, 3–4 m outdoors as the paper suggests); otherwise AWD values from different experiments are not directly comparable.
  • The sub-second runtimes on medium maps suggest the metric could be adapted to incremental or online evaluation during mapping, although the paper only evaluates it offline.
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. This manuscript introduces MapEval, an open-source framework for evaluating large-scale SLAM point cloud maps. The core proposal is to approximate each voxel's point distribution by a Gaussian and compute the closed-form 2-Wasserstein distance between corresponding voxels, yielding two metrics: AWD for global geometric accuracy and SCS for local consistency. The authors claim O(N) complexity, robustness to noise and outliers, and 100-500x speedups over AC/CD/MME, and validate on simulated and real-world datasets (FusionPortable, Newer College, GEODE, and a self-collected MS dataset) using FAST-LIO2 and PALoc.

Significance. The closed-form Gaussian Wasserstein metric is a sensible way to make EMD-like evaluation tractable, and the public library plus experiments on multiple datasets are strengths. If the robustness and efficiency claims are correct, MapEval would be a practical contribution to SLAM benchmarking. However, the outlier-robustness claim is contradicted by the paper's own Table IV, and the motivating sparse-ground-truth regime is acknowledged to be the method's weak point. The 3-sigma statistical bound is also not justified. The core derivation is sound, but the stated claims need substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-B2, Table IV] AWD collapses to zero for 0.1% outliers at noise ranges 10,000 and 100,000 cm, while CD reports 13.25 and 1589.3 cm. This does not demonstrate robustness; it indicates that outlier points displaced into voxels that have no ground-truth correspondence are silently excluded from Eq. (6)-(7), because AWD is defined only over corresponding voxels. An evaluation that reports a perfect map when 0.1% of points are displaced by kilometers cannot support the 'robustness' and 'evaluation integrity' claims in the abstract and Section I.B. The authors should either add a penalty for estimated points in unmatchable voxels or explicitly restrict the robustness claim to inlier-scale noise.
  2. [Section IV-F and abstract] The abstract motivates MapEval for scenarios 'where ground truth map is inherently sparse,' but Section IV-F states that the metric's reliability degrades with sparse point cloud maps because the Gaussian approximation becomes inaccurate. This is an internal tension in the central use case. The authors should quantify the minimum point density or voxel occupancy for which AWD and SCS are reliable, or substantially temper the sparse-ground-truth claim.
  3. [Section III-C.3, Eq. (8)-(9)] The text states that the 3σ bound wbound = µ + 3√tr(Σ) establishes a 99.7% confidence interval for voxel error. This is only valid if the distribution of W is Gaussian, or if a Chebyshev-type argument is provided. No justification is given, and W is a set of nonnegative Wasserstein distances that is generally skewed. The claim should be corrected to a heuristic bound or backed by a stated distributional assumption.
  4. [Section III-C.2 and Table V] AWD is presented as a global geometric accuracy metric, but it mixes mean displacement with covariance differences. In the indoor sequences, AWD differences between FAST-LIO2 and PALoc are only about 0.1 cm while the AWD values are about 48 cm, and CD differences are similar or larger; without reporting the mean and covariance terms separately, it is unclear whether AWD is measuring global drift or local structure. The authors should provide a decomposition of AWD into its mean and covariance contributions to support the 'global accuracy' interpretation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section I.A and III-C.1] There are grammatical errors: 'address only partial of these aspects' should be 'address only part of these aspects,' and 'This metric efficiently capture' should be 'This metric efficiently captures.'
  2. [Figure 4 and Table IV] The maximum noise range is inconsistent between the figure caption (1,000,000 cm) and Table IV (100,000 cm); align these values.
  3. [Table VII] The header contains a typo 'V oxelization' and the unit annotation 'Map Pt. (1 × 10^7)' is unclear because the table lists point counts without per-row exponents.
  4. [Section III-C.3, Eq. (9)] The mixture weights πk are not defined in this section; define them or remove the mixture notation if only a generic Gaussian is intended.
  5. [Section II-B] The sentence 'F-score [13] attempt to balance accuracy and completeness' has a subject-verb agreement error and should be corrected.
  6. [Section I.B] The claim of being the 'first unified framework' is strong; consider softening it or scoping it more precisely, since multiple map evaluation tools and metrics already exist.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AWD and SCS are defined from stated first-principles assumptions and validated against external references, not fitted to the validation data.

full rationale

The derivation of AWD and SCS is self-contained. In Section III-C, the metrics are defined from a stated voxel-wise Gaussian approximation (Eq. 5), the closed-form L2 Wasserstein distance between Gaussians (Eq. 6), and a coefficient-of-variation aggregation over neighboring voxels (Eq. 10). No parameter is fitted to validation data; the voxel size and correspondence threshold are user-set inputs. Validation in Section IV-C uses ATE, visual inspection, and public datasets as external references, so the metrics' behavior is not benchmarked against themselves. The self-citations (PALoc, MS-mapping) appear as baseline systems, a self-collected dataset, or peripheral scalability pointers, not as load-bearing justification of the metric definitions. The Table IV rows showing AWD = 0 for 0.1% outliers with large noise ranges indicate a real robustness gap: displaced points fall into voxels lacking ground-truth correspondence and are silently excluded from the average. However, this is a correctness limitation of the robustness claim, not a circular reduction: the metric is not defined in terms of its validation outcome and the zero values arise from the voxel-correspondence construction, not from fitting or self-citation. Section IV-F independently flags the Gaussian approximation's limits with sparse maps, further showing the authors do not conceal the assumption. No circular step is therefore exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's central novelty is a new metric, not a new physical entity. The key burden is the Gaussian voxel assumption and user-chosen voxel size, not hidden fitted parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • voxel size = 3.0 m recommended (2-4 m depending on environment)
    Determines AWD and SCS values; AWD grows linearly with voxel size (Fig. 7), so the metric is not resolution-invariant. Authors recommend different sizes for indoor and outdoor scenes.
  • correspondence threshold tau = 0.2 m
    Filters correspondences for AC and COM in Eq. (2); evaluation outcomes depend on this choice, especially for sparse ground truth maps.
  • MME search radius = 0.1 m
    Used for the baseline MME computation; affects baseline runtime and values.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Closed-form L2 Wasserstein distance between Gaussian distributions (Eq. 6)
    Standard result in optimal transport, used without proof.
  • standard math Moment formula for Gaussian mixtures (Eq. 9)
    Standard result used to compute the 3-sigma bound.
  • domain assumption Within each voxel, the point distribution is approximately Gaussian
    The whole AWD and SCS framework relies on this; the authors admit degradation with sparse maps in Section IV-F.
  • domain assumption Point-to-plane ICP (Eq. 1) converges to a good global alignment
    If registration fails, voxel correspondences between estimated and ground truth maps are invalid.
  • domain assumption The threshold tau implies one-to-one correspondence between GT and estimated points (Eq. 2)
    Used for AC and COM, and implicitly for the validity of the evaluation.
  • domain assumption Ground truth maps are accurate enough and sparse GT still supports voxel statistics
    The abstract notes GT is inherently sparse; empty or poorly populated voxels are not explicitly handled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MapEval: Towards Unified, Robust and Efficient SLAM Map Evaluation Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SHWFPMMV

@misc{pith2026241117928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MapEval: Towards Unified, Robust and Efficient SLAM Map Evaluation Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SHWFPMMV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17928}
}
read the original abstract

Evaluating massive-scale point cloud maps in Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) remains challenging, primarily due to the absence of unified, robust and efficient evaluation frameworks. We present MapEval, an open-source framework for comprehensive quality assessment of point cloud maps, specifically addressing SLAM scenarios where ground truth map is inherently sparse compared to the mapped environment. Through systematic analysis of existing evaluation metrics in SLAM applications, we identify their fundamental limitations and establish clear guidelines for consistent map quality assessment. Building upon these insights, we propose a novel Gaussian-approximated Wasserstein distance in voxelized space, enabling two complementary metrics under the same error standard: Voxelized Average Wasserstein Distance (AWD) for global geometric accuracy and Spatial Consistency Score (SCS) for local consistency evaluation. This theoretical foundation leads to significant improvements in both robustness against noise and computational efficiency compared to conventional metrics. Extensive experiments on both simulated and real-world datasets demonstrate that MapEval achieves at least \SI{100}{}-\SI{500}{} times faster while maintaining evaluation integrity. The MapEval library\footnote{\texttt{https://github.com/JokerJohn/Cloud\_Map\_Evaluation}} will be publicly available to promote standardized map evaluation practices in the robotics community.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17928 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Mapping evaluation for PALoc on sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The MapEval pipeline (Section III-A). The framework first acquires dense point cloud maps from both ground truth sensor and SLAM algorithms (left), performs dense map alignment with an initial pose estimate (middle), and evaluates mapping quality through geometric error and local consistency metrics (right). 2) Dense Point Cloud Registration: As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Multi-sensor data platform. (b) Leica RTC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of evaluation metrics on S1 ground truth map with varying Gaussian noise range (100-1 000 000 cm) applied to 0.1% randomly sampled points (Table III). While CD exhibits high sensitivity to outliers, the proposed AWD shows superior robustness across different…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparative evaluation of FL2 (row A) and PALoc (row B) on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mapping accuracy evaluation on S3. (A,B) Map quality comparison between FL2 and PALoc. While PALoc achieves higher mapping accuracy than FL2, the CD indicates contradictory results. aligning with the theoretical advantages of Wasserstein dis￾tance described in Section …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Metrics performance analysis with varying voxel sizes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. CompSLAM: Complementary Hierarchical Multi-Modal Localization and Mapping for Robot Autonomy in Underground Environments

    cs.RO 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A hierarchical multi-modal SLAM system, proven in the DARPA SubT finals, is described and released with code and a 740-meter underground dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Lio-sam: Tightly-coupled lidar inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,

    T. Shan et al. , “Lio-sam: Tightly-coupled lidar inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 5135–5142

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry,

    W. Xu et al. , “Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2053–2073, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Robust odometry and mapping for multi-lidar systems with online extrinsic calibration,

    J. Jiao et al., “Robust odometry and mapping for multi-lidar systems with online extrinsic calibration,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 351–371, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Ms-mapping: An uncertainty-aware large-scale multi- session lidar mapping system,

    X. Hu et al. , “Ms-mapping: An uncertainty-aware large-scale multi- session lidar mapping system,” preprint arXiv:2408.03723, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    evo: Python package for the evaluation of odometry and slam

    M. Grupp, “evo: Python package for the evaluation of odometry and slam.” https://github.com/MichaelGrupp/evo, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    A tutorial on quantitative trajectory evaluation for visual(-inertial) odometry,

    Z. Zhang and D. Scaramuzza, “A tutorial on quantitative trajectory evaluation for visual(-inertial) odometry,” inIEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (IROS) , 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Multi-camera lidar inertial extension to the newer college dataset,

    L. Zhang et al. , “Multi-camera lidar inertial extension to the newer college dataset,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08854 , 2021

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    The newer college dataset: Handheld lidar, inertial and vision with ground truth,

    M. Ramezani et al. , “The newer college dataset: Handheld lidar, inertial and vision with ground truth,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 4353–4360

    work page 2020

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Fusionportable: A multi-sensor campus-scene dataset for evaluation of localization and mapping accuracy on diverse platforms,

    J. Jiao et al., “Fusionportable: A multi-sensor campus-scene dataset for evaluation of localization and mapping accuracy on diverse platforms,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 3851–3856

    2022

  2. [10]

    Paloc: Advancing slam benchmarking with prior-assisted 6-dof trajectory generation and uncertainty estimation,

    X. Hu et al., “Paloc: Advancing slam benchmarking with prior-assisted 6-dof trajectory generation and uncertainty estimation,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Evaluation of registration methods for sparse 3d laser scans,

    J. Razlaw et al. , “Evaluation of registration methods for sparse 3d laser scans,” in 2015 european conference on mobile robots (ecmr) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–7

    2015

  4. [12]

    Density-aware chamfer distance as a comprehensive metric for point cloud completion,

    W. Tong et al., “Density-aware chamfer distance as a comprehensive metric for point cloud completion,” in In Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021 , 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction,

    A. Knapitsch et al. , “Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1–13, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Point-set distances for learning representations of 3d point clouds,

    T. Nguyen et al. , “Point-set distances for learning representations of 3d point clouds,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 10 478–10 487

    2021

  7. [15]

    Com- paring images using the hausdorff distance,

    D. P. Huttenlocher, G. A. Klanderman, and W. J. Rucklidge, “Com- paring images using the hausdorff distance,” IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 850– 863, 1993

    1993

  8. [16]

    Lt-mapper: A modular framework for lidar-based lifelong mapping,

    G. Kim et al. , “Lt-mapper: A modular framework for lidar-based lifelong mapping,” in IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 7995–8002

    2022

  9. [17]

    Globally consistent 3d lidar mapping with gpu- accelerated gicp matching cost factors,

    K. Koide et al. , “Globally consistent 3d lidar mapping with gpu- accelerated gicp matching cost factors,” IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 8591–8598, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Large-scale lidar consistent mapping using hierarchical lidar bundle adjustment,

    X. Liu et al., “Large-scale lidar consistent mapping using hierarchical lidar bundle adjustment,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1523–1530, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Point cloud registration based on gaussian mix- tures and pairwise wasserstein distances,

    S. Steuernagel et al., “Point cloud registration based on gaussian mix- tures and pairwise wasserstein distances,” in 2023 IEEE Symposium Sensor Data Fusion and International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration (SDF-MFI) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  12. [20]

    A method for registration of 3-d shapes,

    P. Besl and N. D. McKay, “A method for registration of 3-d shapes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 239–256, 1992

    1992

  13. [21]

    Generalized-icp

    A. Segal et al. , “Generalized-icp.” in Robotics: science and systems , vol. 2, no. 4. Seattle, W A, 2009, p. 435

    2009

  14. [22]

    The three-dimensional normal-distributions trans- form: an efficient representation for registration, surface analysis, and loop detection,

    M. Magnusson, “The three-dimensional normal-distributions trans- form: an efficient representation for registration, surface analysis, and loop detection,” Ph.D. dissertation, ¨Orebro universitet, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    V oxelized gicp for fast and accurate 3d point cloud registration,

    K. Koide et al., “V oxelized gicp for fast and accurate 3d point cloud registration,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 11 054–11 059

    2021

  16. [24]

    Litamin2: Ultra light lidar-based slam using geometric approximation applied with kl-divergence,

    M. Yokozuka et al. , “Litamin2: Ultra light lidar-based slam using geometric approximation applied with kl-divergence,” in 2021 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 11 619–11 625

    2021

  17. [25]

    On bundle adjustment for multiview point cloud registration,

    H. Huang et al. , “On bundle adjustment for multiview point cloud registration,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 8269–8276, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Geometric inlier selection for robust rigid registration with application to blade surfaces,

    H. Wu et al., “Geometric inlier selection for robust rigid registration with application to blade surfaces,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 9206–9215, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Globally optimal symbolic hand-eye calibration,

    J. Wu, M. Liu, Y . Zhu, Z. Zou, M.-Z. Dai, C. Zhang, Y . Jiang, and C. Li, “Globally optimal symbolic hand-eye calibration,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1369–1379, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Generalized n-dimensional rigid registration: Theory and applications,

    J. Wu et al., “Generalized n-dimensional rigid registration: Theory and applications,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 927–940, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Fusionportablev2: A unified multi-sensor dataset for generalized slam across diverse platforms and scalable environments,

    H. Wei et al. , “Fusionportablev2: A unified multi-sensor dataset for generalized slam across diverse platforms and scalable environments,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    A benchmark for multi-modal lidar slam with ground truth in gnss-denied environments,

    H. Sier et al., “A benchmark for multi-modal lidar slam with ground truth in gnss-denied environments,” Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 13, p. 3314, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Ms-mapping: Multi-session lidar mapping with wasserstein-based keyframe selection,

    X. Hu et al. , “Ms-mapping: Multi-session lidar mapping with wasserstein-based keyframe selection,” preprint arXiv:2406.02096 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Heterogeneous lidar dataset for benchmarking ro- bust localization in diverse degenerate scenarios,

    Z. Chen et al. , “Heterogeneous lidar dataset for benchmarking ro- bust localization in diverse degenerate scenarios,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04961, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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