Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Dual-BEV Nav: Dual-layer BEV-based Heuristic Path Planning for Robotic Navigation in Unstructured Outdoor Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dual-BEV Nav: fusing local and global bird's-eye views lets a robot navigate 65 meters outdoors with only a front camera and an overhead map.

desk verdict Credible local BEV planning result, but the global layer and the Eq. 4 integration are underspecified, so the dual-layer claim is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18351 v1 pith:QBMBKBXA submitted 2025-01-30 cs.RO

Jianfeng Zhang , Hanlin Dong , Jian Yang , Jiahui Liu , Shibo Huang , Ke Li , Xuan Tang , Xian Wei
show 1 more author
Xiong You
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords bird'seyeviewpathplanningtraversabilityestimationoutdoorrobotnavigationunstructuredenvironmentsoverheadmapvision-basedglobal-local
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

Dual-BEV Nav is a claim that long-range outdoor robot navigation can succeed with weak map information by fusing two bird's-eye-view (BEV) representations: a learned local model that reads traversability from a front camera in real time, and a learned global model that turns an overhead map into a continuous probability field of drivable hints. The paper reports that this pairing improves temporal-distance prediction accuracy by up to 18.7% over baselines and, in a real deployment under conditions outside the training distribution, completes a 65-meter navigation with sharp turns where the local-only and baseline controllers fail. The reason to care is that the global BEV layer replaces precise SLAM maps with a soft hint map learned from trajectories, so the robot does not need an exactly reconstructed world model to plan across long distances.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dual-layer BEV heuristic planning paradigm, in which a local BEV model proposes paths and a global BEV probability map selects them. The local layer uses the lift-splat-shoot depth-lifting technique to build a 100x100 BEV grid from front-camera frames, then a ViKiNG-style latent-goal decoder produces waypoints, temporal distances, and GPS offsets, trained with a variational information bottleneck objective. The global layer is a U-Net trained on historical trajectories to output a continuous probability field of traversability hints from overhead maps, so that values rise gradually near impassable areas rather than changing abruptly. The integration identity, $\mathrm{cost} = k \cdot \mathrm{score} + (1-k) \cdot \mathrm{temporal\ distance}$, is the mechanism that turns local candidate paths into a globally informed choice.

What would settle it

A decisive experiment is to deploy Dual-BEV Nav with the overhead map deliberately shifted or rotated by a small known amount; if the 65-meter run no longer completes or the chosen waypoints degrade, the global-hint mechanism depends on map alignment that the paper does not quantify. A complementary check is to hold out one safe but rarely visited region from the trajectory training set and see whether the planner refuses to enter it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors argue that the obstacle to long-distance outdoor navigation is not perception alone but the absence of a global traversability prior, and that BEV is the right shared representation for both scales. The Local BEV Planning Model (LBPM) takes a stream of front-camera frames, lifts them into a 100x100 BEV grid via depth prediction, and uses a latent-goal decoder to emit candidate waypoints with temporal distance and GPS offsets, without explicitly segmenting drivable area. The Global BEV Planning Model (GBPM) trains a U-Net on historical robot trajectories to predict a per-pixel probability of traversability hints from an overhead map, deliberately avoiding binary segmentation. The two are combined by projecting LBPM's candidate paths onto GBPM's probability map and minimizing $\mathrm{cost} = k \cdot \mathrm{score} + (1-k) \cdot \mathrm{temporal\ distance}$. The author's central evidence is the temporal-distance prediction improvement over the GNM baseline and the real-world 65-meter navigation in which only the combined system reached the goal.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that historical trajectory density equals traversability on the overhead map, and that this map aligns with the robot's local BEV frame when the scores are combined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot equipped only with a front camera, GNSS, and an overhead map can plan paths on the order of tens of meters in unstructured terrain, without hand-labeled drivable areas.
  • Because the global layer outputs a continuous probability field rather than a hard segmentation, the planner can begin steering away from obstacles before it reaches them, avoiding abrupt swerves.
  • Combining several context frames with BEV lifting improves temporal-distance prediction over current-observation-only controllers by roughly 18% relative on the evaluation set.
  • When global hints are locally occluded or wrong, the local BEV model still supplies feasible waypoints, so the two layers complement each other during deployment.
  • The global map can be learned from autonomous exploration trajectories, so no manual map annotation is required for a new site.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if trajectory density really is a proxy for traversability, the GBPM could be trained from fleet telemetry or crowd-sourced GPS traces, making the per-site map cost nearly zero.
  • Beyond the paper: the two-layer design suggests a testable separation of failure modes: local perception errors and global map errors can be measured independently by ablating each layer, which the paper's experiments only partially do.
  • Beyond the paper: replacing the static overhead map with live aerial imagery, as the authors mention as future work, would turn the global layer into a time-varying hint map; the same scoring equation should extend directly to that setting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 paper proposes Dual-BEV Nav, a navigation framework for unstructured outdoor environments that combines a Local BEV Planning Model (LBPM) and a heuristic Global BEV Planning Model (GBPM). The LBPM uses an LSS-style BEV view transformation with a variational-information-bottleneck goal decoder to predict temporal distances, waypoints, and GPS offsets. The GBPM learns a continuous traversability-hint probability map from historical robot trajectories over overhead maps using a U-Net with focal loss. The two layers are integrated by Eq. (4), which combines a global score with the LBPM's temporal distance prediction to select waypoints. The paper reports temporal-distance prediction improvements on the RECON dataset, a single 65-meter real-world navigation run, and single-target exploration trials with success counts.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the dual-layer BEV heuristic is a practically useful integration of local perception and global map priors for off-road navigation, especially where precise maps are unavailable. The paper has several genuine strengths: it tackles a real problem, proposes a concrete two-layer architecture, uses trajectory data as weak labels for global traversability, and reports a real-world deployment that is nontrivial and potentially reproducible. The use of BEV for local traversability without explicit drivable-area segmentation is a reasonable design direction. However, the current evidence is not yet sufficient to support the claimed causal contribution of the global BEV layer: the key integration term is underspecified, the GBPM is not validated independently, and the real-world experiments have very small sample sizes without statistical controls. The contribution is significant if these gaps are closed, but as presented the evidence is preliminary.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-C, Eq. (4)] The integration formula cost = k * score + (1-k) * temporal distance is not reproducible because 'score' is never defined. The paper does not state whether the score is the mean, sum, minimum, or some other aggregation of GBPM probability values along a candidate path, nor does it specify the units or normalization relative to temporal distance. Since k then has no well-defined meaning, the reported integration results cannot be independently implemented or interpreted. Please define score precisely and give the value of k used in experiments.
  2. [Section III-B] The GBPM's central assumption is that trajectory density equals traversability ('the more easily accessible areas will be covered by a larger number of trajectories'), but this assumption is never validated. There is no quantitative evaluation of the GBPM output against ground-truth traversability (e.g., correlation with manual labels, ROC/AUC on held-out overhead maps), and the paper does not describe which trajectories were used for training, how they were split, or how the overhead map was aligned with the robot's local frame. Without this evidence, the load-bearing premise that the global probability map encodes traversability rather than, say, exploration bias or map artifacts is unsupported. Please add a dedicated GBPM validation experiment and specify the training data and alignment procedure.
  3. [Section IV-B, Table I] The headline improvement of up to 18.7% is a temporal-distance prediction metric for the LBPM alone; it does not measure the dual-layer system and therefore does not support the claimed benefit of integrating global BEV hints. In addition, the table reports no error bars, no repeated seeds, and no significance tests, so the differences over ViKiNG and GNM may not be statistically reliable. The paper also notes that ViKiNG was reproduced from its description because the original code is not available; the reproduction fidelity should be discussed, since an unfavorable reproduction would inflate the apparent gains.
  4. [Section IV-B, Real-world Deployment] The real-world evidence for the dual-layer claim is a single 65-meter navigation run, and the exploration trials in Tables II and III use only five runs per condition. There are no error bars, no repeated trials, no quantitative success criteria (e.g., path length error, number of interventions, distance to target at failure), and no statistical test comparing LBPM with LBPM+GBPM. The claim that 'the global BEV probability map ensures the robustness of the overall planning' therefore rests on anecdotal observation. Please provide additional runs, quantitative metrics, and an ablation that isolates the GBPM contribution while keeping the LBPM architecture and all other experimental conditions fixed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-A] The y-axis BEV range is written as '−10m ∼ +10 of the robot'; the trailing 'm' unit is missing after +10.
  2. [Section III-A, Eq. (1)] The notation 'Destimate i', 'F ea2D i', and 'F ea3D i' is visually garbled; please use proper superscripts/subscripts and define all symbols clearly.
  3. [Section III-B, Eq. (3)] The hyperparameter alpha in the focal loss is not defined; please state how alpha is set for the foreground/background imbalance.
  4. [Section IV-A] Minor language issue: 'we took our school as the unstructured outdoor environment' should be rephrased, e.g., 'we used our school campus as the unstructured outdoor environment.'
  5. [Tables II and III] 'single-targe exploration task' contains a typo and should read 'single-target exploration task.'
  6. [Throughout] Figure 2 appears to be positioned without an explicit in-text callout; please ensure all figures are referenced in the main text in order.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: both learned components are evaluated out-of-sample and the integration is not definitionally forced.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is a standard supervised-learning pipeline, not a circular one. LBPM's temporal-distance prediction is trained on RECON training data and evaluated on a held-out RECON test set (Section IV-A), so Table I's 18.7% improvement is an out-of-sample metric, not a re-statement of the training loss. GBPM's global probability map is trained from historical trajectory coverage (Section III-B) and then applied to the school's overhead map at deployment without the deployment path being used as a training label; the 65-meter navigation is therefore a transfer test, not a fitted prediction. Equation 4 combines the two learned models via a tunable weight k, but this is an integration mechanism, not a derivation of the claim from its own output. The paper contains no self-citations invoking the authors' prior results as authority, and no uniqueness or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. The undefined 'score' in Eq. 4, the absence of a standalone GBPM evaluation, and the small real-world trial counts are legitimate completeness and validation weaknesses, but they are not instances of the output being equivalent to the input by definition. No circular step can be exhibited with a specific reduction, so the default honest finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central claims rest on a stack of learned models (LBPM, GBPM) whose weights are fitted to data, plus hand-chosen hyperparameters and domain assumptions about trajectory-derived traversability. No external benchmark or independent physical constraint is used to validate the global hint map.

free parameters (5)
  • Integration weight k = not reported
    Eq. 4 cost = k * GBPM score + (1-k) * temporal distance; k is preset but no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • VIB loss weights lambda and beta = not reported
    Eq. 2 balances reconstruction and KL terms; values are not stated.
  • Focal loss parameters alpha and gamma = not reported
    Eq. 3 uses alpha and gamma; values are not stated.
  • BEV grid geometry = 100x100 grid, x: 20m ahead and 5m behind, y: -10m to +10m, cell sizes 0.25m and 0.2m
    Hand-chosen grid ranges affect what the local model sees and thus path quality.
  • Depth discretization range = 1m to 20m with 0.25m interval
    Chosen depth bins limit the BEV lifting and affect feature accuracy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Historical trajectory density in an overhead map is a faithful proxy for ground traversability.
    Section III-B states that 'the more easily accessible areas will be covered by a larger number of trajectories.' This is the learning signal for GBPM and is not independently verified.
  • domain assumption The overhead map used at deployment is aligned with the robot's local coordinate frame well enough to project local BEV paths onto the global probability map.
    Section III-B discusses using overhead maps (e.g., Google Maps API) as global BEV; Section III-C projects local paths onto this map. No alignment error analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption Depth estimates from the LSS single-image lifting are accurate enough for the fixed BEV grid representation used by LBPM.
    Section III-A relies on LSS depth distribution to build BEV features; errors in depth would distort traversability features, but this is not analyzed.
  • domain assumption The reproduced ViKiNG is a faithful implementation of the original method.
    Section IV-A says 'As ViKiNG's work is not open-source, we use the model reproduced from its description.' Baseline comparisons depend on this reproduction.
  • domain assumption The latent goal features learned for navigation transfer to exploration with a Gaussian prior.
    Section III-A uses Eq. 2 with KL to prior; exploration samples z from N(0,I). This is the standard ViKiNG assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dual-BEV Nav: Dual-layer BEV-based Heuristic Path Planning for Robotic Navigation in Unstructured Outdoor Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QBMBKBXA

@misc{pith2026250118351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dual-BEV Nav: Dual-layer BEV-based Heuristic Path Planning for Robotic Navigation in Unstructured Outdoor Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QBMBKBXA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18351}
}
abstract

Path planning with strong environmental adaptability plays a crucial role in robotic navigation in unstructured outdoor environments, especially in the case of low-quality location and map information. The path planning ability of a robot depends on the identification of the traversability of global and local ground areas. In real-world scenarios, the complexity of outdoor open environments makes it difficult for robots to identify the traversability of ground areas that lack a clearly defined structure. Moreover, most existing methods have rarely analyzed the integration of local and global traversability identifications in unstructured outdoor scenarios. To address this problem, we propose a novel method, Dual-BEV Nav, first introducing Bird's Eye View (BEV) representations into local planning to generate high-quality traversable paths. Then, these paths are projected onto the global traversability map generated by the global BEV planning model to obtain the optimal waypoints. By integrating the traversability from both local and global BEV, we establish a dual-layer BEV heuristic planning paradigm, enabling long-distance navigation in unstructured outdoor environments. We test our approach through both public dataset evaluations and real-world robot deployments, yielding promising results. Compared to baselines, the Dual-BEV Nav improved temporal distance prediction accuracy by up to $18.7\%$. In the real-world deployment, under conditions significantly different from the training set and with notable occlusions in the global BEV, the Dual-BEV Nav successfully achieved a 65-meter-long outdoor navigation. Further analysis demonstrates that the local BEV representation significantly enhances the rationality of the planning, while the global BEV probability map ensures the robustness of the overall planning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18351 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dual-layer BEV-based heuristic path planning for robotic navigation in unstructured outdoor environments: Dual-BEV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Task-driven goal decoder generates latent features based on task requirements, and by decoding the traversability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two BEV feature extraction methods. (a): Original [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Training and inference architecture of GBPM. The robot’s trajectory is used as the ground truth to constrain during training. When making predictions, the probability map is directly used as hints. In this formula, k is a preset parameter, allowing the adjustment of th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Waypoints prediction visualization. (a): Waypoints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of different models on the navigation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey on integration of large language models with intelligent robots,

    Y . Kim, D. Kim, J. Choi, J. Park, N. Oh, and D. Park, “A survey on integration of large language models with intelligent robots,” Intelligent Service Robotics , pp. 1–17, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Saynav: Grounding large language models for dynamic planning to navigation in new environments,

    A. Rajvanshi, K. Sikka, X. Lin, B. Lee, H.-P. Chiu, and A. Velasquez, “Saynav: Grounding large language models for dynamic planning to navigation in new environments,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 34, 2024, pp. 464–474

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Large language models for robotics: Opportunities, challenges, and perspectives,

    J. Wang, Z. Wu, Y . Li, H. Jiang, P. Shu, E. Shi, H. Hu, C. Ma, Y . Liu, X. Wang et al. , “Large language models for robotics: Opportunities, challenges, and perspectives,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04334, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    A memory system of a robot cognitive archi- tecture and its implementation in armarx,

    F. Peller-Konrad, R. Kartmann, C. R. Dreher, A. Meixner, F. Reister, M. Grotz, and T. Asfour, “A memory system of a robot cognitive archi- tecture and its implementation in armarx,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 164, p. 104415, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Exploring cognitive reflection for decision- making in robots: Insights and implications,

    D. D. Valluri et al. , “Exploring cognitive reflection for decision- making in robots: Insights and implications,” International Journal of Science and Research Archive , vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 518–530, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Building a cognitive sci- ence of human variation: Individual differences in spatial navigation,

    N. S. Newcombe, M. Hegarty, and D. Uttal, “Building a cognitive sci- ence of human variation: Individual differences in spatial navigation,” pp. 6–14, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A survey of embodied ai: From simulators to research tasks,

    J. Duan, S. Yu, H. L. Tan, H. Zhu, and C. Tan, “A survey of embodied ai: From simulators to research tasks,”IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 230–244, 2022

    2022

  8. [8]

    Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models,

    C. H. Song, J. Wu, C. Washington, B. M. Sadler, W.-L. Chao, and Y . Su, “Llm-planner: Few-shot grounded planning for embodied agents with large language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 2998–3009

    2023

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Nomad: Goal masked diffusion policies for navigation and exploration,

    A. Sridhar, D. Shah, C. Glossop, and S. Levine, “Nomad: Goal masked diffusion policies for navigation and exploration,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2024, pp. 63–70

    2024

  2. [10]

    Autonomous off-road navi- gation over extreme terrains with perceptually-challenging conditions,

    R. Thakker, N. Alatur, D. D. Fan, J. Tordesillas, M. Paton, K. Otsu, O. Toupet, and A.-a. Agha-mohammadi, “Autonomous off-road navi- gation over extreme terrains with perceptually-challenging conditions,” in Experimental Robotics. Springer, 2021, pp. 161–173

    2021

  3. [11]

    Graspe: Graph based multimodal fusion for robot navigation in outdoor environments,

    K. Weerakoon, A. J. Sathyamoorthy, J. Liang, T. Guan, U. Patel, and D. Manocha, “Graspe: Graph based multimodal fusion for robot navigation in outdoor environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Ving: Learning open-world navigation with visual goals,

    D. Shah, B. Eysenbach, G. Kahn, N. Rhinehart, and S. Levine, “Ving: Learning open-world navigation with visual goals,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2021, pp. 13 215–13 222

    2021

  5. [13]

    Rapid exploration for open-world navigation with latent goal models,

    ——, “Rapid exploration for open-world navigation with latent goal models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05859 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gnm: A general navigation model to drive any robot,

    D. Shah, A. Sridhar, A. Bhorkar, N. Hirose, and S. Levine, “Gnm: A general navigation model to drive any robot,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2023, pp. 7226–7233

    2023

  7. [15]

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

    T. Shan, B. Englot, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, “Lvi-sam: Tightly-coupled lidar-visual-inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2021, pp. 5692–5698

    2021

  8. [16]

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

    T. Shan, B. Englot, D. Meyers, W. Wang, C. Ratti, and D. Rus, “Lio-sam: Tightly-coupled lidar inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping,” in IEEE International conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2020, pp. 5135–5142

    2020

  9. [17]

    Viking: Vision-based kilometer-scale naviga- tion with geographic hints,

    D. Shah and S. Levine, “Viking: Vision-based kilometer-scale naviga- tion with geographic hints,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.11271 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Waypoint generation in satellite images based on a cnn for outdoor ugv navigation,

    M. S ´anchez, J. Morales, and J. L. Mart ´ınez, “Waypoint generation in satellite images based on a cnn for outdoor ugv navigation,” Machines, vol. 11, no. 8, p. 807, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Active autonomous aerial exploration for ground robot path planning,

    J. Delmerico, E. Mueggler, J. Nitsch, and D. Scaramuzza, “Active autonomous aerial exploration for ground robot path planning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 664–671, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Active mapping and robot exploration: A survey,

    I. Lluvia, E. Lazkano, and A. Ansuategi, “Active mapping and robot exploration: A survey,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 7, p. 2445, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Se- manticfusion: Dense 3d semantic mapping with convolutional neural networks,

    J. McCormac, A. Handa, A. Davison, and S. Leutenegger, “Se- manticfusion: Dense 3d semantic mapping with convolutional neural networks,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion. IEEE, 2017, pp. 4628–4635

    2017

  14. [22]

    Grad slam: Dense slam meets automatic differentiation,

    K. M. Jatavallabhula, G. Iyer, and L. Paull, “Grad slam: Dense slam meets automatic differentiation,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2020, pp. 2130–2137

    2020

  15. [23]

    Mobile robot autonomous navigation and dynamic environmental adaptation in large-scale outdoor scenes,

    Q. Yang, D. Qu, and F. Xu, “Mobile robot autonomous navigation and dynamic environmental adaptation in large-scale outdoor scenes,” in Intelligent Robotics and Applications . Springer, 2019, pp. 314–325

    2019

  16. [24]

    Dueqnet: Dual- equivariance network in outdoor 3d object detection for autonomous driving,

    X. Wang, J. Lei, H. Lan, A. Al-Jawari, and X. Wei, “Dueqnet: Dual- equivariance network in outdoor 3d object detection for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13577 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Using 3d laser range data for slam in outdoor environments,

    C. Brenneke, O. Wulf, and B. Wagner, “Using 3d laser range data for slam in outdoor environments,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , vol. 1. IEEE, 2003, pp. 188–193

    2003

  18. [26]

    City-scale grid-topological hybrid maps for autonomous mobile robot navigation in urban area,

    S. Niijima, R. Umeyama, Y . Sasaki, and H. Mizoguchi, “City-scale grid-topological hybrid maps for autonomous mobile robot navigation in urban area,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, 2020, pp. 2065–2071

    2020

  19. [27]

    Continuous shortest path vector field navigation on 3d triangular meshes for mobile robots,

    S. P ¨utz, T. Wiemann, M. K. Piening, and J. Hertzberg, “Continuous shortest path vector field navigation on 3d triangular meshes for mobile robots,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2021, pp. 2256–2263

    2021

  20. [28]

    Deep learning- based landmark detection for mobile robot outdoor localization,

    S. Nilwong, D. Hossain, S.-i. Kaneko, and G. Capi, “Deep learning- based landmark detection for mobile robot outdoor localization,” Machines, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 25, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Bird’s eye view: Cooperative exploration by ugv and uav,

    S. Hood, K. Benson, P. Hamod, D. Madison, J. M. O’Kane, and I. Rekleitis, “Bird’s eye view: Cooperative exploration by ugv and uav,” in International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems . IEEE, 2017, pp. 247–255

    2017

  22. [30]

    Bird’s-eye-view scene graph for vision-language navigation,

    R. Liu, X. Wang, W. Wang, and Y . Yang, “Bird’s-eye-view scene graph for vision-language navigation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04758 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Semantic terrain classification for off-road autonomous driving,

    A. Shaban, X. Meng, J. Lee, B. Boots, and D. Fox, “Semantic terrain classification for off-road autonomous driving,” in Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2022, pp. 619–629

    2022

  24. [32]

    When does weighted a* fail?

    C. Wilt and W. Ruml, “When does weighted a* fail?” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, vol. 3, no. 1, 2012, pp. 137–144

    2012

  25. [33]

    A method for the shortest path search by extended dijkstra algorithm,

    M. Noto and H. Sato, “A method for the shortest path search by extended dijkstra algorithm,” in IEEE International Conference on Systems, vol. 3. IEEE, 2000, pp. 2316–2320

    2000

  26. [34]

    Navigation of a mobile robot in a dynamic environment using a point cloud map,

    X. Wang, Y . Mizukami, M. Tada, and F. Matsuno, “Navigation of a mobile robot in a dynamic environment using a point cloud map,” Artificial Life and Robotics , vol. 26, pp. 10–20, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Autonomous outdoor scanning via online topological and geometric path optimization,

    P. Huang, L. Lin, K. Xu, and H. Huang, “Autonomous outdoor scanning via online topological and geometric path optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 3682–3695, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Indoorsim-to-outdoorreal: Learning to navigate outdoors without any outdoor experience,

    J. Truong, A. Zitkovich, S. Chernova, D. Batra, T. Zhang, J. Tan, and W. Yu, “Indoorsim-to-outdoorreal: Learning to navigate outdoors without any outdoor experience,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.01098 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Lift, splat, shoot: Encoding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly unprojecting to 3d,

    J. Philion and S. Fidler, “Lift, splat, shoot: Encoding images from arbitrary camera rigs by implicitly unprojecting to 3d,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2020, pp. 194–210

    2020

  30. [38]

    Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for con- volutional neural networks,

    M. Tan and Q. Le, “Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for con- volutional neural networks,” in International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2019, pp. 6105–6114

    2019

  31. [39]

    Bevdet: High- performance multi-camera 3d object detection in bird-eye-view,

    J. Huang, G. Huang, Z. Zhu, Y . Ye, and D. Du, “Bevdet: High- performance multi-camera 3d object detection in bird-eye-view,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.11790, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Bevdet4d: Exploit temporal cues in multi- camera 3d object detection,

    J. Huang and G. Huang, “Bevdet4d: Exploit temporal cues in multi- camera 3d object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.17054 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view representation,

    Z. Liu, H. Tang, A. Amini, X. Yang, H. Mao, D. L. Rus, and S. Han, “Bevfusion: Multi-task multi-sensor fusion with unified bird’s-eye view representation,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2023, pp. 2774–2781

    2023

  34. [42]

    Deep variational information bottleneck,

    A. A. Alemi, I. Fischer, J. V . Dillon, and K. Murphy, “Deep variational information bottleneck,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.00410 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  35. [43]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-assisted Intervention . Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  36. [44]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.