Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

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

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that rotational extrinsic calibration, not time synchronization or translation accuracy, is the limiting factor for tightly coupled LiDAR-inertial odometry, on the basis of controlled ablations on a real 7.1 kg…

desk verdict A useful, openly documented payload paper with real ablation data, held back partly by a partially circular GNSS baseline and some algorithm-tuning confounds, but worth sending to review. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18500 v1 pith:F3HZ5ROX submitted 2025-04-25 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Jonas Frey , Turcan Tuna , Lanke Frank Tarimo Fu , Cedric Weibel , Katharine Patterson , Benjamin Krummenacher , Matthias Müller , Julian Nubert
show 3 more authors
Maurice Fallon Cesar Cadena Marco Hutter
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords sensorpayloaddesigntimesynchronizationextrinsiccalibrationLiDAR-inertialodometrystateestimationmultimodalsensingleggedrobotsablationstudy
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

Boxi is a 7.1 kg, tightly integrated sensor payload for quadruped robots, and this paper uses it to turn payload-design folklore into measured thresholds. Across seven real-world environments, the authors compare LiDAR, camera, inertial, and GNSS state estimation, then deliberately corrupt time synchronization and extrinsic calibration to find when performance breaks. The headline result is that a tightly coupled LiDAR-inertial odometry pipeline tolerates time offsets up to roughly 5 ms and translation offsets below 5 mm, but rotation offsets of about 2 degrees between LiDAR and IMU make it diverge. Sensor choice is also quantified: global-shutter cameras beat rolling-shutter cameras in visual-inertial odometry unless rolling-shutter effects are modeled, a long-range precision LiDAR outperforms a short-range low-cost one in open terrain, and IMU grade barely matters in tightly coupled LiDAR-inertial odometry while mattering during dead-reckoning gaps. The same evidence is distilled into a payload 'cookbook' of design rules for future systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is Boxi itself: a rigid, machined payload whose sensor mounts are positioned to sub-millimeter mechanical tolerance, whose extrinsics are verified by dedicated calibration procedures, and whose time synchronization is validated by a gyroscope-correlation tool. The argument is carried by controlled perturbation sweeps that inject known time delays, translation offsets, and rotation offsets into an otherwise well-calibrated tightly coupled LiDAR-inertial odometry pipeline, isolating how each design quantity degrades trajectory accuracy.

What would settle it

Mount a tightly coupled LiDAR-inertial odometry system with verified extrinsics on a robot, then apply a controlled 2-degree rotation error between the IMU and LiDAR frames in a feature-rich environment; the paper predicts the trajectory will diverge. If the estimate stays bounded over the run, the claimed criticality of rotational extrinsic calibration at that threshold is not universal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On Boxi's seven test environments, the paper establishes that, for a tightly coupled LiDAR-inertial odometry system, the extrinsic rotation between IMU and LiDAR is the most fragile calibration quantity: errors as small as 2 degrees cause the estimator to diverge, whereas time-delay errors up to approximately 5 ms and translation offsets below 5 mm leave performance nearly unchanged. The paper attributes the time tolerance to the 100 Hz IMU's 10 ms measurement period, and the rotation sensitivity to the long-range LiDAR, where far points amplify angular mismatch. It further reports that swapping a long-range precision LiDAR for a lower-cost short-range model measurably increases error in open spaces, that rolling-shutter cameras without shutter compensation degrade visual-inertial odometry, and that IMU grade makes little difference in tightly coupled LiDAR-inertial odometry but a large difference during dead-reckoning gaps.

Load-bearing premise

The ablation thresholds are measured against a reference trajectory assembled by fusing total-station, IMU, and post-processed GNSS, and the GNSS solution being scored is also an input to that reference, so the comparisons assume the reference is accurate enough to expose differences of a few centimeters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A payload team should invest in rotation calibration hardware and procedure before pursuing sub-millisecond time synchronization or millimeter-level translation accuracy.
  • For tightly coupled LiDAR-inertial odometry in feature-rich environments, a low-cost consumer IMU can replace a tactical-grade IMU without meaningful trajectory error; the expensive IMU pays off only when other references drop out.
  • Rolling-shutter cameras need per-line exposure modeling or hardware triggering; naively substituting them for global-shutter cameras in visual-inertial odometry degrades accuracy significantly.
  • In open or featureless terrain, a longer-range, higher-accuracy LiDAR is worth its cost; in confined spaces the gap shrinks.
  • These thresholds give concrete design budgets: time synchronization below 5 ms and translation extrinsics below 5 mm are sufficient for the tested LiDAR-inertial pipeline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The same sweep, repeated on a pipeline with online extrinsic calibration, would likely shift the rotation threshold upward; the 2-degree figure is a property of a calibration-fixed pipeline.
  • Inference: The time-offset tolerance likely scales with IMU rate; a 500 Hz IMU may demand synchronization below 2 ms, so the paper's 5 ms budget should not be read as universal.
  • Inference: A cost model for payloads can be derived from these thresholds, treating calibration accuracy as a hard constraint and sensor grade as a soft one.
  • Inference: The cookbook's 'keep it simple' advice has a testable consequence: a reduced autonomy version with fewer IMUs and one compute board should achieve similar LiDAR-inertial accuracy, a claim the authors state as future work.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Boxi, a compact multi-modal sensor payload for legged robots, and uses it to study how payload design decisions affect downstream state estimation. It reports modality-level comparisons (kinematic, LiDAR, camera, GNSS), LiDAR and camera choice ablations, IMU-grade comparisons, and synthetic time-synchronization and extrinsic-calibration perturbations across seven real-world environments. The paper also presents a hardware/software 'cookbook', a custom calibration toolchain, time-synchronization verification tools, and open-source code. The central claim is that time synchronization, calibration, and sensor modality have a crucial impact on state estimation, with specific quantitative findings such as DLIO being robust to small time delays and large translation offsets but sensitive to rotational extrinsic errors.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are supported, this is a valuable systems contribution: the open hardware/software release, the calibration chain with sub-millimeter LiDAR-camera consistency, the time-synchronization verification tool, and the multi-environment dataset are all concrete assets for the community. The paper also makes falsifiable statements about which design factors matter most, such as the priority of rotational calibration over sub-millisecond time synchronization for tightly coupled LiDAR-inertial odometry. However, several methodological gaps in the evaluation limit the strength of the quantitative conclusions, and at least one comparison is partially self-referential.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV-C, Tables IV-V, Appendix B] The GNSS modality comparison is partially self-referential. The HF-Optimized ground truth described in Appendix B fuses TPS measurements, the HG4930 IMU, and the Inertial Explorer IE-TC GNSS poses, and Table IV/V then score the row labeled 'GNSS [2]' (IE-TC) against that ground truth. Because IE-TC is an input to the reference trajectory, the GNSS ATE/RTE values in Tables IV and V are artificially low by construction, particularly during TPS dropouts such as the Excavation Site interval at 84-121 s shown in Figure 18, where HF-Optimized bridges with IE-TC. The validation in Table VIII covers only the Excavation Site, compares against TPS directly, and explicitly excludes dropout periods, so it does not independently establish the accuracy of the GNSS row over the full trajectories. The authors should either remove the GNSS row from the modality comparison, or re-evaluate IE-TC against a TPS-only reference on segments with continuous line-of-sight and clearly state that the reported GNSS numbers exclude dropout periods.
  2. [IV-E, IV-G3, IV-I] The camera comparison confounds shutter type with camera interface, field-of-view overlap, timestamping quality, and sensor characteristics. In Section IV-E, the CoreResearch global-shutter cameras are compared with the HDR and ZED2i rolling-shutter cameras, but the ZED2i is connected via USB without accurate timestamping, the HDR cameras have limited overlapping FoV, and the underlying sensors differ beyond shutter type. Section IV-I itself acknowledges that effects are not measured in isolation. Despite this, Section IV-G3 concludes that 'naively replacing images recorded from a global shutter camera with rolling shutter images results in a significant performance drop.' This conclusion overreaches the evidence; the observed performance gap could be driven by FoV overlap, interface latency, or timestamping rather than shutter type alone. The authors should either add a controlled comparison in which only the shutter mechanism changes, or rephrase the conclusion to state the specific confounded configuration tested.
  3. [IV-C, IV-I] The modality comparison in Tables IV and V is not tuning-fair. Section IV-I states that DLIO parameters were tuned to achieve competitive performance across all datasets, while OKVIS2 was not fine-tuned for each camera setting. The claim in Section IV-C that 'DLIO consistently outperforms OKVIS2' therefore conflates algorithmic modality with tuning effort. The authors should either tune OKVIS2 with comparable effort, report sensitivity to parameter settings for both algorithms, or soften the comparative claim to reflect that DLIO was tuned while OKVIS2 was not.
  4. [IV-D, IV-E, Figure 4] The LiDAR and camera comparisons are based on very limited environment coverage. The LiDAR comparison in Section IV-D uses only the Hike and Warehouse datasets, and the camera comparison in Section IV-E uses only the Mountain Ascent dataset. The text nevertheless makes general claims such as 'the CoreResearch unit, utilizing global shutter cameras, consistently delivers the best accuracy across all environments' and that the Hesai outperforms the Livox. These claims are not supported by the presented data. The authors should either extend the evaluations to more of the seven environments or explicitly restrict the conclusions to the tested conditions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV-C vs Appendix B] The text in Section IV-C says the results are 'compared against the total station (TPS) measurements', but Appendix B defines the reference as the Holistic Fusion (HF-Optimized) trajectory that fuses TPS, IMU, and IE-TC. Please align the wording to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [IV-F, IV-G3, Table II] The term 'tactile-grade IMU' should be 'tactical-grade IMU' in Sections IV-F and IV-G3; Table II already uses the correct abbreviation 'Tact.'.
  3. [Figure 4] The label 'Confided' on the LiDAR comparison subplot should be 'Confined'.
  4. [Table VIII] The table caption says 'HS indicates the output of Holistic-Fusion' but the text uses the abbreviation 'HF'; please standardize.
  5. [Appendix I] The sentence 'However, it lacks IEEE 1588v2 support (see Section VII)' appears to reference the wrong section; the discussion of the switch's lack of PTP support is in Section V-D2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the modality tables are scored against TPS directly, and HF-based comparisons are relative ablations with disclosed reference construction.

full rationale

The most plausible circularity concern is the use of Holistic Fusion (HF) as ground truth, since HF fuses TPS, the HG4930 IMU, and Inertial Explorer IE-TC poses (Appendix B), while Section IV evaluates DLIO, OKVIS2, IE-TC, and TSIF. However, the modality comparison in Section IV-C is explicitly stated to be 'compared against the total station (TPS) measurements', not against the HF ground truth. Thus the GNSS row in Tables IV and V is scored against an independent TPS reference, not against a reference that contains IE-TC. The HF ground truth is introduced only in Section IV-D ('In the following, all APE/RPE error metric computations are done with respect to our 6-DoF ground truth pose estimate'), and it is used for relative ablations (LiDAR choice, camera choice, IMU choice, time-offset and extrinsic perturbations) where the same reference is applied to all conditions being compared. The fact that HF also uses the HG4930 IMU, which appears in some of the tested pipelines, is a shared-input limitation rather than a construction-level circularity: the tested algorithms' outputs are not fed into the reference, and the perturbation experiments measure differential degradation against a fixed reference. The paper also explicitly discloses that HF has 'privileged access' to TPS measurements and that Table VIII results 'do not reflect the accuracy of position during the dropout periods.' No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no self-citation chain is load-bearing, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and the empirical claims stand on independent measurement data.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical hardware study, so the ledger contains no invented entities and no fitted parameters in the derivation sense. The main hidden choices are algorithm tuning, with DLIO tuned and OKVIS2 not, and the ground-truth construction that includes the GNSS solution being evaluated. The listed assumptions are load-bearing for interpreting the ablations.

free parameters (2)
  • DLIO algorithm hyperparameters = not specified
    Section IV-I states DLIO was tuned 'to the best of our knowledge' across all datasets, while OKVIS2 was not tuned per camera setting. This manual tuning to the test data can bias the modality comparison toward LiDAR.
  • IMU datasheet noise parameters = from datasheets, e.g., bias instability values in Table II
    Used in Holistic Fusion and DLIO/OKVIS2 configurations; these are manufacturer-provided inputs rather than fitted values, but their accuracy is assumed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Leica MS60 total station tracks the prism with ±1.5 mm static accuracy and ±1 ms time-sync jitter.
    Appendix B; this is the anchor for all ground truth poses.
  • domain assumption Holistic Fusion output is a valid 6DoF ground truth reference even during TPS dropouts.
    Appendix B; during dropouts the GT relies on IE-TC and IMU, whose errors are then baked into the reference.
  • domain assumption The seven GrandTour environments are representative of unstructured real-world robot operation.
    Section IV-A; used to generalize conclusions about modalities, cameras, and IMUs.
  • domain assumption DLIO, OKVIS2, TSIF, and Inertial Explorer fairly represent their sensor modalities.
    Section IV-B; conclusions about LiDAR versus camera are tied to these specific implementations and their tuning.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Boxi: Design Decisions in the Context of Algorithmic Performance for Robotics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F3HZ5ROX

@misc{pith2026250418500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Boxi: Design Decisions in the Context of Algorithmic Performance for Robotics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F3HZ5ROX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18500}
}
read the original abstract

Achieving robust autonomy in mobile robots operating in complex and unstructured environments requires a multimodal sensor suite capable of capturing diverse and complementary information. However, designing such a sensor suite involves multiple critical design decisions, such as sensor selection, component placement, thermal and power limitations, compute requirements, networking, synchronization, and calibration. While the importance of these key aspects is widely recognized, they are often overlooked in academia or retained as proprietary knowledge within large corporations. To improve this situation, we present Boxi, a tightly integrated sensor payload that enables robust autonomy of robots in the wild. This paper discusses the impact of payload design decisions made to optimize algorithmic performance for downstream tasks, specifically focusing on state estimation and mapping. Boxi is equipped with a variety of sensors: two LiDARs, 10 RGB cameras including high-dynamic range, global shutter, and rolling shutter models, an RGB-D camera, 7 inertial measurement units (IMUs) of varying precision, and a dual antenna RTK GNSS system. Our analysis shows that time synchronization, calibration, and sensor modality have a crucial impact on the state estimation performance. We frame this analysis in the context of cost considerations and environment-specific challenges. We also present a mobile sensor suite `cookbook` to serve as a comprehensive guideline, highlighting generalizable key design considerations and lessons learned during the development of Boxi. Finally, we demonstrate the versatility of Boxi being used in a variety of applications in real-world scenarios, contributing to robust autonomy. More details and code: https://github.com/leggedrobotics/grand_tour_box

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18500 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Boxi can be deployed handheld, on a legged robot, or a wheeled robot across a variety of environments. Abstract—Achieving robust autonomy in mobile robots op￾erating in complex and unstructured environments requires a multimodal sensor suite capable of capturing diverse and com￾plementary information. However, designing such a sensor suite involves multiple critical design decisions, such as sensor selection, compon… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Co-design of hardware, electrical systems, software, and calibration is essential for developing a robust sensor payload. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Subset of the GrandTour Datasets Overview: (top-row) left, front, and right HDR camera images; (bottom-row) satellite image with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Camera and LiDAR Comparison using OKVIS2 (HG4930) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of different IMUs on the performance of DLIO module [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Extrinsic Rotational Offset - Performance DLIO (Hesai + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Extrinsic Translation Offset - Performance DLIO (Hesai + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example Deployment of Boxi: (a) TPS setup used for the ground truth pose generation. (b) Accurate intrinsic and extrinsic camera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Communication Overview: The camera sensors are directly connected to the processing compute units to reduce network load. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Visualization of LiDAR and Camera FoV: (Far Left) Top-down view of HDR FoV projected on flat ground plane. The black outline represents the rectified FoV; The distorted FoV overlaps while the undistorted one does not overlap. (Left Center) Top-down view of the CoreRes…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (a) Thermal deformation from heat generated by the compute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: LiDAR reconstruction of the calibration target using camera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: An overview of the calibrations done. The arrows indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Example calibration data samples used for the LiDAR to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Ground truth trajectory generated with Holistic Fusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: PTP synchronization experiment of Jetson and Nuc synchro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Heatmap of reprojection errors across all cameras. The consistent sub-pixel reprojection array throughout the image plane verifies the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Overlay of the LiDAR point cloud while moving forward at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_21.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. TartanGround: A Large-Scale Dataset for Ground Robot Perception and Navigation

    cs.RO 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new large-scale simulated dataset for ground robot perception with 360-degree stereo, depth, LiDAR, semantics, and occupancy maps, plus small-scale benchmarks showing existing methods generalize poorly.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    URL https://docs.novatel.com/ Waypoint/Content/Inertial_Explorer/Overview_of_IE

    Inertial explorer, 2024. URL https://docs.novatel.com/ Waypoint/Content/Inertial_Explorer/Overview_of_IE. htm. Accessed: 2025-01-21

    2024

  2. [1]

    URL https://ppmgmbh.com/ Download/Produkte/NovAtel/SPAN_CPT7/Datenblatt/ Datasheet_NovAtel_CPT7.pdf

    Cpt7 product sheet, 2024. URL https://ppmgmbh.com/ Download/Produkte/NovAtel/SPAN_CPT7/Datenblatt/ Datasheet_NovAtel_CPT7.pdf. Accessed: 2025-01-21

    2024

  3. [3]

    Metals - temperature expansion coefficients, 2005

    The Engineering ToolBox (2005). Metals - temperature expansion coefficients, 2005. URL https://www. engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-expansion-metals-d_ 859.html

    2005

  4. [4]

    Ceres Solver, 10 2023

    Sameer Agarwal, Keir Mierle, and The Ceres Solver Team. Ceres Solver, 10 2023. URL https://github.com/ ceres-solver/ceres-solver

    2023

  5. [5]

    The two-state implicit filter recursive estimation for mobile robots

    Michael Bloesch, Michael Burri, Hannes Sommer, Roland Siegwart, and Marco Hutter. The two-state implicit filter recursive estimation for mobile robots. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 3(1):573–580, 2017

    2017

  6. [6]

    Vbr: A vision benchmark in rome

    Leonardo Brizi, Emanuele Giacomini, Luca Di Gi- ammarino, Simone Ferrari, Omar Salem, Lorenzo De Re- botti, and Giorgio Grisetti. Vbr: A vision benchmark in rome. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11322 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    A. Bry, C. Richter, and N. Roy. Spatial and temporal cali- bration of multi-sensor systems with application to stereo vision. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 3863–3870, 2015

    2015

  8. [8]

    Allan variance ros, November 2021

    Russell Buchanan. Allan variance ros, November 2021. URL https://github.com/ori-drs/allan_variance_ros

    2021

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Boreas: A multi-season autonomous driving dataset

    Keenan Burnett, David J Yoon, Yuchen Wu, Andrew Z Li, Haowei Zhang, Shichen Lu, Jingxing Qian, Wei-Kang Tseng, Andrew Lambert, Keith YK Leung, et al. Boreas: A multi-season autonomous driving dataset. The Interna- tional Journal of Robotics Research, 42(1-2):33–42, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets

    Michael Burri, Janosch Nikolic, Pascal Gohl, Thomas Schneider, Joern Rehder, Sammy Omari, Markus W Achtelik, and Roland Siegwart. The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 35(10):1157–1163, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving

    Holger Caesar, Varun Bankiti, Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Giancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom. nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern...

    2020

  4. [12]

    Libre: The multiple 3d lidar dataset

    Alexander Carballo, Jacob Lambert, Abraham Monrroy, David Wong, Patiphon Narksri, Yuki Kitsukawa, Eijiro Takeuchi, Shinpei Kato, and Kazuya Takeda. Libre: The multiple 3d lidar dataset. In 2020 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), pages 1094–1101. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Argo- verse: 3d tracking and forecasting with rich maps

    Ming-Fang Chang, John Lambert, Patsorn Sangkloy, Jag- jeet Singh, Slawomir Bak, Andrew Hartnett, De Wang, Peter Carr, Simon Lucey, Deva Ramanan, et al. Argo- verse: 3d tracking and forecasting with rich maps. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pat...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Direct lidar-inertial odometry: Lightweight lio with continuous- time motion correction

    Kenny Chen, Ryan Nemiroff, and Brett T Lopez. Direct lidar-inertial odometry: Lightweight lio with continuous- time motion correction. In 2023 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , pages 3983–3989. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    The cityscapes dataset

    Marius Cordts, Mohamed Omran, Sebastian Ramos, Timo Scharwächter, Markus Enzweiler, Rodrigo Benenson, Uwe Franke, Stefan Roth, and Bernt Schiele. The cityscapes dataset. In CVPR Workshop on the Future of Datasets in Vision , volume 2, page 1, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Learning camera miscalibration detection

    Andrei Cramariuc, Aleksandar Petrov, Rohit Suri, Mayank Mittal, Roland Siegwart, and Cesar Cadena. Learning camera miscalibration detection. In 2020 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 4997–5003. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Enhanced calibration of camera setups for high-performance visual odometry

    Igor Cvisic, Ivan Markovic, and Ivan Petrovic. Enhanced calibration of camera setups for high-performance visual odometry. Robotics Auton. Syst., 155:104189, 2022. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2022.104189

    2022

  10. [18]

    Benchmarking ground truth trajectories with robotic total stations

    Effie Daum, Maxime Vaidis, and François Pomerleau. Benchmarking ground truth trajectories with robotic total stations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.05134 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Davis and Yifan Hu

    Timothy A. Davis and Yifan Hu. The university of florida sparse matrix collection. ACM Trans. Math. Softw., 38(1), December 2011. ISSN 0098-3500. doi: 10.1145/2049662. 2049663. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2049662.2049663

    2011

  12. [20]

    Performances comparison of different mems-based imus

    Mattia De Agostino, Ambrogio Maria Manzino, and Marco Piras. Performances comparison of different mems-based imus. In IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, pages 187–201. IEEE, 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    Assessing the quality of the leica blk2go mobile laser scanner versus the focus 3d s120 static terrestrial laser scanner for a preliminary study of garden digital surveying

    Graziella Del Duca and Carol Machado. Assessing the quality of the leica blk2go mobile laser scanner versus the focus 3d s120 static terrestrial laser scanner for a preliminary study of garden digital surveying. Heritage, 6(2):1007–1027, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Mem: Multi-modal elevation mapping for robotics and learning

    Gian Erni, Jonas Frey, Takahiro Miki, Matias Mattamala, and Marco Hutter. Mem: Multi-modal elevation mapping for robotics and learning. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 11011–11018. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Twist-n-sync: Software clock synchronization with microseconds accuracy using mems-gyroscopes

    Marsel Faizullin, Anastasiia Kornilova, Azat Akhmetyanov, and Gonzalo Ferrer. Twist-n-sync: Software clock synchronization with microseconds accuracy using mems-gyroscopes. Sensors, 21(1),

  16. [24]

    S3e: A multi-robot multimodal dataset for collaborative slam

    Dapeng Feng, Yuhua Qi, Shipeng Zhong, Zhiqiang Chen, Qiming Chen, Hongbo Chen, Jin Wu, and Jun Ma. S3e: A multi-robot multimodal dataset for collaborative slam. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Extrinsic calibration of camera to lidar using a differentiable checkerboard model

    Lanke Frank Tarimo Fu, Nived Chebrolu, and Maurice Fallon. Extrinsic calibration of camera to lidar using a differentiable checkerboard model. In 2023 IEEE/RSJ In- ternational Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 1825–1831, 2023. doi: 10.1109/IROS55552. 2...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Unified temporal and spatial calibration for multi-sensor systems

    Paul Furgale, Joern Rehder, and Roland Siegwart. Unified temporal and spatial calibration for multi-sensor systems. In 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pages 1280–1286. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Dsec: A stereo event camera dataset for driving scenarios

    Mathias Gehrig, Willem Aarents, Daniel Gehrig, and Davide Scaramuzza. Dsec: A stereo event camera dataset for driving scenarios. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(3):4947–4954, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, Christoph Stiller, and Raquel Urtasun. Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 32(11):1231– 1237, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    evo: Python package for the evaluation of odometry and slam

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

    2017

  22. [30]

    Inferring bias and uncertainty in camera calibration

    Annika Hagemann, Moritz Knorr, Holger Janssen, and Christoph Stiller. Inferring bias and uncertainty in camera calibration. International Journal of Computer Vision , pages 1–16, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    The hilti slam challenge dataset

    Michael Helmberger, Kristian Morin, Beda Berner, Nitish Kumar, Giovanni Cioffi, and Davide Scaramuzza. The hilti slam challenge dataset. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3):7518–7525, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Paloc: Advancing slam benchmark- ing with prior-assisted 6-dof trajectory generation and uncertainty estimation

    Xiangcheng Hu, Linwei Zheng, Jin Wu, Ruoyu Geng, Yang Yu, Hexiang Wei, Xiaoyu Tang, Lujia Wang, Jianhao Jiao, and Ming Liu. Paloc: Advancing slam benchmark- ing with prior-assisted 6-dof trajectory generation and uncertainty estimation. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Heterogeneous ground and air platforms, homogeneous sensing: Team csiro data61’s approach to the darpa subter- ranean challenge

    Nicolas Hudson, Fletcher Talbot, Mark Cox, Jason Williams, Thomas Hines, Alex Pitt, Brett Wood, Dennis Frousheger, Katrina Lo Surdo, Thomas Molnar, et al. Heterogeneous ground and air platforms, homogeneous sensing: Team csiro data61’s approach to the darpa subter- ranean chal...

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Anymal-toward legged robots for harsh environments

    Marco Hutter, Christian Gehring, Andreas Lauber, Fabian Gunther, Carmine Dario Bellicoso, Vassilios Tsounis, Péter Fankhauser, Remo Diethelm, Samuel Bachmann, Michael Blösch, et al. Anymal-toward legged robots for harsh environments. Advanced Robotics, 31(17):918–931, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Towards autonomous robotic precision harvesting: Map- ping, localization, planning and control for a legged tree harvester

    Edo Jelavic, Dominic Jud, Pascal Egli, and Marco Hutter. Towards autonomous robotic precision harvesting: Map- ping, localization, planning and control for a legged tree harvester. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10110 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

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

    Jianhao Jiao, Hexiang Wei, Tianshuai Hu, Xiangcheng Hu, Yilong Zhu, Zhijian He, Jin Wu, Jingwen Yu, Xupeng Xie, Huaiyang Huang, et al. Fusionportable: A multi- sensor campus-scene dataset for evaluation of localization and mapping accuracy on diverse platforms. In 2022 IEEE/RS...

    2022

  29. [37]

    A generic camera model and calibration method for conventional, wide-angle, and fish-eye lenses

    Juho Kannala and Sami Brandt. A generic camera model and calibration method for conventional, wide-angle, and fish-eye lenses. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 28:1335–40, 09 2006. doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2006.153

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    Leica grz101 360° mini reflector

    Leica Geosystems. Leica grz101 360° mini reflector. https: //shop.leica-geosystems.com/de-DE/survey/accessory/ geosystems/leica-grz101-360-degree-mini-reflector/buy. Accessed: 2025-01-20

    2025

  31. [39]

    Leica nova ms60 multista- tion

    Leica Geosystems. Leica nova ms60 multista- tion. https://leica-geosystems.com/products/total-stations/ multistation/leica-nova-ms60, 2020. Accessed: 2025-01- 20

    2020

  32. [40]

    Leica BLK2GO - Handheld Laser Scanner, 2024

    Leica Geosystems AG. Leica BLK2GO - Handheld Laser Scanner, 2024. URL https://shop.leica-geosystems.com/ global/leica-blk/blk2go/buy. Accessed: 19 Oct 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Okvis2: Realtime scalable visual- inertial slam with loop closure

    Stefan Leutenegger. Okvis2: Realtime scalable visual- inertial slam with loop closure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.09199, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Whu- helmet: A helmet-based multi-sensor slam dataset for the evaluation of real-time 3d mapping in large-scale gnss- denied environments

    Jianping Li, Weitong Wu, Bisheng Yang, Xianghong Zou, Yandi Yang, Xin Zhao, and Zhen Dong. Whu- helmet: A helmet-based multi-sensor slam dataset for the evaluation of real-time 3d mapping in large-scale gnss- denied environments. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sens...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Towards high-performance solid-state-lidar-inertial odometry and mapping

    Kailai Li, Meng Li, and Uwe D Hanebeck. Towards high-performance solid-state-lidar-inertial odometry and mapping. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 6(3): 5167–5174, 2021

    2021

  36. [44]

    Botanicgarden: A high-quality dataset for robot navigation in unstructured natural envi- ronments

    Yuanzhi Liu, Yujia Fu, Minghui Qin, Yufeng Xu, Baoxin Xu, Fengdong Chen, Bart Goossens, Poly ZH Sun, Hong- wei Yu, Chun Liu, et al. Botanicgarden: A high-quality dataset for robot navigation in unstructured natural envi- ronments. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Maddern, A

    W. Maddern, A. Stewart, C. Linegar, and P. Newman. Real-time kinematic ground truth for the oxford robotcar dataset. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 5279–5286, 2016

    2016

  38. [46]

    1 year, 1000 km: The oxford robotcar dataset

    Will Maddern, Geoffrey Pascoe, Chris Linegar, and Paul Newman. 1 year, 1000 km: The oxford robotcar dataset. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 36(1): 3–15, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Mcd: Diverse large-scale multi- campus dataset for robot perception

    Thien-Minh Nguyen, Shenghai Yuan, Thien Hoang Nguyen, Pengyu Yin, Haozhi Cao, Lihua Xie, Maciej Wozniak, Patric Jensfelt, Marko Thiel, Justin Ziegen- bein, and Noel Blunder. Mcd: Diverse large-scale multi- campus dataset for robot perception. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con...

    2024

  40. [48]

    A synchronized visual-inertial sensor system with fpga pre-processing for accurate real-time slam

    Janosch Nikolic, Joern Rehder, Michael Burri, Pascal Gohl, Stefan Leutenegger, Paul T Furgale, and Roland Siegwart. A synchronized visual-inertial sensor system with fpga pre-processing for accurate real-time slam. In 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automati...

    2014

  41. [49]

    Heterogeneous sensor fusion for accurate state estimation of dynamic legged robots

    Simona Nobili, Marco Camurri, Victor Barasuol, Michele Focchi, Darwin Caldwell, Claudio Semini, and Maurice Fallon. Heterogeneous sensor fusion for accurate state estimation of dynamic legged robots. In Robotics: Science and System XIII , 2017

    2017

  42. [50]

    Learning-based localizability estimation for robust lidar localization

    Julian Nubert, Etienne Walther, Shehryar Khattak, and Marco Hutter. Learning-based localizability estimation for robust lidar localization. In 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 17–24. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Holistic fusion: Task-and setup-agnostic robot localization and state estimation with factor graphs

    Julian Nubert, Turcan Tuna, Jonas Frey, Cesar Cadena, Katherine J Kuchenbecker, Shehryar Khattak, and Marco Hutter. Holistic fusion: Task-and setup-agnostic robot localization and state estimation with factor graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06479, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Apriltag: A robust and flexible visual fiducial system

    Edwin Olson. Apriltag: A robust and flexible visual fiducial system. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 3400–3407, 2011. doi: 10.1109/ICRA.2011.5979561

    2011

  45. [53]

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

    Milad Ramezani, Yiduo Wang, Marco Camurri, David Wisth, Matias Mattamala, and Maurice Fallon. The newer college dataset: Handheld lidar, inertial and vision with ground truth. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 4353–

    2020

  46. [54]

    Wildcat: Online continuous-time 3d lidar-inertial slam

    Milad Ramezani, Kasra Khosoussi, Gavin Catt, Peyman Moghadam, Jason Williams, Paulo Borges, Fred Pauling, and Navinda Kottege. Wildcat: Online continuous-time 3d lidar-inertial slam. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12595 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Extending kalibr: Cali- brating the extrinsics of multiple imus and of individual axes

    Joern Rehder, Janosch Nikolic, Thomas Schneider, Timo Hinzmann, and Roland Siegwart. Extending kalibr: Cali- brating the extrinsics of multiple imus and of individual axes. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 4304–4311, 2016. doi: 10...

    2016

  48. [56]

    Extending kalibr: Cali- brating the extrinsics of multiple imus and of individual axes

    Joern Rehder, Janosch Nikolic, Thomas Schneider, Timo Hinzmann, and Roland Siegwart. Extending kalibr: Cali- brating the extrinsics of multiple imus and of individual axes. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 4304–4311. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    Efficient volumetric mapping of multi-scale en- vironments using wavelet-based compression

    Victor Reijgwart, Cesar Cadena, Roland Siegwart, and Lionel Ott. Efficient volumetric mapping of multi-scale en- vironments using wavelet-based compression. In Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , 2023. doi: 10.15607/RSS. 2023.XIX.065. URL https://www.roboticsproceedings. org...

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Stereo vision and imu based real-time ego-motion and depth image computation on a handheld device

    Korbinian Schmid and Heiko Hirschmüller. Stereo vision and imu based real-time ego-motion and depth image computation on a handheld device. In 2013 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robotics and Automation , pages 4671–4678. IEEE, 2013

    2013

  51. [59]

    Core research development kit,

    Sevensense Robotics AG. Core research development kit,

  52. [60]

    Parallel pointing systems suitable for robotic total stations: Selection, dimensional synthesis, and accuracy analysis

    Henrique Simas, Raffaele Di Gregorio, Roberto Simoni, and Marco Gatti. Parallel pointing systems suitable for robotic total stations: Selection, dimensional synthesis, and accuracy analysis. Machines, 12(1):54, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Tartandrive 2.0: More modalities and better infrastructure to further self-supervised learning research in off-road driving tasks

    Matthew Sivaprakasam, Parv Maheshwari, Mateo Guaman Castro, Samuel Triest, Micah Nye, Steve Willits, Andrew Saba, Wenshan Wang, and Sebastian Scherer. Tartandrive 2.0: More modalities and better infrastructure to further self-supervised learning research in off-road driving ta...

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Rolling shutter camera synchronization with sub-millisecond accuracy

    Matej Smid and Jiri Matas. Rolling shutter camera synchronization with sub-millisecond accuracy. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.11084, 2019

    1902 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset

    Pei Sun, Henrik Kretzschmar, Xerxes Dotiwalla, Aurelien Chouard, Vijaysai Patnaik, Paul Tsui, James Guo, Yin Zhou, Yuning Chai, Benjamin Caine, et al. Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi...

    2020

  56. [64]

    The oxford spires dataset: Benchmarking large- scale lidar-visual localisation, reconstruction and radiance field methods

    Yifu Tao, Miguel Ángel Muñoz-Bañón, Lintong Zhang, Jiahao Wang, Lanke Frank Tarimo Fu, and Maurice Fallon. The oxford spires dataset: Benchmarking large- scale lidar-visual localisation, reconstruction and radiance field methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10546 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Sensor fusion of robotic total station and inertial navigation system for 6dof tracking applications

    Tomas Thalmann and Hans Neuner. Sensor fusion of robotic total station and inertial navigation system for 6dof tracking applications. Applied Geomatics, 16(4):933– 949, 2024

    2024

  58. [66]

    The ROS Multimaster Extension for Simplified Deploy- ment of Multi-Robot Systems , pages 629–650

    Alexander Tiderko, Frank Hoeller, and Timo Röhling. The ROS Multimaster Extension for Simplified Deploy- ment of Multi-Robot Systems , pages 629–650. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016. ISBN 978-3-319- 26054-9. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26054-9_24. URL https://doi.org/...

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    Cerberus: Autonomous legged and aerial robotic exploration in the tunnel and urban circuits of the darpa subterranean challenge

    Marco Tranzatto, Frank Mascarich, Lukas Bernreiter, Car- olina Godinho, Marco Camurri, Shehryar Khattak, Tung Dang, Victor Reijgwart, Johannes Loeje, David Wisth, et al. Cerberus: Autonomous legged and aerial robotic exploration in the tunnel and urban circuits of the darpa su...

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Tartandrive: A large-scale dataset for learning off-road dynamics models

    Samuel Triest, Matthew Sivaprakasam, Sean J Wang, Wenshan Wang, Aaron M Johnson, and Sebastian Scherer. Tartandrive: A large-scale dataset for learning off-road dynamics models. In 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 2546–2552. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  61. [69]

    Conslam: Construction data set for slam

    Maciej Trzeciak, Kacper Pluta, Yasmin Fathy, Lucio Alcalde, Stanley Chee, Antony Bromley, Ioannis Brilakis, and Pierre Alliez. Conslam: Construction data set for slam. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering , 37(3): 04023009, 2023

    2023

  62. [70]

    Versavis—an open versatile multi-camera visual-inertial sensor suite

    Florian Tschopp, Michael Riner, Marius Fehr, Lukas Bernreiter, Fadri Furrer, Tonci Novkovic, Andreas Pfrun- der, Cesar Cadena, Roland Siegwart, and Juan Nieto. Versavis—an open versatile multi-camera visual-inertial sensor suite. Sensors, 20(5):1439, 2020

    2020

  63. [71]

    X-icp: Localizability-aware lidar registration for robust localization in extreme envi- ronments

    Turcan Tuna, Julian Nubert, Yoshua Nava, Shehryar Khattak, and Marco Hutter. X-icp: Localizability-aware lidar registration for robust localization in extreme envi- ronments. IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Informed, constrained, aligned: A field analysis on degeneracy- aware point cloud registration in the wild

    Turcan Tuna, Julian Nubert, Patrick Pfreundschuh, Cesar Cadena, Shehryar Khattak, and Marco Hutter. Informed, constrained, aligned: A field analysis on degeneracy- aware point cloud registration in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11809, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Rts-gt: Robotic total stations ground truthing dataset

    Maxime Vaidis, Mohsen Hassanzadeh Shahraji, Effie Daum, William Dubois, Philippe Giguère, and François Pomerleau. Rts-gt: Robotic total stations ground truthing dataset. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 17050–17056. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    Understand- ing and applying precision time protocol

    Steve T Watt, Shankar Achanta, Hamza Abubakari, Eric Sagen, Zafer Korkmaz, and Husam Ahmed. Understand- ing and applying precision time protocol. In 2015 Saudi Arabia Smart Grid (SASG) , pages 1–7. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  67. [75]

    Everysync: An open hardware time synchronization sensor suite for common sensors in slam

    Xuankang Wu, Haoxiang Sun, Rongguang Wu, and Zheng Fang. Everysync: An open hardware time synchronization sensor suite for common sensors in slam. In 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 12587–12593. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Pirvs: An advanced visual-inertial slam system with flexible sensor fusion and hardware co-design

    Zhe Zhang, Shaoshan Liu, Grace Tsai, Hongbing Hu, Chen-Chi Chu, and Feng Zheng. Pirvs: An advanced visual-inertial slam system with flexible sensor fusion and hardware co-design. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 3826–3832. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  69. [77]

    Subt- mrs dataset: Pushing slam towards all-weather environ- ments

    Shibo Zhao, Yuanjun Gao, Tianhao Wu, Damanpreet Singh, Rushan Jiang, Haoxiang Sun, Mansi Sarawata, Yuheng Qiu, Warren Whittaker, Ian Higgins, et al. Subt- mrs dataset: Pushing slam towards all-weather environ- ments. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision...

    2024

  70. [80]

    Ground Truth Verification: For verification, we compare our ground truth poses against the TPS measurements. It is important to note that this analysis is conducted to show that the sensor fusion and factor-graph optimization steps do not alter the alignment accuracy against t...

    2020

  71. [82]

    Using vibration-damping mounts or isolators between the base platform and Boxi is prohibited by the fact that the kinematic chain must remain accurately observable

    Vibrations: During operation, Boxi experiences constant vibrations due to the radial fan and the motion of the legged robot. Using vibration-damping mounts or isolators between the base platform and Boxi is prohibited by the fact that the kinematic chain must remain accurately...

  72. [83]

    A modular IP67-rated cable passthrough proved to be particularly useful for the flexible integration of the components on the lid

    Weatherproofing: To ensure weatherproofing, we incor- porated an O-ring between the main body of Boxi and the lid. A modular IP67-rated cable passthrough proved to be particularly useful for the flexible integration of the components on the lid. The entire enclosure is air-tig...

  73. [84]

    This analysis aims to identify risks early in the design process and, in turn, helps to design mitigation strategies

    Protection: We generally recommend performing a haz- ard analysis before the mechanical design of the payload. This analysis aims to identify risks early in the design process and, in turn, helps to design mitigation strategies. Generally, the later risks are identified, the m...

  74. [85]

    Kalibr Ceres Online Version: Initially, we experimented with the off-the-shelf tool Kalibr [ 26, 56] but were quickly set back by three main challenges: i) the batched nature of the calibration formulation, along with the information gain computation at each batch iteration ma...

  75. [86]

    The 6 × 6 of square patterns provide up to 144 corner detections

    Calibration Target: To facilitate the convenient collection of calibration corner data close to the edges of the cameras with high distortion, we used a calibration target formed of a planar grid of AprilTag targets [ 52] (also known as an AprilGrid), which enables partial det...

  76. [87]

    The projection errors are, on average, below 0.5 px and the samples cover the full FoV

    Camera Calibration Reprojection Errors: The reprojec- tion errors of the detected corners across all cameras are provided in Figure 20. The projection errors are, on average, below 0.5 px and the samples cover the full FoV. Q. Calibration: Camera to IMU An operator performs th...

  77. [88]

    In Figure 21, an example scene showcases the excellent data association that can be achieved across all directions during motion

    LiDAR to Camera Overlay: The established time syn- chronization, camera intrinsic, camera-to-LiDAR, and camera- to-IMU extrinsic calibration allow us to motion-compensate the LiDAR points and accurately project them onto all Cor- eResearch images. In Figure 21, an example scen...

  78. [1242]

    We chose the wide FoV 110◦ horizontal version with a 2.1 mm focal length lens

    and comes with different lens options. We chose the wide FoV 110◦ horizontal version with a 2.1 mm focal length lens. Crucially, the driver provided by StereoLabs allows video en- coding in H.264, H.265, or lossless formats and supports serial- ized recording of the measuremen...

    1920

  79. [2021]

    doi: 10.3390/s21010068

    ISSN 1424-8220. doi: 10.3390/s21010068. URL https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/1/68

    doi

  80. [2022]

    Accessed: 19 Oct 2024

    URL https://github.com/sevensense-robotics/core_ research_manual. Accessed: 19 Oct 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.