Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

SKiD-SLAM: Robust, Lightweight, and Distributed Multi-Robot LiDAR SLAM in Resource-Constrained Field Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SKiD-SLAM lets teams of robots map caves and planetary terrain while exchanging only a few megabytes of descriptor data, solving both the bandwidth bottleneck and the false-loop problem.

desk verdict SKiD-SLAM is a credible integration of existing lightweight place recognition and robust registration into a distributed SLAM pipeline, with real memory/latency wins, but the robustness claim leans on undisclosed thresholds, an unspecified front-end, and limited baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08230 v3 pith:QSDIGTIA submitted 2025-05-13 cs.RO

Hogyun Kim , Jiwon Choi , Juwon Kim , Geonmo Yang , Dongjin Cho , Hyungtae Lim , Younggun Cho This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords multi-robotSLAMdistributedLiDARplacerecognitionpointcloudregistrationloopclosurefieldroboticsresource-constrainedmappingSOLiDdescriptor
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

Distributed multi-robot LiDAR SLAM usually fails in the field for one of two reasons: the map data robots share is too heavy for field radios and onboard memory, or loop closures between robots rely on ICP-style matching that needs a near-perfect initial guess and therefore produces false positives when robots view the same place from different angles. This paper argues that both problems can be solved within one framework, SKiD-SLAM, by combining a lightweight rotation-invariant global descriptor with a global registration method that supplies the initial guess for a local fine alignment, followed by a two-stage outlier rejection. If correct, a team of robots can map caves, planetary-analog terrain, forests, and off-road areas while exchanging only a few megabytes of descriptor data per robot and keeping latency under 0.06 seconds over Wi-Fi. The paper supports this with public dataset comparisons and real field tests in caves and planetary emulation terrains.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the SKiD-SLAM pipeline itself, but its load-bearing element is the SOLiD descriptor. SOLiD builds a radial-elevational points counter (REC) that bins points by range and elevation, sums along the range axis to form an implicit elevation vector (IEV), normalizes it, and takes the dot product of REC and IEV as the descriptor. That dot product suppresses bins where laser reflections or occlusions produce spurious points, and the descriptor remains discriminative over fields of view from 60 to 360 degrees. Around this descriptor, the framework places KISS-Matcher as a global registration front end that estimates a coarse relative pose without an initial guess, Small-GICP for fine alignment, and a two-stage outlier rejection (truncated MSE on the fitness score, then pairwise consistency maximization) that sits between candidate loop closures and the distributed pose graph optimization.

What would settle it

Take a sequence where a robot travels several hundred meters through a dark, feature-poor cave with no revisits, run the same front-end used in the field tests, and inject or measure the resulting drift; if the map error after multi-robot optimization grows with that drift rather than being corrected by the loop closures, then the claimed robustness rests on an unstated assumption. A direct test would be to compare SKiD-SLAM's final map against ground truth in a cave where the front-end is deliberately degraded by reducing LiDAR-IMU quality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the resource bottleneck and the association problem in distributed SLAM are not separate; both are solved at the same point, namely the global descriptor plus the registration initializer. The SOLiD descriptor encodes each LiDAR scan as a radial-elevational point counter multiplied by a normalized implicit elevation vector, making it rotation-invariant, robust to occlusion and laser-reflection errors, and 20 to 1000 times smaller than Scan Context or LiDAR Iris in the park-scale test. KISS-Matcher then performs global registration without an initial guess, and Small-GICP refines the result, so reverse and partially reverse loops that would trap ICP are handled. The two-stage outlier rejection, truncated MSE followed by pairwise consistency maximization, removes false loops before pose graph optimization. The consequence is consistent maps in caves and planetary terrains where the compared methods either failed descriptor matching or produced distorted maps.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each robot's local LiDAR-IMU odometry is accurate enough that the loop-closure consistency check and the final multi-robot alignment can trust those local trajectories, yet that odometry front-end is never described or evaluated in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A field team can exchange SOLiD descriptors over a Wi-Fi mesh with 0.03–0.06 s latency at ranges up to 30 m, whereas LiDAR Iris begins to bottleneck at 20 m and can take over an hour to send one descriptor.
  • The park-scale memory comparison shows roughly 5.5–7.0 MB total descriptor traffic between robot pairs, 20 to 1000 times smaller than Scan Context or LiDAR Iris, which directly extends mission duration on memory-limited onboard computers.
  • Inter-robot registration stays reliable under large yaw differences, with a reported 86.4% success rate versus 71–77% for the strongest alternative registration methods on planetary terrains.
  • The mapping outcome in caves and planetary emulation terrain is a consistent global map without distortions, while DCL-SLAM failed descriptor matching and DiSCo-SLAM produced unreliable ICP-based relative poses.
  • The full system solves the distributed objective by optimizing only the robot and its nearby robots within 30 m, keeping computation bounded as the number of robots grows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to apply the same descriptor-plus-global-registration pipeline to heterogeneous LiDAR sensors with different resolutions and fields of view, since SOLiD's 60–360 degree FOV robustness is stated but its cross-sensor invariance is not demonstrated.
  • The 30 m association radius that defines nearby robots could become a scalability bottleneck in sparse, large-scale deployments, so a dynamic or learned association radius is an untested way to extend the approach to N≥4 robots.
  • The truncated-MSE fitness score could double as a confidence signal for active loop-closure verification or for deciding when to trigger re-localization, not just as a static rejection threshold; the paper does not explore this online use.
  • Because the paper reports only qualitative results for the cave and planetary field tests, a quantitative ground-truth evaluation of those sequences would be the most direct way to test whether the claimed robustness generalizes beyond the public datasets.
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. SKiD-SLAM proposes a distributed multi-robot LiDAR SLAM framework whose core contribution is a lightweight and robust inter-robot loop-closure pipeline built from the authors' previous SOLiD place-recognition descriptor and KISS-Matcher global registration, followed by a two-stage outlier-rejection cascade (truncated MSE and PCM). The paper reports experiments on public datasets (GEODE underground/off-road, GRACO aerial, a simulated planetary terrain) and in-house field datasets (planetary emulation terrain and cave), together with communication latency and descriptor memory measurements. The central claims are that the method is lightweight, robust to large viewpoint differences and false loop closures, and suitable for resource-constrained field robotics.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful engineering contribution: it demonstrates that very compact descriptors (Table I) and low-latency exchange (Table IV) are compatible with multi-robot mapping in challenging terrain, and it provides a concrete two-stage outlier-rejection design that appears to improve registration success rates over ICP-style baselines (Table III). The lightweight and latency claims are directly supported by measurements, and the use of publicly available GEODE and GRACO datasets in the preliminary evaluation is a clear strength. However, the broader robustness claim is only partially supported: the front-end odometry that feeds the consistency checks is neither described nor evaluated, the thresholds in the outlier-rejection chain are undisclosed, and the quantitative comparisons are mostly single-run with only two baselines. These gaps are addressable, and the core framework remains plausible.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-A, Fig. 2(a), Eqs. (2), (11), (13)] The front-end LiDAR-IMU odometry is never named, parameterized, or evaluated, yet it is load-bearing for the robustness claim. The odometry constraints in Eq. (2) define the local pose graph, the PCM consistency check in Eq. (11) uses intra-robot relative measurements z_c1c2 and z_q2q1 derived from local odometry, and the multi-robot alignment metric in Eq. (13) trusts the backend alignment of locally estimated trajectories. If the front-end drifts in the degenerate underground, cave, or dusty planetary scenarios used in the paper, the inter-robot loop constraints are corrupted before the outlier-rejection cascade acts. The paper should specify the odometry method, report its standalone trajectory error on the public datasets, and provide a sensitivity analysis showing how robustness varies with front-end drift.
  2. [Section IV-B/IV-D, Eqs. (8), (10), (11), N_alpha in Eq. (6)] The user-defined thresholds tau_dist, tau_MSE, and tau_PCM, as well as the 30 m association radius used to define N_alpha, are never reported. The measured success rates and robustness results depend directly on these values, so their omission prevents reproduction and weakens the claim that the method is robust rather than tuned for the presented scenes. Please report all threshold values and include a sensitivity study over a reasonable range (e.g., varying tau_PCM and tau_MSE around the chosen values) and state the criteria used to select them.
  3. [Tables II and III, Section V] The robustness comparison relies on single-run metrics without variance or confidence intervals, and the baseline set is narrow. Table II reports only one ATE/ARE number per robot and dataset, and the success-rate claim in Table III has no uncertainty quantification across runs or random seeds. Moreover, the abstract's claim of being 'more robust and lightweight compared to other state-of-the-art distributed SLAM approaches' is evaluated against only DiSCo-SLAM and DCL-SLAM, while RDC-SLAM, Swarm-SLAM, and LDG-CSLAM are discussed in the related work but not compared. Please provide repeated-run statistics with error bars (or at least per-sequence results) and expand the comparison, or explicitly qualify the claim to the compared methods.
  4. [Section VI-C, Figs. 7 and 10] The field evaluation in caves and planetary emulation terrain is qualitative only, which leaves a gap between the claimed 'field applicability' and the quantitative support. Since ground truth is unavailable in these environments, the paper could still report quantitative proxies such as the number of accepted/rejected loop closures, per-robot odometry consistency, map-alignment residuals before and after optimization, or the fraction of successfully closed loops. Without such evidence, the qualitative maps alone do not substantiate that the system is robust in these specific field conditions, especially given the front-end dependence noted above.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (4)] The text says 'F_intra represents the inter-robot constraints for each robot,' but Eq. (4) defines F_intra as the sum of single-robot pose-graph costs, i.e., intra-robot constraints. Please correct this wording to avoid confusion with F_inter in Eq. (5).
  2. [Section IV-D1, Eq. (10)] The indicator function I(.) is described as 'returns distance if the given condition is true,' but in the equation it is used as a binary indicator that contributes 1 when the condition holds. Please clarify the notation so that the reader can reproduce the truncated MSE computation.
  3. [Table IV] The header 'Meesage Time' appears to be a typo for 'Message Time,' and the entries such as '≥45m' and '≥1h 30m' should specify whether they denote seconds, minutes, or the fact that the measurement timed out.
  4. [General] The paper often refers to its own previous works (SOLiD and KISS-Matcher) without providing sufficient algorithmic detail for self-containment; since the advertised code release is only a project page at submission time, please include pseudocode or a more detailed description of the place-recognition matching and the KISS-Matcher configuration used in the experiments.
  5. [Fig. 8] The yaw-rotation invariance plot would be more informative with a quantitative label of the dataset and the number of trials per yaw angle, and ideally error bars over multiple runs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SKiD-SLAM's robustness and lightweight claims are grounded in direct measurements on public benchmarks and in-paper comparisons, not in a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper is an integration of previously published components (SOLiD [8], KISS-Matcher [9]) into a distributed multi-robot SLAM pipeline, and it is transparent about that lineage. The load-bearing claims are evaluated empirically rather than derived: descriptor memory usage is measured directly (Table I), communication latency is measured over a real Wi-Fi mesh (Table IV), place recognition is assessed with PR curves on public datasets (Fig. 5), registration success is measured against GEODE/GRACO-style data (Table III), and final multi-robot alignment is reported as ATE/ARE compared with DiSCo-SLAM and DCL-SLAM on public sequences (Table II). The outlier-rejection equations (10) and (11) contain user-defined thresholds (tau_MSE, tau_PCM), but these are operating parameters, not quantities fitted to the evaluation outcomes; the paper does not fit a parameter to a subset of data and then 'predict' a closely related quantity. The self-citations to SOLiD and KISS-Matcher identify the constituent modules, but the paper does not rely on those citations as the sole justification for the system-level robustness claim; it provides independent, in-paper experimental evidence for each module's behavior within the proposed pipeline. The main weaknesses are that the front-end LiDAR-IMU odometry (Fig. 2(a)) is not described or evaluated, and the in-house cave and planetary field results are qualitative without ground truth. Those are validation/completeness gaps, not circular reductions: no equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to an input, and no prediction is statistically forced by a fitted parameter. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central framework imports the authors' prior SOLiD descriptor and KISS-Matcher registration as building blocks without re-deriving them, and the empirical results depend on undisclosed user-defined thresholds. These carried-in components and hand-set constants constitute the main external inputs to the claimed performance.

free parameters (4)
  • tau_dist
    Descriptor distance threshold in Eq. (8) for accepting place recognition matches; user-defined and never given a value, directly controls precision/recall trade-off in Fig. 5.
  • tau_MSE
    Maximum correspondence distance in Eq. (10) for truncated MSE geometric verification; user-defined, no value given, affects the fitness score and outlier rejection.
  • tau_PCM
    Pairwise consistency threshold in Eq. (11); user-defined, no value given, determines which loop closures survive the consistency check.
  • association radius for N_alpha = 30 m
    In Eq. (6), N_alpha is defined as robots within 30 m; this hand-set radius limits which inter-robot links are considered and affects scalability and connectivity.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SOLiD is a lightweight, rotation-invariant place recognition descriptor robust to FOV constraints and occlusion (prior work [8]).
    Section IV-B uses SOLiD as the global descriptor for inter-robot place recognition without re-validating its invariance and robustness; if SOLiD underperforms in the tested terrains, inter-robot loop detection degrades.
  • domain assumption KISS-Matcher provides a reliable coarse initial guess for local registration even under large viewpoint differences (prior work [9]).
    Section IV-C's coarse-to-fine registration (KISS-Matcher followed by Small-GICP) assumes KISS-Matcher avoids ICP local minima; this property is adopted from the authors' prior paper.
  • domain assumption The LiDAR-IMU odometry front-end produces locally accurate poses for all robots.
    Fig. 2(a) labels the front-end only as 'LiDAR + IMU' without specifying the algorithm; the PCM consistency check and global mapping in Section VI rely on this unstated odometry being accurate.
  • domain assumption The truncated MSE fitness score in Eq. (10) is a valid geometric-verification metric for rejecting false positive loop closures, including under partial overlap and reverse traversal.
    Eq. (10) is the only measurement-level check between the two outlier-rejection stages, yet its mathematical definition is inconsistent in the text (an indicator function described as returning a distance), and its discriminative power is not ablated.
  • standard math Pose graph optimization via nonlinear least squares converges for the objectives in Eqs. (1)-(6).
    The back-end solves Eq. (6) without discussing initialization or solver robustness; standard SLAM practice but not guaranteed in degenerate field scenes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SKiD-SLAM: Robust, Lightweight, and Distributed Multi-Robot LiDAR SLAM in Resource-Constrained Field Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QSDIGTIA

@misc{pith2026250508230,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SKiD-SLAM: Robust, Lightweight, and Distributed Multi-Robot LiDAR SLAM in Resource-Constrained Field Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QSDIGTIA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08230}
}
read the original abstract

Distributed LiDAR SLAM is crucial for achieving efficient robot autonomy and improving the scalability of mapping. However, two issues need to be considered when applying it in field environments: one is resource limitation, and the other is inter/intra-robot association. The resource limitation issue arises when the data size exceeds the processing capacity of the network or memory, especially when utilizing communication systems or onboard computers in the field. The inter/intra-robot association issue occurs due to the narrow convergence region of ICP under large viewpoint differences, triggering many false positive loops and ultimately resulting in an inconsistent global map for multi-robot systems. To tackle these problems, we propose a distributed LiDAR SLAM framework designed for versatile field applications, called SKiD-SLAM. Extending our previous work that solely focused on lightweight place recognition and fast and robust global registration, we present a multi-robot mapping framework that focuses on robust and lightweight inter-robot loop closure in distributed LiDAR SLAM. Through various environmental experiments, we demonstrate that our method is more robust and lightweight compared to other state-of-the-art distributed SLAM approaches, overcoming resource limitation and inter/intra-robot association issues. Also, we validated the field applicability of our approach through mapping experiments in real-world planetary emulation terrain and cave environments, which are in-house datasets. Our code will be available at https://sparolab.github.io/research/skid_slam/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08230 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Team SPARO at the planetary emulation terrains with robots configured by sensors (e.g., LiDAR, IMU, RGB camera, etc), and wireless WiFi AP. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our distributed LiDAR SLAM framework, called [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. SOLiD constructs a 2D bin representation called radial-elevational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Public datasets for our preliminary evaluation. Underground mine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left (a) →Right): PR curve in the aerial environments, underground mine tunnel, off-road areas, and planetary terrains. (b) (c) (d) (a) (b) (c) (d) traj. traj [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative cave mapping results via distributed SLAM framework comparison: (a) DCL SLAM, (b) DiSCo SLAM, (c) Ours. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Our method maintains a rotation-invariant success rate, demonstrating consistent performance regardless of the large pose discrepancy. E. Comparison with Distributed SLAM Framework Table II represents quantitative results of APE, separated into absolute rotation error …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Caves of our in-house field datasets. (b) Planetary terrains (of drone [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Multi-robot mapping of the planetary terrains using our algorithm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. RadLoc: Radar-based 3-DoF Global Localization via Fast, Robust, and Lightweight Spatial Descriptor Across Diverse Environmental Scenarios

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    RadLoc delivers robust radar place recognition plus 3-DoF pose estimation with the smallest descriptors and fastest retrieval among compared methods on 15 sequences from 5 datasets.

  2. MARSCalib: Multi-robot, Automatic, Robust, Spherical Target-based Extrinsic Calibration in Field and Extraterrestrial Environments

    cs.RO 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    MARSCalib is a spherical-target LiDAR-camera extrinsic calibration method that adds corruption-robust ellipse detection and weighted pointcloud sphere fitting, and it reports strong results across three LiDAR types.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Scientific exploration of challenging planetary analog environments with a team of legged robots,

    P. Arm, G. Waibel, J. Preisig, T. Tuna, R. Zhou, V . Bickel, G. Ligeza, T. Miki, F. Kehl, H. Kolvenbach et al. , “Scientific exploration of challenging planetary analog environments with a team of legged robots,”Science robotics, vol. 8, no. 80, p. eade9548, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Deploying mavs for autonomous navigation in dark underground mine environments,

    S. S. Mansouri, C. Kanellakis, D. Kominiak, and G. Nikolakopoulos, “Deploying mavs for autonomous navigation in dark underground mine environments,”Robot. and Autonomous Sys. , vol. 126, p. 103472, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Disco-slam: Distributed scan context-enabled multi- robot lidar slam with two-stage global-local graph optimization,

    Y . Huang and B. Englot, “Disco-slam: Distributed scan context-enabled multi- robot lidar slam with two-stage global-local graph optimization,”IEEE Robot. and Automat. Lett., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1150–1157, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Rdc-slam: A real- time distributed cooperative slam system based on 3d lidar,

    Y . Xie, Y . Zhang, L. Chen, H. Cheng, W. Tu, D. Cao, and Q. Li, “Rdc-slam: A real- time distributed cooperative slam system based on 3d lidar,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Sys., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 14 721–14 730, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Dcl-slam: A distributed collaborative lidar slam framework for a robotic swarm,

    S. Zhong and M. Liu, “Dcl-slam: A distributed collaborative lidar slam framework for a robotic swarm,” IEEE sensors journal , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 4786–4797, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Swarm-slam: Sparse decentralized collaborative simultaneous localization and mapping framework for multi-robot systems,

    P.-Y . Lajoie and G. Beltrame, “Swarm-slam: Sparse decentralized collaborative simultaneous localization and mapping framework for multi-robot systems,”IEEE Robot. and Automat. Lett. , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 475–482, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Ldg-cslam: Multi-robot collaborative slam based on curve analysis, normal distribution, and factor graph optimization,

    K. He and Y . Hu, “Ldg-cslam: Multi-robot collaborative slam based on curve analysis, normal distribution, and factor graph optimization,” Journal of Field Robotics, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Narrowing your fov with solid: Spatially organized and lightweight global descriptor for fov-constrained lidar place recognition,

    H. Kim, J. Choi, T. Sim, G. Kim, and Y . Cho, “Narrowing your fov with solid: Spatially organized and lightweight global descriptor for fov-constrained lidar place recognition,” IEEE Robot. and Automat. Lett. , 2024

    2024

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Kiss-matcher: Fast and robust point cloud registration revisited,

    H. Lim, D. Kim, G. Shin, J. Shi, I. Vizzo, H. Myung, J. Park, and L. Carlone, “Kiss-matcher: Fast and robust point cloud registration revisited,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15615, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Coordinated multi-robot exploration,

    W. Burgard, M. Moors, C. Stachniss, and F. E. Schneider, “Coordinated multi-robot exploration,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 376–386, 2005

    2005

  3. [11]

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

    G. Kim and A. Kim, “Lt-mapper: A modular framework for lidar-based lifelong mapping,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robot. and Automat. IEEE, 2022, pp. 7995–8002

    2022

  4. [12]

    Frame: A modular framework for autonomous map-merging: Ad- vancements in the field,

    N. Stathoulopoulos, B. Lindqvist, A. Koval, A.-A. Agha-Mohammadi, and G. Niko- lakopoulos, “Frame: A modular framework for autonomous map-merging: Ad- vancements in the field,” IEEE Trans. Robot., 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Unified mapping framework for multi-modal lidars in complex and dynamic environments,

    G. Kang, H. Kim, B. Choi, S. Jeong, Y .-S. Shin, and Y . Cho, “Unified mapping framework for multi-modal lidars in complex and dynamic environments,” 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Scan context: Egocentric spatial descriptor for place recognition within 3d point cloud map,

    G. Kim and A. Kim, “Scan context: Egocentric spatial descriptor for place recognition within 3d point cloud map,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intell. Robots and Sys. IEEE, 2018, pp. 4802–4809

    2018

  7. [15]

    Delight: An efficient descriptor for global localisation using lidar intensities,

    K. P. Cop, P. V . Borges, and R. Dub ´e, “Delight: An efficient descriptor for global localisation using lidar intensities,” inProc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robot. and Automat. IEEE, 2018, pp. 3653–3660

    2018

  8. [16]

    Lidar iris for loop-closure detection,

    Y . Wang, Z. Sun, C.-Z. Xu, S. E. Sarma, J. Yang, and H. Kong, “Lidar iris for loop-closure detection,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intell. Robots and Sys. IEEE, 2020, pp. 5769–5775

    2020

  9. [17]

    How iris recognition works. the essential guide to image processing,

    D. John, “How iris recognition works. the essential guide to image processing,” 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Rethinking visual geo-localization for large- scale applications,

    G. Berton, C. Masone, and B. Caputo, “Rethinking visual geo-localization for large- scale applications,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. on Comput. Vision and Pattern Recog. , 2022, pp. 4878–4888

    2022

  11. [19]

    A 3-d scan matching using improved 3-d normal distributions transform for mobile robotic mapping,

    E. Takeuchi and T. Tsubouchi, “A 3-d scan matching using improved 3-d normal distributions transform for mobile robotic mapping,” inProc. IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intell. Robots and Sys. IEEE, 2006, pp. 3068–3073

    2006

  12. [20]

    small gicp: Efficient and parallel algorithms for point cloud registra- tion,

    K. Koide, “small gicp: Efficient and parallel algorithms for point cloud registra- tion,” Journal of Open Source Software , vol. 9, no. 100, p. 6948, Aug. 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Pairwise consistent measurement set maximization for robust multi-robot map merging,

    J. G. Mangelson, D. Dominic, R. M. Eustice, and R. Vasudevan, “Pairwise consistent measurement set maximization for robust multi-robot map merging,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robot. and Automat. IEEE, 2018, pp. 2916–2923

    2018

  14. [22]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,

    M. FISCHLER AND, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,” Commun. ACM, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 381–395, 1981

    1981

  15. [23]

    Graduated non-convexity for robust spatial perception: From non-minimal solvers to global outlier rejection,

    H. Yang, P. Antonante, V . Tzoumas, and L. Carlone, “Graduated non-convexity for robust spatial perception: From non-minimal solvers to global outlier rejection,” IEEE Robot. and Automat. Lett. , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1127–1134, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Kimera- multi: Robust, distributed, dense metric-semantic slam for multi-robot systems,

    Y . Tian, Y . Chang, F. H. Arias, C. Nieto-Granda, J. P. How, and L. Carlone, “Kimera- multi: Robust, distributed, dense metric-semantic slam for multi-robot systems,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 38, no. 4, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Towards collaborative simultaneous localization and mapping: a survey of the current research landscape,

    P.-Y . Lajoie, B. Ramtoula, F. Wu, and G. Beltrame, “Towards collaborative simultaneous localization and mapping: a survey of the current research landscape,” Field Robotics, vol. 2, pp. 971–1000, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Correcting laser scanning intensity recorded in a cave environment for high-resolution lithological mapping: A case study of the gouffre georges, france,

    Nov ´akov´a and P. Sorriaux, “Correcting laser scanning intensity recorded in a cave environment for high-resolution lithological mapping: A case study of the gouffre georges, france,” Remote Sensing of Env. , vol. 280, p. 113210, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Teaser: Fast and certifiable point cloud registra- tion,

    H. Yang, J. Shi, and L. Carlone, “Teaser: Fast and certifiable point cloud registra- tion,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 314–333, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Fast point feature histograms (fpfh) for 3d registration,

    R. B. Rusu and M. Beetz, “Fast point feature histograms (fpfh) for 3d registration,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robot. and Automat. IEEE, 2009, pp. 3212–3217

    2009

  21. [29]

    Estimating uncertain spatial relationships in robotics,

    R. Smith, M. Self, and P. Cheeseman, “Estimating uncertain spatial relationships in robotics,” in Autonomous robot vehicles. Springer, 1990, pp. 167–193

    1990

  22. [30]

    Heterogeneous lidar dataset for benchmarking robust localization in diverse degenerate scenarios,

    Z. Chen, Y . Qi, D. Feng, X. Zhuang, H. Chen, X. Hu, J. Wu, K. Peng, and P. Lu, “Heterogeneous lidar dataset for benchmarking robust localization in diverse degenerate scenarios,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04961 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Graco: A multimodal dataset for ground and aerial cooperative localization and mapping,

    Y . Zhu, Y . Kong, Y . Jie, S. Xu, and H. Cheng, “Graco: A multimodal dataset for ground and aerial cooperative localization and mapping,” IEEE Robot. and Automat. Lett., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 966–973, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Least-squares estimation of transformation parameters between two point patterns,

    S. Umeyama, “Least-squares estimation of transformation parameters between two point patterns,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intell. , vol. 13, no. 04, pp. 376–380, 1991

    1991

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    Efficient variants of the icp algorithm,

    S. Rusinkiewicz and M. Levoy, “Efficient variants of the icp algorithm,” in Proceedings third international conference on 3-D digital imaging and modeling . IEEE, 2001, pp. 145–152

    2001

  27. [35]

    Linear least-squares optimization for point-to-plane icp surface registration,

    K.-L. Low, “Linear least-squares optimization for point-to-plane icp surface registration,” Chapel Hill, Univ. of North Carolina , vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 1–3, 2004

    2004

  28. [36]

    Generalized-icp

    A. Segal, D. Haehnel, and S. Thrun, “Generalized-icp.” in Proc. Robot.: Science & Sys. Conf. , vol. 2, no. 4. Seattle, W A, 2009, p. 435

    2009

  29. [37]

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

    K. Koide, M. Yokozuka, S. Oishi, and A. Banno, “V oxelized gicp for fast and accurate 3d point cloud registration,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robot. and Automat. IEEE, 2021, pp. 11 054–11 059

    2021

  30. [38]

    Hintjens, ZeroMQ: messaging for many applications

    P. Hintjens, ZeroMQ: messaging for many applications. ” O’Reilly Media, Inc.”, 2013. Presented at the 2025 IEEE ICRA Workshop on Field Robotics

    2013

Pith tools

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