Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 46 references

GRAND-SLAM: Local Optimization for Globally Consistent Large-Scale Multi-Agent Gaussian SLAM

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 GRAND-SLAM claims to be the first large-scale RGB-D Gaussian-splatting SLAM system that integrates inter- and intra-robot loop closures, reporting state-of-the-art tracking and rendering in indoor and outdoor multi-agent settings.

desk verdict A genuinely new multi-agent Gaussian SLAM system for large outdoor scenes, with a plausible architecture but evaluation gaps—no code, single runs, and an untested rigidity assumption about submaps—so it deserves serious review rather than desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18885 v1 pith:3YWFXKDQ submitted 2025-06-23 cs.RO cs.CV

Annika Thomas , Aneesa Sonawalla , Alex Rose , Jonathan P. How This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords multi-agentSLAM3DGaussiansplattingRGB-Dloopclosureposegraphoptimizationsubmapsphotorealisticreconstructionoutdoormapping
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

GRAND-SLAM is a collaborative SLAM system built on 3D Gaussian splatting. Each robot keeps its map in small local pieces called submaps, made of tiny 3D Gaussian blobs, and a server finds overlaps between different robots' submaps and between separate visits by the same robot. Those overlaps become constraints in a pose-graph optimization, and after optimization each submap is moved rigidly into one global frame. The paper's central claim is that this is the first multi-agent RGB-D Gaussian-splatting SLAM approach to scalably integrate inter- and intra-robot loop closure, and that it achieves state-of-the-art tracking, 28% higher PSNR than existing methods on the indoor Replica set, and 91% lower multi-agent tracking error than existing multi-agent methods on the large-scale outdoor Kimera-Multi set. If the claim holds, robot teams with only color-plus-depth cameras could rapidly build photorealistic, globally consistent maps of large outdoor areas.

What carries the argument

The central object is the submap: a bounded collection of anisotropic 3D Gaussians (small 3D blobs whose shape can differ along each axis), each with mean, covariance, opacity, and color, defined relative to a local frame whose first keyframe is the identity. The key identity is Eq. 15, which after pose-graph optimization applies one rigid transform to the whole submap: $\boldsymbol{\mu}^{(g)} = R\boldsymbol{\mu}^{(l)} + t$ and $\Sigma^{(g)} = R\Sigma^{(l)}R^{\top}$. This machinery is what makes large-scale multi-agent mapping tractable: submaps stay small enough to optimize locally, loop closures add only relative pose constraints between submap origins, and global consistency is achieved by moving whole submaps rather than re-optimizing every Gaussian.

What would settle it

Run a single-agent outdoor sequence that revisits the same place inside one submap, apply a correct loop closure, and compare the rendered geometry at the revisit before and after pose-graph optimization: visible residual misalignment inside that submap would show that the rigid-submap assumption does not hold in practice. Alternatively, measure the submap's internal color-depth render consistency on a long traverse; if it degrades with distance even when loop-closure alignments at submap boundaries are accurate, the central premise is weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is stated directly: GRAND-SLAM is the first large-scale RGB-D Gaussian splatting SLAM approach that leverages inter- and intra-robot loop closure for drift reduction. The system builds a submap from an RGB-D stream, optimizes that submap locally against color and depth renderings, detects loop candidates by matching keyframe descriptors, refines each candidate with dense geometric alignment, and solves a pose graph that jointly corrects all agent trajectories. After the pose-graph solve, every Gaussian in a submap is transformed by the same rigid 3D pose, which converts global map consistency into a discrete pose problem instead of a per-Gaussian optimization. On the outdoor Kimera-Multi dataset the paper reports an average trajectory error of 4.99 m versus 60.79 m for the strongest prior multi-agent Gaussian method, and on the indoor Multiagent Replica set it reports 0.25 cm average error with 41.35 dB PSNR, about 28% higher than the next method.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each submap is internally drift-free after local optimization, so a single rigid transform applied to the whole submap is enough to make the global map consistent; if local tracking leaves distortion inside a submap, correct loop closures still leave the final map misaligned.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Teams of robots using only RGB-D cameras can produce photorealistic, globally consistent maps of kilometer-scale outdoor areas without LiDAR seeding.
  • Loop closures enter the graph only after passing fitness and RMSE quality gates, so the global optimization should be robust to false-positive place matches.
  • Because each submap is optimized locally and moved rigidly, per-agent computation stays bounded as the environment grows; adding agents adds constraints, not map-wide re-optimization.
  • The same system covers both indoor and outdoor regimes, matching or beating prior multi-agent methods on small-scale scenes while generalizing to large-scale ones.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The rigid-submap step implies that residual drift inside a submap can never be repaired by submap-origin corrections; a natural extension is to split or non-rigidly deform a submap when internal misalignment is detected.
  • The design suggests an ablation the paper does not run: sweeping the loop-closure acceptance thresholds should reveal the point at which inter-agent constraints stop improving and start biasing the global map.
  • If the local-optimization trick is the source of the gain, it could transfer to other dense SLAM representations, since world-frame rotation optimization suffers from the same gradient imbalance in any representation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. GRAND-SLAM proposes a multi-agent RGB-D 3D Gaussian Splatting SLAM system built from submap-based local optimization, NetVLAD keyframe retrieval, ICP-based loop closure registration, and pose-graph optimization that updates the global map by rigidly transforming submaps. The paper reports state-of-the-art tracking and rendering results on the Multiagent Replica indoor dataset and the Kimera-Multi Outdoor dataset, with the abstract claiming 28% higher PSNR than existing methods on Replica and 91% lower multi-agent tracking error on Kimera-Multi. It includes ablations with and without loop closure and comparisons against ORB-SLAM3, Gaussian-SLAM, MonoGS, MAGiC-SLAM, CP-SLAM, Swarm-SLAM, and CCM-SLAM, together with qualitative renderings on the outdoor dataset.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper is a useful step: it is among the first attempts at multi-agent RGB-D Gaussian splatting SLAM that explicitly integrates inter- and intra-robot loop closures, and it demonstrates the approach on a large-scale outdoor benchmark. The method is clearly motivated, uses an explicit representation that supports rigid-body map correction, and the ablation study isolates the contribution of loop closure. However, the evidence does not yet establish the headline property of global consistency: the submap-rigidity assumption at the core of the map-update step is untested, the rendering evaluation is limited to training views, and some headline averages mix complete and partial baseline runs. With additional consistency metrics and cleaner statistical comparisons, the contribution would be significant for the SLAM and 3D reconstruction communities.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-E, Eq. (15); Section III-B.3] The global-consistency claim rests on the assumption that every submap is internally drift-free. Section III-B.3 optimizes Gaussian parameters against keyframe poses supplied by the tracking module; if those poses drifted within a submap, the optimizer can bake that drift into Gaussian positions rather than remove it. Equation (15) then applies one SE(3) transform to all Gaussians in a submap, so it cannot correct intra-submap distortion. The paper does not measure intra-submap consistency anywhere: the ATE numbers are global trajectory metrics, and the rendering tables report training-view PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS, which do not expose discontinuities at submap boundaries. Please add a quantitative intra-submap or cross-boundary consistency evaluation (for example, alignment error between overlapping submap surfaces after applying Eq. 15) or an analysis showing that the local submap optimization removes pose drift.
  2. [Section IV-B, Tables III and IV] The headline numerical claims are weakened by the inclusion of partial runs in the averages. MAGiC-SLAM and Gaussian-SLAM are reported as failing partway through the Outside 2 Agent 2 traverse, yet their entries for that run (10.50 m and 7.66 m in Table III) are included in the per-method averages, and the abstract's '91% lower multi-agent tracking error' is computed from those averages. Re-run the baselines to completion with robust failure handling, or report only complete runs and separate failed runs explicitly. In addition, all tables report single-run metrics without error bars or significance tests; the state-of-the-art claims would be much stronger with variance estimates over repeated runs or multiple dataset splits.
  3. [Section IV-C, Tables IV and V] Rendering quality is evaluated only on training views. Training-view PSNR can be high even when the global map is inconsistent, because each submap is fit to its own observed frames and the metric never requires rendering across submap boundaries. To support the claim of globally consistent photorealistic maps, report novel-view synthesis metrics on held-out frames and rendering quality at submap overlap boundaries, where misalignment would appear as ghosting or duplication.
  4. [Section III-E, Eqs. (9)-(15)] The pose-graph formulation is underspecified. Equation (9) places loop-closure constraints between submap-origin transforms T_g_{a,l}, but the graph in Eq. (12) is defined over keyframe poses {T_i} with tracking constraints and loop-closure constraints, and Eq. (13) solves for poses {T*_i}. The paper does not state how the optimized submap transform T_g_{a,l} used in Eqs. (14)-(15) is recovered from the optimized keyframe poses, nor whether tracking constraints inside a submap participate in the global optimization. This matters because Eq. (15) transfers the pose-graph result to every Gaussian; please clarify the node set, the state variables, and the exact extraction of T_g_{a,l}.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table III] The baseline is labeled 'Gaussian SLAM [12]', but reference [12] is ESLAM; the intended citation is Gaussian-SLAM [17].
  2. [Section IV-A.3] There is a typo: 'SW ARM-SLAM' should be 'Swarm-SLAM'.
  3. [Section III-B.1 and Section III-D] The symbol dmax is used both for the submap-split translation threshold and for the ICP distance threshold in Eq. (8); please use distinct names to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Figure 3] The caption is hard to parse ('this example demonstrates the renders of a scene ... optimization (left) and after rotating with respect to the origin (right)'); please rephrase it to describe the visual comparison more clearly.
  5. [Section IV-A.2] The implementation section mentions two RTX 3090 GPUs but reports no runtime, memory, or communication cost; a scalability claim would benefit from timing or bandwidth measurements.
  6. [Table V] For the Multiagent Replica rendering comparison, CP-SLAM reports very low PSNR and high depth L1 on some sequences (e.g., A-1); please state whether CP-SLAM completed all sequences or whether those entries are partial or failed runs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: headline results are benchmark measurements; local optimization, loop-closure registration, and pose-graph optimization are distinct mechanisms whose outputs are evaluated, not re-fitted identities.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are supported by benchmark measurements (ATE on Replica and Kimera-Multi, training-view PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS/Depth L1), not by quantities derived from fitted parameters. The method chain is: submap Gaussian optimization (Eq. 3), local tracking (Eqs. 4-5), loop-closure detection via NetVLAD and ICP (Eqs. 6-8), and pose-graph optimization (Eqs. 10-13), followed by a defined rigid transform of submaps into the global frame (Eqs. 14-15). None of these equations is defined in terms of the evaluation metrics it is later compared against. The transformation in Eq. 15 is the intended map-update definition, and the concern that intra-submap drift could invalidate global consistency is an untested validity assumption, not a circular reduction: the global map is not constructed from the evaluation numbers. The only overlapping author citation, the Kimera-Multi dataset [43], is an externally recorded benchmark, not a load-bearing derivation or a fitted input. Several references appear mislabeled (e.g., 'Gaussian SLAM [12]' points to ESLAM), but citation correctness is distinct from circularity. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no self-citation carries the derivation. Therefore the paper receives the honest non-finding score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system relies on standard SLAM tools (NetVLAD, ICP, GTSAM) and a set of hand-set thresholds. None of the thresholds is fitted to the benchmark outcomes in a way that makes the headline result an identity, but no values or sensitivity analyses are given. No new physical or latent entities are introduced.

free parameters (12)
  • Submap split translation threshold dmax
    Section III-B1; controls how often new submaps are created and hence the scale of local optimization.
  • Submap split rotation threshold theta_max
    Section III-B1; same as above for rotation.
  • Opacity seeding threshold alpha_min
    Section III-B2; determines where new Gaussians are seeded in sparse regions.
  • Color-depth loss weight lambda_c
    Eq. 3; weights photometric versus geometric loss in mapping and tracking.
  • NetVLAD similarity threshold tau_sim
    Section III-D; accepts loop-closure matches by cosine similarity.
  • Minimum keyframe baseline Delta_min
    Section III-D; rejects loop closures that are too close in space.
  • ICP distance threshold dmax
    Section III-D; also used for submap splitting, the symbol is reused and values are not reported.
  • ICP maximum iterations Niter
    Section III-D; controls convergence of point-to-plane registration.
  • Fitness threshold tau_f
    Section III-D; accepts loop closure if point-cloud fitness exceeds the threshold.
  • Inlier RMSE threshold tau_rho
    Section III-D; accepts loop closure if inlier RMSE is below the threshold.
  • Submap and tracking optimization iterations
    Sections III-B3 and III-C; a fixed number of iterations is mentioned but the number is not specified.
  • Pose graph information matrices Sigma_i,j
    Eq. 13; the relative constraint weights used in GTSAM are not specified.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 3DGS differentiable rasterization provides gradients that drive accurate pose and map optimization.
    Invoked throughout Sections III-A to III-C; relies on convergence properties of the splatting rasterizer.
  • domain assumption NetVLAD descriptors computed from RGB keyframes provide reliable place recognition in large-scale outdoor scenes.
    Section III-D uses NetVLAD top-k retrieval to propose loop closures; the transfer of NetVLAD to Kimera-Multi is assumed.
  • domain assumption Coarse RGB-D registration followed by point-to-plane ICP converges to the true inter-submap transform.
    Eqs. 7-8; no failure cases or false-positive rates are reported.
  • domain assumption Each submap is internally consistent after local optimization, so global consistency can be achieved by rigidly transforming whole submaps.
    Eq. 15 applies one SE(3) transform to all Gaussians in a submap; residual intra-submap drift is not modeled or measured.
  • domain assumption Ground truth poses used to compute ATE on Kimera-Multi are accurate and the evaluation protocol is fair to all methods.
    Tables I-III assume reliable ATE; source and accuracy of ground truth are not stated.
  • standard math Nonlinear least squares pose graph optimization with GTSAM yields a sufficiently optimal solution.
    Eq. 13 is standard; correctness depends on specified noise models, which are not reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GRAND-SLAM: Local Optimization for Globally Consistent Large-Scale Multi-Agent Gaussian SLAM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3YWFXKDQ

@misc{pith2026250618885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GRAND-SLAM: Local Optimization for Globally Consistent Large-Scale Multi-Agent Gaussian SLAM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3YWFXKDQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18885}
}
read the original abstract

3D Gaussian splatting has emerged as an expressive scene representation for RGB-D visual SLAM, but its application to large-scale, multi-agent outdoor environments remains unexplored. Multi-agent Gaussian SLAM is a promising approach to rapid exploration and reconstruction of environments, offering scalable environment representations, but existing approaches are limited to small-scale, indoor environments. To that end, we propose Gaussian Reconstruction via Multi-Agent Dense SLAM, or GRAND-SLAM, a collaborative Gaussian splatting SLAM method that integrates i) an implicit tracking module based on local optimization over submaps and ii) an approach to inter- and intra-robot loop closure integrated into a pose-graph optimization framework. Experiments show that GRAND-SLAM provides state-of-the-art tracking performance and 28% higher PSNR than existing methods on the Replica indoor dataset, as well as 91% lower multi-agent tracking error and improved rendering over existing multi-agent methods on the large-scale, outdoor Kimera-Multi dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18885 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GRAND-SLAM introduces local optimization by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GRAND-SLAM can operate independently as a single-agent system or as a multi-agent system. On the agent side, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Without local optimization, optimizing rotation results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Renders from the Kimera-Multi dataset demonstrate GRAND-SLAM’s superior performance compared to baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Past, present, and future of simultaneous localization and mapping: Toward the robust-perception age,

    C. Cadena, L. Carlone, H. Carrillo, Y . Latif, D. Scaramuzza, J. Neira, I. Reid, and J. J. Leonard, “Past, present, and future of simultaneous localization and mapping: Toward the robust-perception age,” IEEE Transactions on robotics, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1309–1332, 2016

    2016

  2. [2]

    Visual simultaneous localization and mapping: a survey,

    J. Fuentes-Pacheco, J. Ruiz-Ascencio, and J. M. Rend ´on-Mancha, “Visual simultaneous localization and mapping: a survey,” Artificial intelligence review, vol. 43, pp. 55–81, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    A survey of state-of-the-art on visual slam,

    I. A. Kazerouni, L. Fitzgerald, G. Dooly, and D. Toal, “A survey of state-of-the-art on visual slam,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 205, p. 117734, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Monoslam: Real-time single camera slam,

    A. J. Davison, I. D. Reid, N. D. Molton, and O. Stasse, “Monoslam: Real-time single camera slam,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1052–1067, 2007

    2007

  5. [5]

    Parallel tracking and mapping for small ar workspaces,

    G. Klein and D. Murray, “Parallel tracking and mapping for small ar workspaces,” in 2007 6th IEEE and ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality . IEEE, 2007, pp. 225–234

    2007

  6. [6]

    Orb-SLAM2: An open-source SLAM system for monocular, stereo, and RGB-D cameras,

    R. Mur-Artal and J. D. Tard ´os, “Orb-SLAM2: An open-source SLAM system for monocular, stereo, and RGB-D cameras,” IEEE transactions on robotics, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 1255–1262, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Bad SLAM: Bundle adjusted direct RGB-D SLAM,

    T. Schops, T. Sattler, and M. Pollefeys, “Bad SLAM: Bundle adjusted direct RGB-D SLAM,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF CVPR , 2019, pp. 134–144

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Elasticfusion: Dense SLAM without a pose graph

    T. Whelan, S. Leutenegger, R. F. Salas-Moreno, B. Glocker, and A. J. Davison, “Elasticfusion: Dense SLAM without a pose graph.” in Robotics: science and systems , vol. 11. Rome, Italy, 2015, p. 3

    work page 2015

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Kinectfusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking,

    R. A. Newcombe, S. Izadi, O. Hilliges, D. Molyneaux, D. Kim, A. J. Davison, P. Kohi, J. Shotton, S. Hodges, and A. Fitzgibbon, “Kinectfusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking,” in 2011 10th IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality . Ieee, 2011, p...

    2011

  2. [10]

    Imap: Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time,

    E. Sucar, S. Liu, J. Ortiz, and A. J. Davison, “Imap: Implicit mapping and positioning in real-time,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF interna- tional conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 6229–6238

    2021

  3. [11]

    Nice-SLAM: Neural implicit scalable encoding for SLAM,

    Z. Zhu, S. Peng, V . Larsson, W. Xu, H. Bao, Z. Cui, M. R. Oswald, and M. Pollefeys, “Nice-SLAM: Neural implicit scalable encoding for SLAM,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF CVPR , 2022, pp. 12 786– 12 796

    2022

  4. [12]

    ESLAM: Efficient dense SLAM system based on hybrid representation of signed distance fields,

    M. M. Johari, C. Carta, and F. Fleuret, “ESLAM: Efficient dense SLAM system based on hybrid representation of signed distance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF CVPR , 2023, pp. 17 408–17 419

    2023

  5. [13]

    Co-SLAM: Joint coordinate and sparse parametric encodings for neural real-time SLAM,

    H. Wang, J. Wang, and L. Agapito, “Co-SLAM: Joint coordinate and sparse parametric encodings for neural real-time SLAM,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF CVPR , 2023, pp. 13 293–13 302

    2023

  6. [14]

    NERF: representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall and P. P. e. a. Srinivasan, “NERF: representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    3d Gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimk ¨uhler, and G. Drettakis, “3d Gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.” ACM Trans. Graph. , vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 139–1, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Gaussian splatting SLAM,

    H. Matsuki, R. Murai, P. H. Kelly, and A. J. Davison, “Gaussian splatting SLAM,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF CVPR , 2024, pp. 18 039– 18 048

    2024

  9. [17]

    Gaussian-SLAM: Photo-realistic dense SLAM with Gaussian splatting,

    V . Yugay, Y . Li, T. Gevers, and M. R. Oswald, “Gaussian-SLAM: Photo-realistic dense SLAM with Gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10070, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    SplaTAM: splat track & map 3D Gaussians for dense RGB-D slam,

    N. Keetha, J. Karhade, K. M. Jatavallabhula, G. Yang, S. Scherer, D. Ramanan, and J. Luiten, “SplaTAM: splat track & map 3D Gaussians for dense RGB-D slam,” in IEEE CVPR, 2024, pp. 21 357–21 366

    2024

  11. [19]

    Loopy-SLAM: Dense neural SLAM with loop closures,

    L. Liso, E. Sandstr ¨om, V . Yugay, L. Van Gool, and M. R. Oswald, “Loopy-SLAM: Dense neural SLAM with loop closures,” in Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 20 363–20 373

    2024

  12. [20]

    Loopsplat: Loop closure by registering 3D Gaussian splats,

    L. Zhu, Y . Li, E. Sandstr ¨om, S. Huang, K. Schindler, and I. Armeni, “Loopsplat: Loop closure by registering 3D Gaussian splats,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10154, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Glc-SLAM: Gaus- sian splatting SLAM with efficient loop closure,

    Z. Xu, Q. Li, C. Chen, X. Liu, and J. Niu, “Glc-SLAM: Gaus- sian splatting SLAM with efficient loop closure,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10982, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    HGS-mapping: Online dense mapping using hybrid Gaussian representation in urban scenes,

    K. Wu, K. Zhang, Z. Zhang, M. Tie, S. Yuan, J. Zhao, Z. Gan, and W. Ding, “HGS-mapping: Online dense mapping using hybrid Gaussian representation in urban scenes,” IEEE RA-L, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    LIV-GaussMap: LiDAR-inertial-visual fusion for real-time 3D radiance field map ren- dering,

    S. Hong, J. He, X. Zheng, C. Zheng, and S. Shen, “LIV-GaussMap: LiDAR-inertial-visual fusion for real-time 3D radiance field map ren- dering,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Orb-SLAM3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap SLAM,

    C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodr ´ıguez, J. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard´os, “Orb-SLAM3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap SLAM,” IEEE transactions on robotics , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1874–1890, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Fast orb-slam without keypoint descriptors,

    Q. Fu, H. Yu, X. Wang, Z. Yang, Y . He, H. Zhang, and A. Mian, “Fast orb-slam without keypoint descriptors,” IEEE transactions on image processing, vol. 31, pp. 1433–1446, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    PL-SLAM: a stereo SLAM system through the combination of points and line segments,

    R. Gomez-Ojeda, F.-A. Moreno, D. Zuniga-No ¨el, D. Scaramuzza, and J. Gonzalez-Jimenez, “PL-SLAM: a stereo SLAM system through the combination of points and line segments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 734–746, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    RGB-D SLAM with structural regularities,

    Y . Li, R. Yunus, N. Brasch, N. Navab, and F. Tombari, “RGB-D SLAM with structural regularities,” in 2021 IEEE international conference on Robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 11 581–11 587

    2021

  20. [28]

    Planefusion: Real-time indoor scene reconstruction with planar prior,

    B. Gong and Z. e. a. Zhu, “Planefusion: Real-time indoor scene reconstruction with planar prior,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 4671–4684, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Real-time 3D reconstruction at scale using voxel hashing,

    M. Nießner, M. Zollh ¨ofer, S. Izadi, and M. Stamminger, “Real-time 3D reconstruction at scale using voxel hashing,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1–11, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    A volumetric method for building complex models from range images,

    B. Curless and M. Levoy, “A volumetric method for building complex models from range images,” in Proceedings of the 23rd annual confer- ence on Computer graphics and interactive techniques , 1996, pp. 303– 312

    1996

  23. [31]

    Bundle- fusion: Real-time globally consistent 3D reconstruction using on-the-fly surface reintegration,

    A. Dai, M. Nießner, M. Zollh ¨ofer, S. Izadi, and C. Theobalt, “Bundle- fusion: Real-time globally consistent 3D reconstruction using on-the-fly surface reintegration,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) , vol. 36, no. 4, p. 1, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Dtam: Dense tracking and mapping in real-time,

    R. A. Newcombe, S. J. Lovegrove, and A. J. Davison, “Dtam: Dense tracking and mapping in real-time,” in 2011 ICCV . IEEE, 2011, pp. 2320–2327

    2011

  25. [33]

    Real-time dense geometry from a handheld camera,

    J. St ¨uhmer, S. Gumhold, and D. Cremers, “Real-time dense geometry from a handheld camera,” in Joint Pattern Recognition Symposium . Springer, 2010, pp. 11–20

    2010

  26. [34]

    V ox- fusion: Dense tracking and mapping with voxel-based neural implicit representation,

    X. Yang, H. Li, H. Zhai, Y . Ming, Y . Liu, and G. Zhang, “V ox- fusion: Dense tracking and mapping with voxel-based neural implicit representation,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 499–507

    2022

  27. [35]

    Point-SLAM: Dense neural point cloud-based SLAM,

    E. Sandstr ¨om, Y . Li, L. Van Gool, and M. R. Oswald, “Point-SLAM: Dense neural point cloud-based SLAM,” in IEEE ICCV , 2023, pp. 18 433–18 444

    2023

  28. [36]

    RGBD GS-ICP SLAM,

    S. Ha, J. Yeon, and H. Yu, “RGBD GS-ICP SLAM,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12550, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Robust Gaussian splatting SLAM by leveraging loop closure,

    Z. Zhu, Y . Fang, X. Li, C. Yan, F. Xu, C. Yuen, and Y . Li, “Robust Gaussian splatting SLAM by leveraging loop closure,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20111, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Magic-slam: Multi-agent gaussian globally consistent slam,

    V . Yugay, T. Gevers, and M. R. Oswald, “Magic-slam: Multi-agent gaussian globally consistent slam,” in Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference , 2025, pp. 6741–6750

    2025

  31. [39]

    CCM-SLAM: Robust and efficient centralized collaborative monocular simultaneous localization and mapping for robotic teams,

    P. Schmuck and M. Chli, “CCM-SLAM: Robust and efficient centralized collaborative monocular simultaneous localization and mapping for robotic teams,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 763–781, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    CVI-SLAM—collaborative visual- inertial SLAM,

    M. Karrer, P. Schmuck, and M. Chli, “CVI-SLAM—collaborative visual- inertial SLAM,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 2762–2769, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    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 Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 475–482, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    CP-SLAM: Collaborative neural point-based SLAM system,

    J. Hu, M. Mao, H. Bao, G. Zhang, and Z. Cui, “CP-SLAM: Collaborative neural point-based SLAM system,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 39 429–39 442, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Resilient and distributed multi-robot visual SLAM: Datasets, experiments, and lessons learned,

    Y . Tian, Y . Chang, L. Quang, A. Schang, C. Nieto-Granda, J. P. How, and L. Carlone, “Resilient and distributed multi-robot visual SLAM: Datasets, experiments, and lessons learned,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 202...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly supervised place recognition,

    R. Arandjelovic, P. Gronat, A. Torii, T. Pajdla, and J. Sivic, “Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly supervised place recognition,” in IEEE CVPR, 2016, pp. 5297–5307

    2016

  37. [45]

    Factor graphs and GTSAM: a hands-on introduction,

    F. Dellaert, “Factor graphs and GTSAM: a hands-on introduction,” Georgia Institute of Technology, Tech. Rep , vol. 2, no. 4, 2012

    2012

  38. [46]

    The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces,

    J. Straub, T. Whelan, L. Ma, Y . Chen, E. Wijmans, S. Green, J. J. Engel, R. Mur-Artal, C. Ren, S. Verma et al. , “The replica dataset: A digital replica of indoor spaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05797 , 2019

    1906 arXiv

Pith tools

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