Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Building Forest Inventories with Autonomous Legged Robots -- System, Lessons, and Challenges Ahead

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An autonomous legged robot can survey a 1-hectare forest plot in under 30 minutes and record tree diameters to about 2 cm.

desk verdict A solid field-deployment systems paper whose real contribution is the 16-mission dataset and honest lessons, but whose headline numbers (1 ha under 30 min, 2 cm DBH) overstate what is actually demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20315 v1 pith:MPSXOH5L submitted 2025-06-25 cs.RO

Matías Mattamala , Nived Chebrolu , Jonas Frey , Leonard Frei{ss}muth , Haedam Oh , Benoit Casseau , Marco Hutter , Maurice Fallon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords AutonomousRobotsEnvironmentalMonitoringForestryLeggedSimultaneousLocalizationandMapping(SLAM)ForestinventoryDiameteratBreastHeight(DBH)Fieldrobotics
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

This paper argues that a four-legged robot can carry out a useful forest inventory on its own: given a plot boundary, the robot walks a lawn-mower pattern under the canopy, builds a 3D map as it goes, and outputs a spreadsheet of tree positions, trunk diameters, and heights. The evidence comes from 16 missions over 18 months in Finland, the UK, and Switzerland, using the ANYmal platform with the tree-analysis software running on board. The headline result is that plots up to 1 hectare can be covered in under 30 minutes, with trunk diameters reported at a typical accuracy of about 2 cm. The paper is explicit that this accuracy is expected from earlier validation of the tree-analysis approach rather than re-measured against ground truth in these particular missions. The stated purpose is to test whether legged platforms are mature enough to complement drones and handheld scanners for ground-level forest data, and to spell out where they still fall short.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the coupling between pose-graph SLAM and an online tree-analysis pipeline. A boustrophedon (lawn-mower) survey pattern with enforced spacing between path segments deliberately creates loop closures, keeping the map consistent; a LiDAR-inertial odometry system drives the pose graph, and dense local clouds (called data payloads) are accumulated about every 20 m of travel. The inventory pipeline removes ground with cloth-simulation filtering, segments tree stems by Voronoi clustering and cylinder fitting, then attaches each stem observation to the nearest SLAM graph node so that multi-view clouds are fused in one frame. Trait estimation fits oblique cone frustums to the fused stem points, requires at least 90 degrees of angular coverage before estimating, and derives diameter at breast height and height from the frustum stack. The same terrain representation feeds a reactive local planner that scores traversability and triggers mission re-planning when a waypoint is unreachable.

What would settle it

Re-measure a sample of the trees in the Forest of Dean, Wytham Woods, and Stein am Rhein plots with calipers or terrestrial laser scanning, and compare per-tree diameter-at-breast-height values from the robot's inventory against those ground-truth values; the central claim holds only if the mean absolute error is at or below 2 cm, and the comparison would need to be published to be verifiable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a rugged legged robot, carrying a wide-field-of-view LiDAR and running the full autonomy stack on board, can be sent into an unmapped forest plot and return a usable forest inventory without a person walking the plot. The system couples LiDAR-inertial odometry with pose-graph SLAM and loop closures, builds dense data-payload clouds about every 20 metres of travel, and fuses those clouds through the SLAM graph across viewpoints so tree trunks are reconstructed from several sides before diameter at breast height, height, and position are estimated. The evidence is 16 autonomous missions in conifer, mixed, and deciduous forests across three countries, including a 0.93 ha oak plot covered in about 21 minutes with 97 trees detected; across missions the robot was autonomous for over 80% of the distance and 90% of the mission time. The authors frame the contribution as a feasibility demonstration and a set of five lessons about hardware, state estimation, navigation, forestry use, and assessment of such systems, and they report the 2 cm DBH figure as an expectation inherited from prior validation rather than as a freshly measured result.

Load-bearing premise

The 2 cm tree-diameter accuracy is inherited from earlier validation work on a different setup and is described as expected rather than measured against ground truth in the forests surveyed here, so the headline measurement claim stands or falls on that transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Foresters could get ground-level inventories of up to 3 ha from a single battery charge, since a 0.93 ha plot was covered in 21 minutes and the platform supports roughly 90-minute missions.
  • Because the robot can relocalize against a prior map, the same plot can be re-visited to build longitudinal records of tree growth and change.
  • The autonomy metrics — over 80% of distance and 90% of mission time without safety-operator intervention — indicate that basic navigation is no longer the binding constraint; dense undergrowth and local-planning edge cases are.
  • The online inventory output (tree positions, DBH, height) is produced during the mission, letting the operator monitor coverage and tree traits live and intervene early if the survey is going wrong.
  • The system can use a prior map made by a human-carried scanner to localize itself, which is the key enabler for repeat monitoring missions after an initial survey.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the paper's own data support repeatability (similar tree counts across repeated runs in the same plot) rather than accuracy, so the 2 cm DBH claim should be re-tested on the actual platform and forest types before being quoted to foresters.
  • Inference: a head-to-head comparison with TLS, handheld MLS, and under-canopy drones on the same plots, measured in cost per hectare and soil impact as well as accuracy, would make the legged platform's niche explicit rather than assumed.
  • Inference: making the mission planner inventory-aware — re-planning to close gaps in angular coverage around detected stems instead of following a fixed lawn-mower pattern — is a natural next step that could improve DBH accuracy without lengthening missions.
  • Inference: the paper's cost observation implies adoption may hinge more on whether a legged robot can replace a TLS crew at comparable capital cost than on navigation performance alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents an integrated autonomy system for forest inventory using ANYmal C and ANYmal D quadruped robots. The system combines LiDAR-inertial odometry, pose-graph SLAM, dense mapping, local terrain mapping, hierarchical mission/local planning, and an online tree segmentation and trait-estimation pipeline. The evaluation covers 16 missions across five campaigns in Finland, the UK, and Switzerland between May 2023 and July 2024, and reports autonomy metrics (MDBI/MTBI), tree counts, scanned areas, a preliminary relocalization study, and a set of five lessons and challenges. The abstract claims that plots up to 1 ha can be surveyed in under 30 min with typical DBH accuracy of 2 cm; the conclusion repeats the 1 ha claim.

Significance. If the headline quantitative claims are substantiated, this would be a significant field-systems contribution: one of the most extensive demonstrations of autonomous under-canopy forest inventory with legged robots, across multiple countries, forest types, and seasons. The strengths of the paper are the detailed system description, the explicit intervention-based autonomy evaluation, the inclusion of failure cases (bog entrapment, dense undergrowth), and an honest discussion of open challenges such as tree height estimation and species identification. The field campaign data and the lessons learned give the paper value beyond the specific experiments. However, the two headline claims in the abstract and conclusion — 1 ha plots in under 30 min and 2 cm DBH accuracy — are not currently supported by the evidence reported in the manuscript, which is the main barrier to acceptance.

major comments (2)
  1. [IV-E, Table 2, and Abstract/Conclusion] The canonical '1 ha in under 30 min' claim rests on an arithmetic inconsistency. Section IV-E states that Dea-01, the largest mission, was a '125 m × 30 m survey area, which corresponded to a 0.93 ha plot.' The product is 3,750 m² = 0.375 ha; 0.93 ha must instead be the effective scanning footprint computed with the 15 m effective range introduced in Section V-B. Table 2's 'Area covered' column therefore conflates operator-defined plot area with scanned coverage area, and the abstract's 'plots up to 1 ha' and the conclusion's 'forest inventories up to 1 ha' are not supported by the size of any surveyed plot. Please correct the arithmetic, label the coverage metric explicitly as an effective scanned area, and adjust the headline claims accordingly.
  2. [V-B, and Abstract/Conclusion] The second headline result, 'typical DBH accuracy of 2 cm,' is not demonstrated on the data collected in these campaigns. The text states that accuracy was studied in related prior work [20], that the authors 'expect' 2 cm average accuracy, and that this was 'additionally confirmed' by unquantified manual caliper measurements at Stein am Rhein. Since the platform (ANYmal D with Frontier payload), the LiDAR (Hesai QT64), the locomotion controller, and the forest types/seasons differ from those in [20], the prior error bound cannot be assumed to transfer without direct evidence. No per-tree comparison, sample size, error distribution, or bias analysis is reported for any mission in this paper, and the claimed consistency of repeated inventories is also left unquantified despite the range of tree counts in Table 2 (e.g., WyJ-01: 28 vs. WyJ-04/05: 46/52; SaR-01: 66 vs. SaR-04: 36). This is load-bearing for the paper's inventory-quality claim. Please add a direct validation (e.g., DBH residuals against calipers or TLS for at least one campaign, with detection recall/precision) or explicitly reframe the 2 cm figure as expected/prior-work accuracy.
minor comments (7)
  1. [V-A, Eq. (2)-(3), Table 2] Using the tabulated MTBI values and N = interventions + 1, the reconstructed autonomous mission time is approximately 89.95% of the total mission time, slightly below the '90% of the mission time' stated in the text; please clarify whether the raw logs give a higher value or adjust the wording to 'nearly 90%.'
  2. [V-B] The effective-range-based 'Area covered' metric is not defined precisely; please state whether it is a union of 15 m disks, a corridor around the robot path, or a point-cloud footprint, since the headline area numbers depend on this definition.
  3. [V-C, Table 3] The text's 'relocalization rate of 20%' does not match the tabulated per-sequence rates (21.9%, 13.3%, 35.5%; pooled rate ≈23%); please explain how 20% is derived, and rename the ambiguous 'Relocalizations' column heading.
  4. [III-D3, III-E4, V-B] Several user-defined parameters influence the reported results — the weights in Eq. (1), the 2–4 m waypoint handover distance, the 90° minimum angular coverage for stem fitting, the 10 s intervention aggregation window, and the 15 m effective LiDAR range; a brief robustness or sensitivity note for these parameters would help readers understand how tuned the system is.
  5. [IV-A, IV-G, III-E4] There are several typos: 'Stein am Rheim' should be 'Stein am Rhein,' 'Much for the forest' should be 'Much of the forest,' and 'modeling as as a series' should be 'modeling as a series.'
  6. [Abstract and Lesson 1] The abstract says 'up to 1 ha plot under 30 min,' while Section VI-A says 'autonomous coverage up to 1 ha in 20 min'; these should be reconciled, and the phrasing '1 ha plot' should be corrected to 'plots up to 1 ha.'
  7. [V-A, Figures 9-10] The statement that interventions follow a Poisson distribution in time and distance is based on visual inspection of the histograms; if this is a formal statistical claim, a goodness-of-fit test and per-campaign sample sizes should be reported, otherwise the wording should be softened.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The 2 cm DBH accuracy headline is inherited from the authors' prior paper [20]: the abstract reports it as a demonstrated result, but Section V-B only says the authors 'expect' it from [20], with an unquantified caliper check at Stein am Rhein; the autonomy and coverage claims are independently logged.

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract and Section V-B (Analysis of the Forest Inventory System)]
    "Our results with the ANYmal robot demonstrate that we can survey plots up to 1 ha plot under 30 min, while also identifying trees with typical DBH accuracy of 2cm. ... While we did not have ground truth TLS measurements for many of the test sites, in our related prior work [20] we studied the accuracy of our online inventory system. Therefore, we expect that that the forest inventory can achieve average DBH accuracy of 2 cm. This was additionally confirmed in experiments in Stein am Rhein by comparing our estimates against manual measurements with tree calipers."

    The abstract's headline accuracy number is presented as a demonstrated result of this paper, but the results section gives no per-tree error analysis for any campaign. The only quantitative support is a reference to [20], the authors' own prior IROS paper describing the same 'online inventory system' -- the present paper states 'Our system integrates a state estimation-driven forest inventory pipeline, presented in Freißmuth et al. [20]' -- followed by the word 'expect'. The cited Stein am Rhein caliper comparison is mentioned but never quantified.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained for its autonomy and coverage claims: MDBI/MTBI are computed from mission logs, Tab. 2 reports times, distances, and interventions, and the 1 ha in under 30 min claim follows from Dea-01's 0.93 ha and 1283.5 s. The tree-detection counts and consistency across repeat plots are also presented. However, the second headline quantitative claim, 'typical DBH accuracy of 2 cm', is not demonstrated on these data. Section V-B states ground-truth TLS was unavailable, refers to related prior work [20] by overlapping authors, and says the authors 'expect' 2 cm, with an unquantified caliper check at Stein am Rhein. No DBH error distribution, bias, sample size, or site-by-site accuracy is given for any mission in this paper. This makes the inventory-quality claim a load-bearing self-citation: the abstract presents it as 'our results demonstrate' while the body only supports it by expectation and prior work. The relocalization section (V-C) also cites prior work [74], but it actually evaluates on three new sequences with statistics in Tab. 3, so that is component reuse rather than circularity. Overall score 5: partial circularity concentrated in the headline DBH accuracy; the autonomy and mapping claims stand independently.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central performance numbers, however, depend on a chain of hand-chosen thresholds and domain assumptions: planner weights in Eq. 1, the 90-degree coverage criterion, the 15 m effective range, the 10 s intervention aggregation, and the transfer of the 2 cm DBH accuracy from self-cited prior work. These choices affect the headline claims more than any single new algorithm does.

free parameters (5)
  • Local planner cost weights wtrav and wunkn = not specified (user-defined)
    Eq. 1 defines cost-to-go using these weights; values are not reported, so the planner behavior depends on undisclosed hand-tuning.
  • Minimum angular coverage for stem fitting = 90 degrees
    Section III-E4: frustum fitting is accepted only when candidate clouds cover at least 90 degrees around the stem; this threshold directly affects which trees are measured.
  • Effective LiDAR range for area coverage = 15 m
    Section V-B: 'we considered an effective range of 15 m, which was the maximum LiDAR range to obtain sufficiently dense point clouds'; this range converts path length into claimed covered area and is the basis of the coverage numbers.
  • Intervention aggregation window = 10 s
    Section V-A: safety commands within 10 s are merged into one intervention event; this choice directly determines MDBI/MTBI counts and could inflate apparent autonomy.
  • Waypoint handover distance = 2 to 4 m
    Section III-D2: transitions to the next waypoint are executed when the robot is 2-4 m from the goal, affecting mission planning behavior and coverage patterns.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LiDAR-inertial SLAM (VILENS) alone provides state estimates accurate enough for closed-loop forest navigation and for tree trait estimation without leg odometry or vision.
    Section III-C1 states 'we did not use proprioceptive sensing... as we observed that the LiDAR-inertial approach was effective in forest environments'; this transferability underpins the whole autonomy stack.
  • domain assumption Tree stems can be approximated as cylinders or oblique cone frustums, and a filtered vertical slice of the point cloud is sufficient to segment individual trees.
    Sections III-E2 and III-E4 adopt the Cabo et al. method and fit cone frustums; multi-stem trees and broadleaf species are acknowledged in Section V-B to break these assumptions.
  • domain assumption Cloth simulation filtering produces a correct terrain model for normalizing point clouds in forest understory.
    Section III-E1 derives the terrain model from Zhang et al.'s cloth simulation; errors here propagate directly into tree segmentation and DBH estimation.
  • domain assumption Autonomy performance in the selected plots generalizes to forest inventory conditions.
    Plots were chosen for relative flatness and lower undergrowth (e.g., Wytham June area, Stein am Rhein plot); Section VI-E recommends focusing on denser undergrowth, acknowledging limited generalizability.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2 cm DBH accuracy reported in prior work [20] transfers to the ANYmal D / Frontier configuration and the new forest types tested.
    Section V-B relies on this assumption instead of presenting new ground-truth statistics; the only mentioned external check is not reported numerically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Building Forest Inventories with Autonomous Legged Robots -- System, Lessons, and Challenges Ahead." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MPSXOH5L

@misc{pith2026250620315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Building Forest Inventories with Autonomous Legged Robots -- System, Lessons, and Challenges Ahead},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MPSXOH5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20315}
}
read the original abstract

Legged robots are increasingly being adopted in industries such as oil, gas, mining, nuclear, and agriculture. However, new challenges exist when moving into natural, less-structured environments, such as forestry applications. This paper presents a prototype system for autonomous, under-canopy forest inventory with legged platforms. Motivated by the robustness and mobility of modern legged robots, we introduce a system architecture which enabled a quadruped platform to autonomously navigate and map forest plots. Our solution involves a complete navigation stack for state estimation, mission planning, and tree detection and trait estimation. We report the performance of the system from trials executed over one and a half years in forests in three European countries. Our results with the ANYmal robot demonstrate that we can survey plots up to 1 ha plot under 30 min, while also identifying trees with typical DBH accuracy of 2cm. The findings of this project are presented as five lessons and challenges. Particularly, we discuss the maturity of hardware development, state estimation limitations, open problems in forest navigation, future avenues for robotic forest inventory, and more general challenges to assess autonomous systems. By sharing these lessons and challenges, we offer insight and new directions for future research on legged robots, navigation systems, and applications in natural environments. Additional videos can be found in https://dynamic.robots.ox.ac.uk/projects/legged-robots

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20315 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIGURE 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIGURE 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIGURE 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIGURE 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIGURE 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIGURE 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIGURE 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIGURE 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIGURE 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIGURE 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIGURE 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIGURE 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.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. TreeLoc++: Robust 6-DoF LiDAR Localization in Forests with a Compact Digital Forest Inventory

    cs.RO 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TreeLoc++ localizes a forest robot with 6-DoF centimeter accuracy using only compact tree inventories — positions and diameters — beating point-cloud-backed methods on 27 sequences in four countries.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [20]

    Online Tree Reconstruction and Forest Inventory on a Mobile Robotic System,

    L. Freißmuth, M. Mattamala, N. Chebrolu, S. Schaefer, S. Leuteneg- ger, and M. Fallon, “Online Tree Reconstruction and Forest Inventory on a Mobile Robotic System,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., Oct. 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Forest Measurement and Modeling - Measuring trees, stands and forests for effective forest management,

    C. L. Brack, “Forest Measurement and Modeling - Measuring trees, stands and forests for effective forest management,” Australian National University, Tech. Rep., 2001. [Online]. Available: http: //fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au/mensuration/index.htm

    2001

  3. [2]

    Terrestrial laser scanning in forest ecology: Expanding the horizon,

    K. Calders, J. Adams, J. Armston, H. Bartholomeus, S. Bauwens, L. P. Bentley, J. Chave, F. M. Danson, M. Demol, M. Disney, R. Gaulton, S. M. Krishna Moorthy, S. R. Levick, N. Saarinen, C. Schaaf, A. Stovall, L. Terryn, P. Wilkes, and H. Verbeeck, “Terrestrial laser scanning in forest ecology: Expanding the horizon,” Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 251...

    2020

  4. [3]

    The Roles of Aerial Photographs in Forestry Remote Sensing Image Analysis,

    R. J. Hall, “The Roles of Aerial Photographs in Forestry Remote Sensing Image Analysis,” in Remote Sensing of Forest Environments: Concepts and Case Studies , M. A. Wulder and S. E. Franklin, Eds. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2003, pp. 47–75

    2003

  5. [4]

    Terrestrial laser scanning in forest inventories,

    X. Liang, V . Kankare, J. Hyypp ¨a, Y . Wang, A. Kukko, H. Haggr ´en, X. Yu, H. Kaartinen, A. Jaakkola, F. Guan, M. Holopainen, and M. Vastaranta, “Terrestrial laser scanning in forest inventories,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. , vol. 115, pp. 63–77, 2016

    2016

  6. [5]

    Global aboveground biomass product validation best practices pro- tocol. version 1.0,

    L. Duncanson, J. Armston, M. Disney, V . Avitabile, N. Barbier, K. Calders, S. Carter, J. Chave, M. Herold, N. Macbean, et al. , “Global aboveground biomass product validation best practices pro- tocol. version 1.0,” Best practice protocol for satellite derived land product validation. Land Product Validation Subgroup (Working Group on Calibration and Val...

    2020

  7. [6]

    G. J. Hamilton, Forest mensuration handbook. Forestry Commission, 1988

    1988

  8. [7]

    Lidar Remote Sensing for Forestry,

    R. O. Dubayah and J. B. Drake, “Lidar Remote Sensing for Forestry,” Journal of Forestry, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 44–46, June 2000

    2000

Show all 90 references
  1. [8]

    Simultaneous localization and mapping for forest harvesters,

    M. Miettinen, M. Ohman, A. Visala, and P. Forsman, “Simultaneous localization and mapping for forest harvesters,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., 2007, pp. 517–522

    2007

  2. [9]

    SLOAM: Semantic Lidar Odometry and Mapping for Forest Inventory,

    S. W. Chen, G. V . Nardari, E. S. Lee, C. Qu, X. Liu, R. A. F. Romero, and V . Kumar, “SLOAM: Semantic Lidar Odometry and Mapping for Forest Inventory,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 612– 619, 2020

    2020

  3. [10]

    Large-scale autonomous flight with real-time semantic slam under dense forest canopy,

    X. Liu, G. V . Nardari, F. C. Ojeda, Y . Tao, A. Zhou, T. Donnelly, C. Qu, S. W. Chen, R. A. F. Romero, C. J. Taylor, and V . Kumar, “Large-scale autonomous flight with real-time semantic slam under dense forest canopy,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5512–5519, 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    Mapping forests using an unmanned ground vehicle with 3D LiDAR and graph-SLAM,

    M. Pierzchała, P. Gigu `ere, and R. Astrup, “Mapping forests using an unmanned ground vehicle with 3D LiDAR and graph-SLAM,” Comput. Electron. Agr., vol. 145, pp. 217–225, Feb. 2018

    2018

  5. [12]

    Automatic three-dimensional mapping for tree diameter measure- ments in inventory operations,

    J.-F. Tremblay, M. B ´eland, R. Gagnon, F. Pomerleau, and P. Gigu `ere, “Automatic three-dimensional mapping for tree diameter measure- ments in inventory operations,” J. Field Robot. , vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1328–1346, 2020

    2020

  6. [13]

    Applications of Walking Machines,

    D. J. Todd, “Applications of Walking Machines,” in Walking Machines: An Introduction to Legged Robots . Boston, MA: Springer US, 1985, pp. 169–177

    1985

  7. [14]

    Legged robots in the agricultural context: Analysing their traverse capabilities and performance,

    C. Quail, E. Emonot–de Carolis, and F. Auat Cheein, “Legged robots in the agricultural context: Analysing their traverse capabilities and performance,” in Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, 2023, pp. 01–07

    2023

  8. [15]

    Ground robotic measurement of aeolian processes,

    F. Qian, D. Jerolmack, N. Lancaster, G. Nikolich, P. Reverdy, S. Roberts, T. Shipley, R. S. Van Pelt, T. M. Zobeck, and D. E. Koditschek, “Ground robotic measurement of aeolian processes,” Aeolian Research, vol. 27, pp. 1–11, 2017

    2017

  9. [16]

    Advances in real-world applications for legged robots,

    C. D. Bellicoso, M. Bjelonic, L. Wellhausen, K. Holtmann, F. G ¨unther, M. Tranzatto, P. Fankhauser, and M. Hutter, “Advances in real-world applications for legged robots,” J. Field Robot. , vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1311–1326, 2018

    2018

  10. [17]

    Autonomous forest inventory with legged robots: System design and field deployment,

    M. Mattamala, N. Chebrolu, B. Casseau, L. Freißmuth, J. Frey, T. Tuna, M. Hutter, and M. Fallon, “Autonomous forest inventory with legged robots: System design and field deployment,” in ICRA Workshop on Field Robotics , 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    SLAM-Aided Stem Mapping for Forest Inventory with Small- Footprint Mobile LiDAR,

    J. Tang, Y . Chen, A. Kukko, H. Kaartinen, A. Jaakkola, E. Kho- ramshahi, T. Hakala, J. Hyypp ¨a, M. Holopainen, and H. Hyypp ¨a, “SLAM-Aided Stem Mapping for Forest Inventory with Small- Footprint Mobile LiDAR,” Forests, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 4588–4606, Dec. 2015

    2015

  12. [19]

    Towards real-time forest inventory using handheld LiDAR,

    A. Proudman, M. Ramezani, S. T. Digumarti, N. Chebrolu, and M. Fal- lon, “Towards real-time forest inventory using handheld LiDAR,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 157, p. 104240, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology,

    K. Anderson and K. J. Gaston, “Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 138–146, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Dawn of Drone Ecology: Low-Cost Autonomous Aerial Vehicles for Conservation,

    L. P. Koh and S. A. Wich, “Dawn of Drone Ecology: Low-Cost Autonomous Aerial Vehicles for Conservation,”Tropical Conservation Science, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 121–132, June 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    New Opportunities for Forest Remote Sensing Through Ultra-High-Density Drone Lidar,

    J. R. Kellner, J. Armston, M. Birrer, K. C. Cushman, L. Duncanson, C. Eck, C. Falleger, B. Imbach, K. Kr ´al, M. Kr ˚uˇcek, J. Trochta, T. Vr ˇska, and C. Zgraggen, “New Opportunities for Forest Remote Sensing Through Ultra-High-Density Drone Lidar,” Surveys in Geo- physics, v...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Detecting successional changes in tropical forest structure using GatorEye drone-borne lidar,

    D. R. A. Almeida, A. M. Almeyda Zambrano, E. N. Broadbent, A. L. Wendt, P. Foster, B. E. Wilkinson, C. Salk, D. D. A. Papa, S. C. Stark, R. Valbuena, E. B. Gorgens, C. A. Silva, P. H. S. Brancalion, M. Fagan, P. Meli, and R. Chazdon, “Detecting successional changes in tropical...

    2020

  17. [25]

    Multidrone aerial surveys of penguin colonies in antarctica,

    K. Shah, G. Ballard, A. Schmidt, and M. Schwager, “Multidrone aerial surveys of penguin colonies in antarctica,” Sci. Robot., vol. 5, no. 47, p. eabc3000, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    An autonomous drone for search and rescue in forests using airborne optical sectioning,

    D. C. Schedl, I. Kurmi, and O. Bimber, “An autonomous drone for search and rescue in forests using airborne optical sectioning,” Sci. Robot., vol. 6, no. 55, p. eabg1188, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Mini-UA V-Borne LIDAR for Fine-Scale Mapping,

    Y . Lin, J. Hyyppa, and A. Jaakkola, “Mini-UA V-Borne LIDAR for Fine-Scale Mapping,” IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. , vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 426–430, May 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    Under-canopy UA V laser scanning for accurate forest field measurements,

    E. Hyypp ¨a, J. Hyypp ¨a, T. Hakala, A. Kukko, M. A. Wulder, J. C. White, J. Py ¨or¨al¨a, X. Yu, Y . Wang, J.-P. Virtanen, O. Pohjavirta, X. Liang, M. Holopainen, and H. Kaartinen, “Under-canopy UA V laser scanning for accurate forest field measurements,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. ...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Drone-assisted collection of environmental DNA from tree branches for biodiversity monitoring,

    E. Aucone, S. Kirchgeorg, A. Valentini, L. Pellissier, K. Deiner, and S. Mintchev, “Drone-assisted collection of environmental DNA from tree branches for biodiversity monitoring,” Sci. Robot., vol. 8, no. 74, p. eadd5762, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Swarm of micro flying robots in the wild,

    X. Zhou, X. Wen, Z. Wang, Y . Gao, H. Li, Q. Wang, T. Yang, H. Lu, Y . Cao, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Swarm of micro flying robots in the wild,” Sci. Robot., vol. 7, no. 66, p. eabm5954, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    The slothbot: A novel design for a wire-traversing robot,

    G. Notomista, Y . Emam, and M. Egerstedt, “The slothbot: A novel design for a wire-traversing robot,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1993–1998, 2019

    1993

  24. [32]

    Design, modeling, and control of avocado: A multimodal aerial-tethered robot for tree canopy exploration,

    S. Kirchgeorg, E. Aucone, F. Wenk, and S. Mintchev, “Design, modeling, and control of avocado: A multimodal aerial-tethered robot for tree canopy exploration,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 40, pp. 592–605, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Development of Naviga- tion System in Field Robot for Forest Management,

    A. Tominaga, H. Eiji, and A. Mowshowitz, “Development of Naviga- tion System in Field Robot for Forest Management,” in Int. Conf. Soft Comput. Intell. Syst. and Int. Sym. Adv. Intell. Syst. , Toyama, Japan, Dec. 2018, pp. 1142–1147

    2018

  26. [34]

    Realization of a highly accurate mobile robot system for multi purpose precision forestry applications,

    J. Rossmann, M. Schluse, C. Schlette, A. Buecken, P. Krahwinkler, and M. Emde, “Realization of a highly accurate mobile robot system for multi purpose precision forestry applications,” in 2009 International Conference on Advanced Robotics , June 2009, pp. 1–6

    2009

  27. [35]

    Robotic precision har- vesting: Mapping, localization, planning and control for a legged tree harvester,

    E. Jelavic, D. Jud, P. Egli, and M. Hutter, “Robotic precision har- vesting: Mapping, localization, planning and control for a legged tree harvester,” Field Robotics, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Harveri : A Small (Semi-)Autonomous Precision Tree Harvester,

    E. Jelavic, T. Kapgen, S. Kerscher, D. Jud, and M. Hutter, “Harveri : A Small (Semi-)Autonomous Precision Tree Harvester,” in Innovation in Forestry Robotics: Research and Industry Adoption (ICRA 2022) , May 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Robotics and sustain- ability in soil engineering,

    S. Fountas, T. A. Gemtos, and S. Blackmore, “Robotics and sustain- ability in soil engineering,” in Soil Engineering. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 69–80

    2010

  30. [38]

    Verti- cal and horizontal stresses from a lightweight autonomous field robot during repeated wheeling,

    A. Calleja-Huerta, M. Lamand ´e, O. Green, and L. Munkholm, “Verti- cal and horizontal stresses from a lightweight autonomous field robot during repeated wheeling,” Soil and Tillage Research , vol. 233, p. 105790, Sept. 2023. VOLUME , 17 Mattamala et al.:

    2023

  31. [39]

    Commission communication: New EU forest strategy for 2030,

    European Commission, “Commission communication: New EU forest strategy for 2030,” 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Legged robots for autonomous inspection and monitoring of offshore assets,

    M. Ramezani, M. Brandao, B. Casseau, I. Havoutis, and M. Fallon, “Legged robots for autonomous inspection and monitoring of offshore assets,” in Offshore Technology Conference. OTC, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Variable autonomy of whole-body control for inspection and intervention in industrial environments using legged robots,

    G. Xin, C. Tiseo, W. Wolfslag, J. Smith, O. Cebe, Z. Li, S. Vijayaku- mar, and M. N. Mistry, “Variable autonomy of whole-body control for inspection and intervention in industrial environments using legged robots,” in IEEE Intl. Conf. Autom. Sci. Eng. , 2020, pp. 1415–1420

    2020

  34. [42]

    Autoinspect: Towards long-term autonomous industrial inspection,

    M. Staniaszek, T. Flatscher, J. Rowell, H. Niu, W. Liu, Y . You, M. Gadd, M. Mattamala, D. D. Martini, L. Pitt, A. Schutz, R. Skil- ton, M. Fallon, and N. Hawes, “Autoinspect: Towards long-term autonomous industrial inspection,” IEEE Trans. Fiel. Robot. , 2024, submitted

    2024

  35. [43]

    Into the Robotic Depths: Analysis and Insights from the DARPA Subterranean Challenge,

    T. H. Chung, V . Orekhov, and A. Maio, “Into the Robotic Depths: Analysis and Insights from the DARPA Subterranean Challenge,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 6, no. 1, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Heterogeneous Ground and Air Platforms, Homogeneous Sensing: Team CSIRO Data61’s Approach to the DARPA Subterranean Challenge,

    N. Hudson, F. Talbot, M. Cox, J. Williams, T. Hines, A. Pitt, B. Wood, D. Frousheger, K. L. Surdo, T. Molnar, R. Steindl, M. Wildie, I. Sa, N. Kottege, K. Stepanas, E. Hernandez, G. Catt, W. Docherty, B. Tidd, B. Tam, S. Murrell, M. Bessell, L. Hanson, L. Tychsen-Smith, H. Suz...

    2022

  37. [45]

    NeBula: Quest for Robotic Autonomy in Challenging Environments; TEAM CoSTAR at the DARPA Subterranean Challenge,

    A. Agha, K. Otsu, B. Morrell, D. D. Fan, R. Thakker, A. Santamaria- Navarro, S. Kim, A. Bouman, X. Lei, J. A. Edlund, M. F. Gint- ing, K. Ebadi, M. Anderson, T. Pailevanian, E. Terry, M. T. Wolf, A. Tagliabue, T. S. Vaquero, M. Palieri, S. Tepsuporn, Y . Chang, A. Kalantari, F...

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    CERBERUS in the DARPA subterranean challenge,

    M. Tranzatto, T. Miki, M. Dharmadhikari, L. Bernreiter, M. Kulkarni, F. Mascarich, O. Andersson, S. Khattak, M. Hutter, R. Siegwart, and K. Alexis, “CERBERUS in the DARPA subterranean challenge,” Sci. Robot., vol. 7, no. 66, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Computer- vision based real time waypoint generation for autonomous vineyard navigation with quadruped robots,

    L. Milburn, J. Gamba, M. Fernandes, and C. Semini, “Computer- vision based real time waypoint generation for autonomous vineyard navigation with quadruped robots,” in IEEE Intl. Conf. Auton. Robot Syst. Compet., 2023, pp. 239–244

    2023

  40. [48]

    VERO: A vacuum-cleaner-equipped quadruped robot for efficient litter removal,

    L. Amatucci, G. Turrisi, A. Bratta, V . Barasuol, and C. Semini, “VERO: A vacuum-cleaner-equipped quadruped robot for efficient litter removal,” J. Field Robot. , vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1829–1842, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Autonomous navigation for bigdog,

    D. Wooden, M. Malchano, K. Blankespoor, A. Howard, A. A. Rizzi, and M. H. Raibert, “Autonomous navigation for bigdog,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2010, pp. 4736–4741

    2010

  42. [50]

    Scene understanding for a high-mobility walking robot,

    D. M. Bradley, J. K. Chang, D. Silver, M. Powers, H. Herman, P. Rander, and A. Stentz, “Scene understanding for a high-mobility walking robot,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. , 2015, pp. 1144–1151

    2015

  43. [51]

    Spatially and temporally distributed data foraging decisions in disciplinary field science,

    C. G. Wilson, F. Qian, D. J. Jerolmack, S. Roberts, J. Ham, D. Koditschek, and T. F. Shipley, “Spatially and temporally distributed data foraging decisions in disciplinary field science,” Cognitive Re- search: Principles and Implications , vol. 6, no. 1, p. 29, 2021

    2021

  44. [52]

    Animal robots in the african wilderness: Lessons learned and outlook for field robotics,

    K. Melo, T. Horvat, and A. J. Ijspeert, “Animal robots in the african wilderness: Lessons learned and outlook for field robotics,”Sci. Robot., vol. 8, no. 85, p. eadd8662, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    When monkeys meet an ANYmal robot in the wild,

    C. Canteloup, J. Lee, S. Zimmermann, M. Alvino, M. Montenegro, M. Hutter, and E. van de Waal, “When monkeys meet an ANYmal robot in the wild,” bioRxiv, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    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, and M. Hutter, “Scientific exploration of challenging planetary analog environments with a team of legged robots,” Sci. Robot., vol. 8, no. 80, p. eade9548, 2023

    2023

  47. [55]

    Robotics in forest inventories: Spot’s first steps,

    G. Chirici, F. Giannetti, G. D’Amico, E. Vangi, S. Francini, C. Borghi, P. Corona, and D. Travaglini, “Robotics in forest inventories: Spot’s first steps,” Forests, vol. 14, no. 11, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    Decision support systems for forest management: A comparative analysis and assessment,

    M. Segura, D. Ray, and C. Maroto, “Decision support systems for forest management: A comparative analysis and assessment,” Comput. Electron. Agr., vol. 101, pp. 55–67, Feb. 2014

    2014

  49. [57]

    Vilens: Visual, inertial, lidar, and leg odometry for all-terrain legged robots,

    D. Wisth, M. Camurri, and M. Fallon, “Vilens: Visual, inertial, lidar, and leg odometry for all-terrain legged robots,” IEEE Trans. Robot. , vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 309–326, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    A method for registration of 3-d shapes,

    P. J. Besl and N. D. McKay, “A method for registration of 3-d shapes,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 239–256, 1992

    1992

  51. [59]

    On-manifold preintegration for real-time visual–inertial odometry,

    C. Forster, L. Carlone, F. Dellaert, and D. Scaramuzza, “On-manifold preintegration for real-time visual–inertial odometry,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2017

    2017

  52. [60]

    Online LiDAR- SLAM for Legged Robots with Robust Registration and Deep-Learned Loop Closure,

    M. Ramezani, G. Tinchev, E. Iuganov, and M. Fallon, “Online LiDAR- SLAM for Legged Robots with Robust Registration and Deep-Learned Loop Closure,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2020, pp. 4158– 4164

    2020

  53. [61]

    Comparing ICP Variants on Real-World Data Sets,

    F. Pomerleau, F. Colas, R. Siegwart, and S. Magnenat, “Comparing ICP Variants on Real-World Data Sets,” Auton. Robots, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 133–148, Feb. 2013

    2013

  54. [62]

    iSAM2: Incremental smoothing and mapping using the Bayes tree,

    M. Kaess, H. Johannsson, R. Roberts, V . Ila, J. J. Leonard, and F. Dellaert, “iSAM2: Incremental smoothing and mapping using the Bayes tree,” Int. J. Robot. Res. , vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 216–235, 2012

    2012

  55. [63]

    Elevation mapping for locomotion and navigation using gpu,

    T. Miki, L. Wellhausen, R. Grandia, F. Jenelten, T. Homberger, and M. Hutter, “Elevation mapping for locomotion and navigation using gpu,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., 2022, pp. 2273–2280

    2022

  56. [64]

    Coverage of known spaces: The boustrophedon cellular decomposition,

    H. Choset, “Coverage of known spaces: The boustrophedon cellular decomposition,” Auton. Robots, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 247–253, 2000

    2000

  57. [65]

    An efficient locally reactive controller for safe navigation in visual teach and repeat missions,

    M. Mattamala, N. Chebrolu, and M. F. Fallon, “An efficient locally reactive controller for safe navigation in visual teach and repeat missions,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2353–2360, 2022

    2022

  58. [66]

    Riemannian motion policies,

    N. D. Ratliff, J. Issac, and D. Kappler, “Riemannian motion policies,” CoRR, vol. abs/1801.02854, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Resilient and Modular Subterranean Exploration with a Team of Roving and Flying Robots,

    S. Scherer, V . Agrawal, G. Best, C. Cao, K. Cujic, R. Darnley, R. DeBortoli, E. Dexheimer, B. Drozd, R. Garg, I. Higgins, J. Keller, D. Kohanbash, L. Nogueira, R. Pradhan, M. Tatum, V . K. Viswanathan, S. Willits, S. Zhao, H. Zhu, D. Abad, T. Angert, G. Armstrong, R. Boirum, ...

    2022

  60. [68]

    Learning robust perceptive locomotion for quadrupedal robots in the wild,

    T. Miki, J. Lee, J. Hwangbo, L. Wellhausen, V . Koltun, and M. Hutter, “Learning robust perceptive locomotion for quadrupedal robots in the wild,” Sci. Robot., vol. 7, no. 62, 2022

    2022

  61. [69]

    An easy-to-use airborne lidar data filtering method based on cloth simulation,

    W. Zhang, J. Qi, P. Wan, H. Wang, D. Xie, X. Wang, and G. Yan, “An easy-to-use airborne lidar data filtering method based on cloth simulation,” Remote. Sens., vol. 8, no. 6, p. 501, 2016

    2016

  62. [70]

    Auto- matic dendrometry: Tree detection, tree height and diameter estimation using terrestrial laser scanning,

    C. Cabo, C. Ord ´o˜nez, C. A. L ´opez-S´anchez, and J. Armesto, “Auto- matic dendrometry: Tree detection, tree height and diameter estimation using terrestrial laser scanning,” Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinforma- tion, vol. 69, pp. 164–174, 2018

    2018

  63. [71]

    Accurate derivation of stem curve and volume using backpack mobile laser scanning,

    E. Hyypp ¨a, A. Kukko, R. Kaijaluoto, J. C. White, M. A. Wulder, J. Py ¨or¨al¨a, X. Liang, X. Yu, Y . Wang, H. Kaartinen, J.-P. Virtanen, and J. Hyypp ¨a, “Accurate derivation of stem curve and volume using backpack mobile laser scanning,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and R...

    2020

  64. [72]

    Complementary multi–modal sensor fusion for resilient robot pose estimation in subterranean environments,

    S. Khattak, H. Nguyen, F. Mascarich, T. Dang, and K. Alexis, “Complementary multi–modal sensor fusion for resilient robot pose estimation in subterranean environments,” in Int. Conf. on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2020, pp. 1024–1029

    2020

  65. [73]

    Autonomous vehicle benchmarking using unbiased metrics,

    D. Paz, P. Lai, N. Chan, Y . Jiang, and H. I. Christensen, “Autonomous vehicle benchmarking using unbiased metrics,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. , 2020, pp. 6223–6228

    2020

  66. [74]

    Evaluation and Deployment of LiDAR-based Place Recognition in 18 VOLUME , <Society logo(s) and publication title will appear here. > Dense Forests,

    H. Oh, N. Chebrolu, M. Mattamala, L. Freißmuth, and M. Fallon, “Evaluation and Deployment of LiDAR-based Place Recognition in 18 VOLUME , <Society logo(s) and publication title will appear here. > Dense Forests,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. , vol. abs/2403.1432...

    2024 arXiv

  67. [75]

    LoGG3D-Net: Locally guided global descriptor learning for 3D place recognition,

    K. Vidanapathirana, M. Ramezani, P. Moghadam, S. Sridharan, and C. Fookes, “LoGG3D-Net: Locally guided global descriptor learning for 3D place recognition,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. , 2022

    2022

  68. [76]

    Barry: A high-payload and agile quadruped robot,

    G. Valsecchi, N. Rudin, L. Nachtigall, K. Mayer, F. Tischhauser, and M. Hutter, “Barry: A high-payload and agile quadruped robot,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. , vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 6939–6946, 2023

    2023

  69. [77]

    Raibo2: Highly efficient quadruped robot completing full marathon with a single battery charge,

    J. Hwangbo, C. Lee, D. Youm, J. Park, J. Lee, S. Choi, G. Ji, J. Mun, M. Jung, H. Choi, H. Kim, H. Oh, K. Nam, M. Lee, J. Hur, D. Choi, D. Kim, and Y . An, “Raibo2: Highly efficient quadruped robot completing full marathon with a single battery charge,” 2025. [Online]. Availab...

    2025

  70. [78]

    Robotic feet modeled after ungulates improve locomotion on soft wet grounds,

    S. Godon, A. Ristolainen, and M. Kruusmaa, “Robotic feet modeled after ungulates improve locomotion on soft wet grounds,” Bioinspira- tion & Biomimetics , vol. 19, no. 6, p. 066009, nov 2024

    2024

  71. [79]

    Kilometer-scale autonomous navigation in subarctic forests: challenges and lessons learned,

    D. Baril, S. Desch ˆenes, O. Gamache, M. Vaidis, D. LaRocque, J. Laconte, V . Kubelka, P. Gigu`ere, and F. Pomerleau, “Kilometer-scale autonomous navigation in subarctic forests: challenges and lessons learned,” Field Robotics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1628–1660, 2022

    2022

  72. [80]

    Fast Traversability Estimation for Wild Visual Navigation,

    J. Frey, M. Mattamala, N. Chebrolu, C. Cadena, M. Fallon, and M. Hutter, “Fast Traversability Estimation for Wild Visual Navigation,” in Robot.: Sci. Syst. , 2023

    2023

  73. [81]

    Learning to see physical properties with active sensing motor policies,

    G. B. Margolis, X. Fu, Y . Ji, and P. Agrawal, “Learning to see physical properties with active sensing motor policies,” in Conf. on Robot Learning, vol. 229, 2023, pp. 2537–2548

    2023

  74. [82]

    Heterogeneous robot teams with unified perception and autonomy: How team csiro data61 tied for the top score at the darpa subterranean challenge,

    N. Kottege, J. Williams, B. Tidd, F. Talbot, R. Steindl, M. Cox, D. Frousheger, T. Hines, A. Pitt, B. Tam, B. Wood, L. Hanson, K. L. Surdo, T. Molnar, M. Wildie, K. Stepanas, G. Catt, L. Tychsen- Smith, D. Penfold, L. Overs, M. Ramezani, K. Khosoussi, F. Kendoul, G. Wagner, D....

    2023

  75. [83]

    Team CERBERUS Wins the DARPA Subterranean Challenge: Technical Overview and Lessons Learned,

    M. Tranzatto, M. Dharmadhikari, L. Bernreiter, M. Camurri, S. Khat- tak, F. Mascarich, P. Pfreundschuh, D. Wisth, S. Zimmermann, M. Kulkarni, V . Reijgwart, B. Casseau, T. Homberger, P. D. Petris, L. Ott, W. Tubby, G. Waibel, H. Nguyen, C. Cadena, R. Buchanan, L. Wellhausen, N...

    2022

  76. [84]

    Resilient legged local navigation: Learning to traverse with compromised perception end-to-end,

    C. Zhang, J. Jin, J. Frey, N. Rudin, M. Mattamala, C. Cadena, and M. Hutter, “Resilient legged local navigation: Learning to traverse with compromised perception end-to-end,” in IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., 2024

    2024

  77. [85]

    EVORA: deep evidential traversability learning for risk-aware off-road autonomy,

    X. Cai, S. Ancha, L. Sharma, P. R. Osteen, B. Bucher, S. Phillips, J. Wang, M. Everett, N. Roy, and J. P. How, “EVORA: deep evidential traversability learning for risk-aware off-road autonomy,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 40, pp. 3756–3777, 2024

    2024

  78. [86]

    A survey on active simultaneous localization and mapping: State of the art and new frontiers,

    J. A. Placed, J. Strader, H. Carrillo, N. Atanasov, V . Indelman, L. Carlone, and J. A. Castellanos, “A survey on active simultaneous localization and mapping: State of the art and new frontiers,” IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1686–1705, 2023

    2023

  79. [87]

    Prompt mapping tree positions with handheld mobile scanners based on slam technology,

    J. Chud ´a, J. V ´yboˇsˇtok, J. Tomaˇst´ık, F. Chud ´y, D. Tun ´ak, M. Skladan, J. Tu ˇcek, and M. Mokro ˇs, “Prompt mapping tree positions with handheld mobile scanners based on slam technology,” Land, vol. 13, no. 1, 2024

    2024

  80. [88]

    Ad- vancing forest inventory: a comparative study of low-cost mls lidar device with professional laser scanners,

    M. Balestra, C. Cabo, A. Murtiyoso, A. Vitali, F. Alvarez-Taboada, A. Cantero-Amiano, R. Bola ˜nos, D. Laino, , and R. Pierdicca, “Ad- vancing forest inventory: a comparative study of low-cost mls lidar device with professional laser scanners,” The International Archives of th...

    2024

  81. [89]

    Markerless aerial-terrestrial co-registration of forest point clouds using a deformable pose graph,

    B. Casseau, N. Chebrolu, M. Mattamala, L. Freißmuth, and M. Fallon, “Markerless aerial-terrestrial co-registration of forest point clouds using a deformable pose graph,” in IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst., Oct. 2024

    2024

  82. [90]

    Demonstrating mobile manipulation in the wild: A metrics-driven approach,

    M. Bajracharya, J. Borders, R. Cheng, D. M. Helmick, L. Kaul, D. Kruse, J. Leichty, J. Ma, C. Matl, F. Michel, C. Papazov, J. Petersen, K. Shankar, and M. Tjersland, “Demonstrating mobile manipulation in the wild: A metrics-driven approach,” in Robot.: Sci. Syst. , 2023. Mat´ ...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.