Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

VISTA: Monocular Segmentation-Based Mapping for Appearance and View-Invariant Global Localization

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A monocular camera can localize across seasons and viewpoints by matching 3D object submaps geometrically, with zero additional training.

desk verdict VISTA is a plausible extension of SOS-Match with a new oblique-viewpoint dataset, but inconsistent headline numbers and an unvalidated VIO assumption mean it needs major revision before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11653 v1 pith:CJNVX5IA submitted 2025-07-15 cs.CV cs.RO

Hannah Shafferman , Annika Thomas , Jouko Kinnari , Michael Ricard , Jose Nino , Jonathan How This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords globallocalizationmonocularmappingobjectsegmentationsubmapcorrespondencegeometricconsistencyvisualplacerecognitionobliqueviewpointseasonalinvariance
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 claims that global localization — finding where a vehicle is in a map made by another agent or in another season — can be made robust to appearance changes by ignoring appearance entirely. VISTA's key idea is to map the world as a sparse set of 3D object positions and uncertainties, built by tracking segmentation masks through monocular video, and then to align two such maps by finding the largest set of object pairs whose pairwise distances are consistent. The paper argues this geometric search succeeds where feature-based and learning-based visual place recognition fail, particularly when the cameras faced different directions or the season changed, and that it does so with no domain-specific training and with maps small enough for bandwidth-limited robots. If correct, the result is a zero-shot path to collaborative localization for heterogeneous teams of autonomous vehicles.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the geometric submap correspondence search. Each vehicle's sparse 3D object map is partitioned into sliding-window submaps; candidate object associations between two submaps become vertices of a consistency graph with edges weighted by a Gaussian function of the pairwise distance difference $s(x)=\exp(-x^2/(2\sigma^2))$, zero beyond a cutoff $\epsilon$. The densest geometrically consistent clique selects inlier correspondences, and Arun's method produces the candidate relative transform, pruned by dynamic feasibility. Carrying this search is the auto-segmentation tracking front-end: the Segment Anything model and its video-tracking extension convert a monocular image stream into object tracks, and a factor graph triangulates each track against VIO camera poses to get 3D positions and covariances.

What would settle it

Rerun the Highbay nadir-versus-oblique experiment using a second visual-inertial odometry implementation with measurably different drift characteristics; if localization recall at 100% precision changes substantially, then the claimed view-invariance is actually odometry-dependence. Alternatively, inject controlled, growing pose noise into the triangulation step and record the recall decay curve.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that VISTA enables consistent localization across diverse camera viewpoints and seasonal changes without requiring any domain-specific training or finetuning, achieving up to a 69% recall improvement over visual place recognition baselines. The load-bearing discovery is that object-level geometric consistency, computed from segment-mask tracking and factor-graph triangulation, is enough to identify correct frame alignments between maps built under extreme appearance change — something appearance-based methods cannot do. The paper supports this by showing high recall at high precision on a seasonal nadir dataset and on a nadir-versus-oblique indoor dataset, while keeping the map size between 0.03% and 0.6% of the baseline maps.

Load-bearing premise

The entire 3D map is built on camera poses from a generic visual-inertial odometry system, and the paper never tests how odometry drift degrades localization, so the method stands or falls on an unvalidated assumption about pose accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A vehicle with a forward-facing oblique camera can localize inside a map built by a nadir-facing vehicle, without any shared training data.
  • Multi-agent teams can exchange object maps that are hundreds to thousands of times smaller than feature-based maps, making frame alignment feasible over low-bandwidth links.
  • Because the method is open-set and zero-shot, the same pipeline transfers to new unstructured environments without fine-tuning.
  • The paper's recall numbers indicate that appearance-based place recognition is not required for semantic-geometric localization when objects are consistently tracked.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test how sensitive VISTA is to odometry error; a natural extension is to corrupt the VIO poses and measure recall, since triangulation quality is the foundation of the whole pipeline.
  • Because the matching uses only geometry, scenes with many visually distinct but geometrically repeated objects could produce false cliques; adding coarse semantic labels to objects would likely disambiguate without breaking open-set operation.
  • The reported submap search is all-to-all; for very large maps a hierarchical stage that proposes candidate submaps by rough place recognition and then refines geometrically would be the natural scaling route, and the compact map size makes that plausible.
  • The ablation showing that segment masks outperform centroid points and bounding boxes as tracking prompts suggests the tracking front-end, not the geometric search, is where gains for oblique viewpoints will come from.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents VISTA, a monocular global localization pipeline for cross-session, cross-view mapping. It builds sparse 3D object maps by tracking SAM/SAM2 segmentations through video, triangulating object positions and covariances against VIO poses via factor graphs, and then performs global frame alignment by matching sliding-window submaps with a CLIPPER-style densest geometrically consistent clique search. The authors evaluate on the Båtvik seasonal dataset and a self-collected Highbay nadir/oblique dataset, comparing against ORB+RANSAC, SuperPoint+SuperGlue, LoFTR, AnyLoc, and SOS-Match, and report large recall improvements, compact maps, and reduced search time.

Significance. VISTA targets a real gap: open-set, appearance- and view-invariant global localization with a compact map. The design is coherent: object-centric segmentation is a sensible invariant representation, the submap formulation makes the correspondence search tractable, and the use of uncertainty-aware geometric consistency in Eq. (1) is a principled way to merge maps without appearance matching. The paper's zero-shot character (no fine-tuning of SAM/SAM2) and the large-scale simulation check are assets. If the numbers are corrected and the VIO-sensitivity question is answered, the method would be a meaningful advance over SOS-Match and appearance-based VPR baselines. As it stands, however, the empirical core is not yet reliable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Section I / Section IV-D / Section IV-E] The reported headline recall improvements are internally inconsistent. The abstract and Section I state a '69% maximum recall improvement,' but Section IV-D reports a maximum 42.8% improvement over the second best, and Section IV-E reports a maximum 33% improvement. The abstract also claims the map is '0.6% the size of the most memory-conservative baseline,' which is contradicted by Table V, where VISTA (0.59 Mb) is 95% the size of SOS-Match (0.62 Mb), and 0.59 Mb is 0.58% of ORB and 0.08% of AnyLoc. These discrepancies need to be reconciled, and every headline number should match the corresponding table.
  2. [Table II / Section IV-D] Table II reports identical recall values for LoFTR across all four seasonal experiments (3.2, 4.1, 4.5 for R@100, R@90, R@80). Since the four experiments use different image pairs, this is implausible unless the table entries were copied or the evaluation protocol is degenerate. This requires correction or explanation before the seasonal comparison can be assessed.
  3. [Section III-A / Section V] The central assumption in Section III-A is that a generic VIO provides accurate camera poses T(t), and all object positions and covariances are obtained by factor-graph triangulation against these poses. The paper's claim in Section V that VISTA 'removes the dependence on camera pose estimates' and 'decoupl[es] data association from potential pose estimation errors' applies only to the tracking front-end; the map-building step still inherits every VIO drift or bias. No experiment replaces VIO poses with ground truth, injects pose noise, or analyzes error propagation, and the oblique-view experiments are exactly the regime where the paper notes depth uncertainty is largest. A sensitivity study is needed to establish that submap geometric matching is robust to realistic VIO error.
  4. [Section IV-D / Section IV-C] In the Båtvik experiments, Section IV-D states that baseline methods discard trajectory sections over water due to lack of features, while VISTA does not. Comparing methods on different trajectory support can inflate VISTA's recall and deflate baselines. Please report results on identical submaps (or justify why the water sections are irrelevant to the comparison), and also provide error bars or significance tests, as the reported quantitative claims are otherwise difficult to assess.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-A] The indexing of detected objects changes from 'j∈{0,...,n_l}' to 'n_l detections'; the set should start at 1, or n_l should be n_l-1.
  2. [Section III-B] 'we rely only the 3D object position estimates' should read 'we rely only on the 3D object position estimates.'
  3. [Table IV] The column headers for Experiment 1 and Experiment 0 are ambiguous; clarify which block corresponds to which experiment, and explain the '-' entries for SOS-Match.
  4. [Section IV-F] The phrase 'slightly degraded recall' is inconsistent with the drop from 73.1% to 1.1% at R@100 and from 98.5% to 55.8% at R@90 in Table VI; please rephrase or analyze.
  5. [Table I] Hyperparameters in Table I use mixed notation (e.g., '10 deg / 6 deg'); state units consistently.
  6. [General] The paper does not include dataset/code release information; for reproducibility, please state availability or provide details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pipeline outputs are measured results and external benchmarks; self-citations are not load-bearing in the claimed derivation.

full rationale

VISTA is an engineering pipeline rather than a derivation: SAM2/SAM masks produce object tracks; a factor-graph triangulates 3D object positions from VIO poses; CLIPPER-style geometric consistency selects correspondences; Arun's method estimates the frame transformation; and precision/recall are measured against known ground-truth transforms. No output quantity is simultaneously used as the input that defines it. The recall numbers in Tables II-IV are measured operating points obtained by sweeping S_max (for VISTA and SOS-Match) and threshold parameters for the baselines; they are not predictions of a fitted constant. The self-citations supply a dataset and baseline (SOS-Match [3]) and a data-association subroutine (CLIPPER [39,40]), but neither is used to define the reported success metric or to exclude alternatives, and CLIPPER is used in its published form rather than rederived. The VIO-pose assumption is a genuine robustness risk, since triangulated object positions inherit any odometry drift, but that is an unvalidated input assumption rather than circularity: localization correctness is evaluated against independently known ground-truth pose thresholds, not against the same VIO poses that built the map. No specific equation or step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central claim depends on a substantial set of hand-chosen hyperparameters, several of which are tuned per dataset, plus domain assumptions about VIO accuracy, static objects, and dynamic-feasibility thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameter count is high for a method presented as tuning-free, though the segmentation models themselves require no fine-tuning.

free parameters (6)
  • Submap window w and overlap alpha = 2.0 m / 1.0
    Chosen by hand; control submap geometry and search time.
  • Inlier percentile Omega = 95/95 (Exp 0), 85/80 (Exp 1, nadir/oblique)
    Per-dataset parameter that discards poorly estimated object positions; different values per experiment indicate tuning.
  • Consistency noise sigma and cutoff epsilon = 0.05 m / 0.1 m
    Parameterize the pairwise distance weighting function s(x) in Eq. 1.
  • Min distance gamma = 0.1 m / 0.2 m
    Suppresses duplicate objects from tracking; differs between experiments.
  • Evaluation thresholds S_max, theta_o, theta_RP, theta_Y, T_max = 4, 0.667, 10/6 deg, 30 deg, 1.5 m
    Define what counts as a success; recall is swept over S_max to build PR curves.
  • Segmentation reapplication threshold theta_a = 0.5
    Triggers re-prompting when segmented area falls below threshold.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption VIO poses T(t) are available and accurate enough for SfM triangulation.
    Invoked in Section III-A as 'a generic Visual Inertial Odometry (VIO) implementation'; the entire map is built on these poses.
  • domain assumption Objects are static; tracks whose bundle adjustment fails are dynamic objects and can be discarded.
    Section III-A: 'For objects for which the bundle adjustment fails to converge, we assume it is a dynamic object and discard the object from the map.'
  • domain assumption A correct global transformation must have small roll/pitch (dynamic feasibility).
    Section III-B and Table I: candidates with roll/pitch greater than theta_RP are pruned.
  • domain assumption IoU of submaps above theta_o implies a correspondence is expected and correctness is judged by hand-set thresholds.
    Section IV-B defines ground truth for precision/recall using these thresholds.
  • standard math Arun's method and CLIPPER's densest clique formulation are taken as correct and applicable.
    Used in Section III-B for pose estimation and data association.
  • domain assumption AirSim simulation is representative of large-scale real environments.
    Section IV-F uses simulation to argue scale independence, with no real large-scale oblique dataset.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VISTA: Monocular Segmentation-Based Mapping for Appearance and View-Invariant Global Localization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJNVX5IA

@misc{pith2026250711653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VISTA: Monocular Segmentation-Based Mapping for Appearance and View-Invariant Global Localization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJNVX5IA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11653}
}
read the original abstract

Global localization is critical for autonomous navigation, particularly in scenarios where an agent must localize within a map generated in a different session or by another agent, as agents often have no prior knowledge about the correlation between reference frames. However, this task remains challenging in unstructured environments due to appearance changes induced by viewpoint variation, seasonal changes, spatial aliasing, and occlusions -- known failure modes for traditional place recognition methods. To address these challenges, we propose VISTA (View-Invariant Segmentation-Based Tracking for Frame Alignment), a novel open-set, monocular global localization framework that combines: 1) a front-end, object-based, segmentation and tracking pipeline, followed by 2) a submap correspondence search, which exploits geometric consistencies between environment maps to align vehicle reference frames. VISTA enables consistent localization across diverse camera viewpoints and seasonal changes, without requiring any domain-specific training or finetuning. We evaluate VISTA on seasonal and oblique-angle aerial datasets, achieving up to a 69% improvement in recall over baseline methods. Furthermore, we maintain a compact object-based map that is only 0.6% the size of the most memory-conservative baseline, making our approach capable of real-time implementation on resource-constrained platforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. VISTA segments and tracks objects through a video stream from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. VISTA integrates a novel auto-segmentation object-level tracking pipeline, which tracks objects through camera images and reconstructs a sparse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Consistency graph formulation for example 3D submap registration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of min￾imum distance parameter, γ. Correspondences between the blue and red point clouds are drawn. Correspondences dis￾qualified by γ are marked. Each submap correspondence search returns the largest geo￾metrically consistent set of ob￾ject pairs, denote…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: depicts sample nadir imagery from our four cross￾seasonal comparisons. These images highlight the significant appearance changes in the environment due sharpening of shadows, changes in lighting, foliage, and snow coverage between seasons. See [3] for further detail ab…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Precision vs. recall curves with increasing visual discrepancy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A robust localization solution for an uncrewed ground vehicle in unstructured outdoor gnss-denied environments,

    W. J. Wagner, I. Blankenau, M. DeLaTorre, A. Purushottam, and A. Soylemezoglu, “A robust localization solution for an uncrewed ground vehicle in unstructured outdoor gnss-denied environments,” ION GNSS+, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    A survey on global lidar localization: Challenges, advances and open problems,

    H. Yin, X. Xu, S. Lu, X. Chen, R. Xiong, S. Shen, C. Stachniss, and Y . Wang, “A survey on global lidar localization: Challenges, advances and open problems,”IJCV, pp. 1–33, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Sos- match: segmentation for open-set robust correspondence search and robot localization in unstructured environments,

    A. Thomas, J. Kinnari, P. C. Lusk, K. Kondo, and J. P. How, “Sos- match: segmentation for open-set robust correspondence search and robot localization in unstructured environments,” inIROS. IEEE, 2024, pp. 5613–5620

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Bags of binary words for fast place recognition in image sequences,

    D. G ´alvez-L´opez and J. D. Tardos, “Bags of binary words for fast place recognition in image sequences,”T-RO, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1188–1197, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    X-view: Graph-based semantic multi-view localization,

    A. Gawel, C. Del Don, R. Siegwart, J. Nieto, and C. Cadena, “X-view: Graph-based semantic multi-view localization,” inRA-L, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Visual place recognition: A survey,

    S. Lowry, N. S ¨underhauf, P. Newman, J. J. Leonard, D. Cox, P. Corke, and M. J. Milford, “Visual place recognition: A survey,”T-RO, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    D2-net: A trainable cnn for joint description and detection of local features,

    M. Dusmanu, I. Rocco, T. Pajdla, M. Pollefeys, J. Sivic, A. Torii, and T. Sattler, “D2-net: A trainable cnn for joint description and detection of local features,” inCVPR, 2019, pp. 8092–8101

    2019

  8. [8]

    Appearance-Invariant 6-DoF Visual Localization using Generative Adversarial Networks

    Y . Lin, J. Huang, and S. Lian, “Appearance-invariant 6-dof visual localization using generative adversarial networks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.13191, 2020

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    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,”T-RO, vol. 38, no. 4, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Semantic pose verification for outdoor visual localization with self-supervised contrastive learn- ing,

    S. Orhan, J. J. Guerrero, and Y . Bas ¸tanlar, “Semantic pose verification for outdoor visual localization with self-supervised contrastive learn- ing,” inCVPR, 2022, pp. 3989–3998

    2022

  3. [11]

    Roman: Open-set object map alignment for robust view-invariant global localization,

    M. B. Peterson, Y . X. Jia, Y . Tian, A. Thomas, and J. P. How, “Roman: Open-set object map alignment for robust view-invariant global localization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08262, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Loet al., “Segment anything,” inICCV, 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  5. [13]

    Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,

    N. Ravi, V . Gabeur, Y .-T. Hu, R. Hu, C. Ryali, T. Ma, H. Khedr, R. R ¨adle, C. Rolland, L. Gustafsonet al., “Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    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.” inRSS, vol. 11. Rome, Italy, 2015, p. 3

    2015

  7. [15]

    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,” 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoor- thi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,”CACM, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 99–106, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    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,”ToG, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1–11, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    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,”T-RO, vol. 32, no. 6, p. 1309–1332, Dec. 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Cubeslam: Monocular 3-d object slam,

    S. Yang and S. Scherer, “Cubeslam: Monocular 3-d object slam,”T- RO, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 925–938, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Quadricslam: Dual quadrics from object detections as landmarks in object-oriented slam,

    L. Nicholson, M. Milford, and N. S ¨underhauf, “Quadricslam: Dual quadrics from object detections as landmarks in object-oriented slam,” RA-L, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Distinctive image features from scale-invariant key- points,

    D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant key- points,”IJCV, vol. 60, pp. 91–110, 2004

    2004

  14. [22]

    Speeded-up robust features (surf),

    H. Bay, A. Ess, T. Tuytelaars, and L. Van Gool, “Speeded-up robust features (surf),”CVIU, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 346–359, 2008

    2008

  15. [23]

    Orb: An efficient alternative to sift or surf,

    E. Rublee, V . Rabaud, K. Konolige, and G. Bradski, “Orb: An efficient alternative to sift or surf,” inICCV. Ieee, 2011, pp. 2564–2571

    2011

  16. [24]

    Superpoint: Self- supervised interest point detection and description,

    D. DeTone, T. Malisiewicz, and A. Rabinovich, “Superpoint: Self- supervised interest point detection and description,” inCVPR work- shops, 2018, pp. 224–236

    2018

  17. [25]

    Su- perglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks,

    P.-E. Sarlin, D. DeTone, T. Malisiewicz, and A. Rabinovich, “Su- perglue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks,” in CVPR, 2020, pp. 4938–4947

    2020

  18. [26]

    Loftr: Detector- free local feature matching with transformers,

    J. Sun, Z. Shen, Y . Wang, H. Bao, and X. Zhou, “Loftr: Detector- free local feature matching with transformers,” inCVPR, 2021, pp. 8922–8931

    2021

  19. [27]

    Anyloc: Towards universal visual place recognition,

    N. Keetha, A. Mishra, J. Karhade, K. M. Jatavallabhula, S. Scherer, M. Krishna, and S. Garg, “Anyloc: Towards universal visual place recognition,”RA-L, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Image segmentation using deep learning: A survey,

    S. Minaee, Y . Boykov, F. Porikli, A. Plaza, N. Kehtarnavaz, and D. Terzopoulos, “Image segmentation using deep learning: A survey,” TPAMI, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 3523–3542, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Towards high- definition 3d urban mapping: Road feature-based registration of mobile mapping systems and aerial imagery,

    M. Javanmardi, E. Javanmardi, Y . Gu, and S. Kamijo, “Towards high- definition 3d urban mapping: Road feature-based registration of mobile mapping systems and aerial imagery,”Remote Sensing, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 975, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Scan context++: Structural place recog- nition robust to rotation and lateral variations in urban environments,

    G. Kim, S. Choi, and A. Kim, “Scan context++: Structural place recog- nition robust to rotation and lateral variations in urban environments,” T-RO, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 1856–1874, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Visual map matching and localization using a global feature map,

    O. Pink, “Visual map matching and localization using a global feature map,” inCVPR workshops. IEEE, 2008, pp. 1–7

    2008

  24. [32]

    Present and future of slam in extreme environments: The darpa subt challenge,

    K. Ebadi, L. Bernreiter, H. Biggie, G. Catt, Y . Chang, A. Chatterjee, C. E. Denniston, S.-P. Desch ˆenes, K. Harlow, S. Khattaket al., “Present and future of slam in extreme environments: The darpa subt challenge,”T-RO, vol. 40, pp. 936–959, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Search and rescue under the forest canopy using multiple uavs,

    Y . Tian, K. Liu, K. Ok, L. Tran, D. Allen, N. Roy, and J. P. How, “Search and rescue under the forest canopy using multiple uavs,”IJRR, vol. 39, no. 10-11, pp. 1201–1221, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Forestvo: Enhancing visual odometry in forest environments through forestglue,

    T. Pritchard, S. Ijaz, R. Clark, and B. B. Kocer, “Forestvo: Enhancing visual odometry in forest environments through forestglue,”RA-L, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Interpretation of image segmentation in terms of justifiable granularity,

    P. S. Szczepaniak, “Interpretation of image segmentation in terms of justifiable granularity,” inArtificial Intelligence and Soft Computing: 14th International Conference, ICAISC 2015, Zakopane, Poland, June 14-18, 2015, Proceedings, Part I 14. Springer, 2015, pp. 638–648

    2015

  28. [36]

    Semantic-sam: Segment and recognize anything at any granularity,

    F. Li, H. Zhang, P. Sun, X. Zou, S. Liu, J. Yang, C. Li, L. Zhang, and J. Gao, “Semantic-sam: Segment and recognize anything at any granularity,” 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Factor graphs for robot perception,

    F. Dellaert, M. Kaesset al., “Factor graphs for robot perception,” Found. and Trends® in Robot., vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 1–139, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    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, p. 4, 2012

    2012

  31. [39]

    Clipper: A graph-theoretic framework for robust data association,

    P. C. Lusk, K. Fathian, and J. P. How, “Clipper: A graph-theoretic framework for robust data association,” inICRA. IEEE, 2021, pp. 13 828–13 834

    2021

  32. [40]

    Clipper: Robust data association without an initial guess,

    P. C. Lusk and J. P. How, “Clipper: Robust data association without an initial guess,”RA-L, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    Least-squares fitting of two 3-d point sets,

    K. S. Arun, T. S. Huang, and S. D. Blostein, “Least-squares fitting of two 3-d point sets,”TPAMI, no. 5, pp. 698–700, 1987

    1987

  34. [42]

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

    M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,”CACM, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 381–395, 1981

    1981

  35. [43]

    Airsim: High-fidelity visual and physical simulation for autonomous vehicles,

    S. Shah, D. Dey, C. Lovett, and A. Kapoor, “Airsim: High-fidelity visual and physical simulation for autonomous vehicles,” inField and Service Robotics. Springer, 2018, pp. 621–635

    2018

Pith tools

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