Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 43 references

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

T0 review · 5 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 This paper claims that a 10-cm-radius styrofoam sphere is enough to automatically recalibrate LiDAR-camera extrinsics in outdoor and planetary multi-robot deployments, even when the target is contaminated or damaged and the camera is…

desk verdict Promising corruption-robust sphere calibration pipeline, but duplicate numbers in Table II undermine the central comparative claim until corrected. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17130 v1 pith:MEDNC3LE submitted 2025-07-23 cs.RO

Seokhwan Jeong , Hogyun Kim , Younggun Cho This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords LiDAR-cameraextrinsiccalibrationsphericaltargetmulti-robotsegmentationpointclouddenoisingrobustdetectionplanetaryexplorationsensorcontamination
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 tries to establish that a small, robot-portable sphere can serve as a reliable LiDAR-camera calibration target in unstructured outdoor and planetary settings, where conventional checkerboards and fiducial markers fail under mud, blur, scratches, and partial damage. The proposed method combines SAM-based image segmentation with an iterative ellipse-rectification routine and an analytical compensation for perspective projection error, so the 2D ellipse center faithfully tracks the sphere's visual center. On the pointcloud side, it claims that a hierarchical weighted-sum of accumulated LiDAR measurements, after removing long noise clusters, yields unbiased surface points for sphere fitting, making the approach work across spinning, solid-state, and non-repetitive LiDARs. The paper's experiments report lower translation, rotation, and reprojection errors than two target-based baselines on three sensor pairs, and higher detection rates than AprilTag and CopperTag under contamination. If true, the payoff is fully automatic, human-free recalibration for multi-robot fleets operating in the field.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by two mechanisms plus a correction formula. First, the ellipse rectification loop: starting from Canny edges on SAM masks, the method fits an initial ellipse, classifies it by the angular distribution of sampled perimeter points, and if the distribution is concentrated, refits using a random point from outside the current ellipse together with points from each concentrated region, iterating until the ellipse is stable. This loop is what makes the method tolerant to target corruption, because intact regions of the sphere perimeter dominate the final fit. Second, the noise-aware LiDAR center extraction: clustered points from the same surface location are reduced to a single representative point by a hierarchical weighted sum; it is this representative-point set, not the raw noisy sphere points, that feeds the sphere-fit and center-combination stage. Third, the center-compensation formula in Eqs. (1)-(2) corrects the systematic error that arises because a sphere's projected ellipse center does not coincide with the projection of the sphere center unless the sphere is centered on the optical axis; the correction is applied before the 2D point is paired with the 3D center.

What would settle it

Run a clean-laboratory reproduction of Table II with a millimeter-accurate checkerboard reference and also compute Eq. (3) on a synthetic cluster with known cell occupancies; the formula as written does not equal the frequency-weighted mean described in the text, so if the implementation follows the paper, the fitted sphere center—and hence the reported translation errors—will shift by an amount that a precise ground-truth check will reveal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a 10-cm-radius styrofoam sphere, the smallest spherical calibration target used to date, is sufficient for accurate LiDAR-camera extrinsic calibration, provided the two sensing modalities are processed with corruption-aware steps. In the image, the sphere's projection is an ellipse; the method first segments the image with SAM, then fits an ellipse while iteratively refitting against points outside the current ellipse to avoid the bias introduced by damaged or contaminated regions, and finally shifts the ellipse center using a closed-form compensation for the perspective-projection error between the ellipse center and the sphere's true projected center. In the LiDAR pointcloud, the method accumulates static data, removes clusters elongated along the laser ray that indicate noise, subdivides surviving clusters into cells, and selects one representative point per cluster via a frequency-weighted average; sphere centers are then fitted from four-point combinations and combined by frequency. The claim is that these two center estimates, when paired through a PnP solver with a robust kernel, give state-of-the-art calibration accuracy across three LiDAR types and three camera viewpoints, and remain reliable even when the sphere is dirt-covered, truncated by about 25%, or scratched and the camera is blurred or mud-spattered.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that LiDAR points on a sphere can be reduced to unbiased surface samples by removing long noise clusters and averaging each remaining cluster, and that the printed formula for this average—which divides by the number of cells, not the number of points—actually produces the intended frequency-weighted mean.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot team can trigger recalibration on demand: one robot holds up the small sphere while a drifted LiDAR-camera pair observes it, and the full pipeline runs without human intervention.
  • The same segmentation and rectification pipeline works for spinning, solid-state, and non-repetitive LiDARs, so a single calibration procedure can cover a heterogeneous fleet.
  • Because the sphere is only 10 cm in radius and made of styrofoam, it can be carried by a manipulator or mounted on a robot, making calibration practical in field conditions where large boards cannot be transported.
  • Under target and sensor contamination, the sphere remains detectable in cases where AprilTag and CopperTag fail, so calibration can be maintained in muddy, dusty, or blurry conditions.
  • The reported error levels (translation around 0.01–0.04 m, rotation below 1 degree in most configurations) suggest the method meets the accuracy needed for downstream LiDAR-camera fusion tasks such as SLAM and object detection.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The center-compensation step, if as accurate as claimed, applies beyond calibration: any monocular system that needs the unbiased image-center of a spherical object—visual tracking, sphere-based robotic manipulation—could reuse the same correction formula.
  • The method's reliance on SAM for initial segmentation is not evaluated for compute cost or latency; a lighter-weight segmentation network might preserve the rectification benefits while running on onboard robot computers, but that is a testable extension the paper does not report.
  • The equation for the frequency-weighted representative point appears inconsistent with the surrounding text: the formula divides by the number of cells rather than the total point count, so the reported accuracy could depend on an undocumented weighting scheme if the printed formula is what the code implements.
  • The corruption experiments cover contiguous damage (dirt, scratches, a single 25% truncation); a sphere with many small widely scattered dents might violate the 'concentrated region' assumption in the ellipse rectification, and that case is not tested.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MARSCalib, a LiDAR-camera extrinsic calibration method that uses a small spherical target (10 cm radius) and is designed for multi-robot outdoor and planetary environments where both the target and the sensors may be contaminated or damaged. The camera pipeline uses SAM-based segmentation, Canny edge detection, an iterative ellipse-fitting pipeline with evaluation and rectification, and a perspective-error compensation step. The LiDAR pipeline uses Hough transform-based region detection, clustering along the beam direction with a frequency-weighted representative point selection, and sphere fitting via four-point combinations weighted by the known sphere radius. The extrinsic transform is obtained by PnP with robust optimization. Experiments are reported for three LiDAR types (Ouster OS1-32, SOSLAB ML-X, Livox MID-360) and three camera poses in a construction field and a simulated planetary environment, comparing against two target-based baselines and two targetless baselines, and evaluating robustness under target contamination and damage. The central claim is that the proposed method is more accurate and more robust than existing approaches across sensor types and under corruption.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a credible contribution to practical extrinsic calibration in field robotics: it addresses an underexplored scenario (simultaneous target and sensor corruption), introduces a small spherical target that can be carried by a robot, and offers a fully automatic detection pipeline. The comparison across three mechanically different LiDARs and the corruption experiments are valuable. The release of code is a positive step for reproducibility. However, the significance is dampened by the technical inconsistency in Eq. (3), the suspicious duplicate entries in Table II, the absence of error bars and statistical significance analysis, and the undisclosed thresholds in several algorithm steps. These issues currently prevent the reader from fully trusting the quantitative claims of superiority and robustness.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) does not implement the frequency-weighted mean described in the text. The text states that a weighted sum based on frequency is used to select a representative point p_r, but the equation p_r = (Σ_{i=1}^M n_i c_i) / M divides by the number of cells M, not by the total number of points Σ n_i. As written, the formula weights cells equally rather than by point frequency, which contradicts the stated method and affects all subsequent sphere fitting and center estimation. Please correct the denominator or clarify the intended definition, and explain how this affects the implementation and the results.
  2. [§4.3, Table II] Table II contains exact duplicate numerical values across different LiDAR-camera configurations that are expected to be independent. For example, "Ours" reports trans=0.018 m and rot=0.157° for both Ouster Camera 2 and Livox Camera 2, and trans=0.028 m and rot=0.587° for both Ouster Camera 3 and Livox Camera 3; the [17]* column shows trans=0.056 m and rot=0.889° for both Ouster Camera 2 and Livox Camera 2. Since the three LiDARs have different scan patterns, noise characteristics, and extrinsics, exact equality to three decimal places is not physically expected. This strongly suggests a data handling, copying, or reporting error. Because Table II is the primary quantitative evidence for the claimed superiority over baselines, please verify all entries, correct any errors, and report the underlying per-scene statistics (or provide a clear explanation if these values are not independent measurements).
  3. [§3, overall method] Several load-bearing parameters and thresholds are not reported, which prevents reproducibility and a full assessment of robustness: the length threshold used to remove noisy LiDAR clusters, the validity threshold in the ellipse rectification step (what portion of P_s must lie outside the re-fitted ellipse for the ellipse to be deemed invalid), the Hough transform parameters for sphere region segmentation, the voxel size used for non-repetitive LiDAR representative point extraction, and the outlier rejection threshold in the PnP optimization. The availability of code is helpful, but the paper should state these values or describe how they were chosen, especially because the method's claimed robustness depends on them.
  4. [§4.3 and §4.4, Tables II and III] The experimental claims of accuracy and robustness are reported only as single-point estimates (likely means) without error bars, standard deviations, or any statistical significance test. Table II is based on 10 scenes per configuration and Table III on 8 scenes, so per-scene variance can be computed and should be reported. Without this information, the reader cannot determine whether the differences between the proposed method and the baselines are meaningful, especially in cases where the reported values are close (e.g., Table III, C, Cam1-OS). Please provide mean ± std. dev. for all reported metrics or an equivalent statistical summary.
  5. [§3.1, Ellipse Rectification] The ellipse rectification step appears to be stochastic: the text states that a "single point randomly drawn from P_s ∩ P_c^e" is used in the iterative re-fitting. This introduces run-to-run variability in the detected ellipse center, which is not analyzed or discussed. Please specify the number of random trials, the random seed policy, or provide a deterministic variant, and quantify the sensitivity of the final calibration result to this randomness.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.2, Table I] The text claims the spherical target "consistently achieved high detection rates in all conditions," but Table I shows that under extreme contamination at 45° and 60° the sphere is marked with a triangle (detected in only one rotation direction). Please qualify this statement or define the metric for "high detection rate" more precisely.
  2. [§4.2] The three contamination levels (easy, medium, extreme) are not defined quantitatively. Please specify the exact procedures or amounts of contamination used for each level so that the detection experiments are reproducible.
  3. [§4.3] The baseline [17]* is described as a modified version of Tóth et al. because it is "not well-suited for detecting small spheres" and is provided with a SAM-derived mask and a cropped sphere region. These modifications should be described in more detail so that the comparison is fair and reproducible, and so the reader can judge how much of the performance difference is attributable to the proposed method versus the baseline's adaptation.
  4. [§2] The claim of using "the smallest spherical target to date" is not supported by a quantitative comparison with the sphere sizes used in the cited works [17], [18], [19], [20]. Please provide a brief comparison or cite the relevant radii.
  5. [§3.1, Eq. (1)] The notation "HG" is used both for a segment in Figure 4 and for "half of the major axis length" in the text. This is confusing; please use a different symbol for the half-major-axis length or clarify the notation.
  6. [§5] The conclusion states that "our experiments demonstrate that ... the spherical target remains reliably detectable," but as noted above, Table I shows some detection failures at extreme contamination and high angles. Please align the conclusion with the actual data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pipeline derives extrinsics from independent image and pointcloud center estimates and is benchmarked against an external checkerboard ground truth.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Camera-side ellipse center extraction (SAM segmentation, Canny edges, ellipse evaluation/rectification, perspective compensation in Eqs. (1)-(2)) does not use the LiDAR-camera extrinsic being solved; the LiDAR-side sphere center extraction uses accumulated pointcloud clustering, representative-point selection, and least-squares sphere fitting evaluated against the physical 10 cm radius input, none of which is a fit to the calibration output. The final PnP optimization in Eq. (8) minimizes reprojection error between these independent 3D and 2D center estimates. Ground truth comes from MATLAB's extrinsic calibration toolbox with a large checkerboard, an external reference independent of the proposed pipeline. The only self-citation, [6], appears in the related-work discussion of multi-robot SLAM and is not load-bearing for any calibration claim. The internal inconsistency in Eq. (3) — dividing by the number of cells M instead of the total point count Σ n_i when computing a 'frequency-weighted' representative point — is a correctness or typographical issue, not a circular reduction, because it does not make any output equal to an input. The exact duplicate translation/rotation values in Table II (e.g., Ouster Camera 2 and Livox Camera 2 both report trans=0.018 m, rot=0.157° for 'Ours') are a data-provenance or reporting concern that weakens the quantitative comparison, but they do not constitute a circular derivation. Additionally, the paper reports no variance or confidence intervals, so statistical significance is unknown; this is a reporting limitation, not circularity. No equation reduces to a fitted quantity by construction, no 'prediction' is a renamed fit, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work.

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

No new physical entities are introduced. The method inherits several unverified modeling assumptions. Hand-chosen thresholds are not reported and enter the pipeline at three distinct stages; the known 0.1 m sphere radius is an input from the target, not a fitted quantity.

free parameters (4)
  • Length threshold for removing noisy LiDAR clusters = not reported
    Section III-B: clusters with greater lengths are removed as noisy; the threshold is chosen by hand and not disclosed, affecting which points survive to sphere fitting.
  • Ellipse rectification validity threshold = not reported
    Section III-A: 'If a certain portion of Ps lies outside the re-fitted ellipse' the ellipse is invalid; the portion is not specified.
  • Hough transform sphere segmentation parameters = not reported
    Section III-B: the sphere region is segmented from the projected pointcloud using a Hough transform; accumulator thresholds and resolution are not reported.
  • Outlier rejection threshold in PnP optimization = not reported
    Section III-C: false detections of non-target objects are eliminated based on a threshold, but the threshold value and selection rule are not given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The LiDAR range noise model from [39], zero-mean Gaussian and growing with incidence angle, is assumed without verification on the three test LiDARs.
    Section III-B invokes this model to justify cluster removal and representative point selection.
  • domain assumption The perspective compensation equations (1) and (2) correctly locate the projected sphere center from the detected ellipse center and half-major axis.
    Section III-A states the formula without derivation; it is central to the camera-side center estimate.
  • domain assumption The MATLAB toolbox ground-truth calibration with a large checkerboard is accurate enough to serve as reference.
    Section IV-A, used to compute all reported translation and rotation errors.
  • domain assumption The corrupted sphere's intact surface remains close enough to a sphere for fitting.
    Section III-B fits a sphere to representative points; the rectified detection assumes non-corrupted regions dominate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MARSCalib: Multi-robot, Automatic, Robust, Spherical Target-based Extrinsic Calibration in Field and Extraterrestrial Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MEDNC3LE

@misc{pith2026250717130,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MARSCalib: Multi-robot, Automatic, Robust, Spherical Target-based Extrinsic Calibration in Field and Extraterrestrial Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MEDNC3LE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17130}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a novel spherical target-based LiDAR-camera extrinsic calibration method designed for outdoor environments with multi-robot systems, considering both target and sensor corruption. The method extracts the 2D ellipse center from the image and the 3D sphere center from the pointcloud, which are then paired to compute the transformation matrix. Specifically, the image is first decomposed using the Segment Anything Model (SAM). Then, a novel algorithm extracts an ellipse from a potentially corrupted sphere, and the extracted center of ellipse is corrected for errors caused by the perspective projection model. For the LiDAR pointcloud, points on the sphere tend to be highly noisy due to the absence of flat regions. To accurately extract the sphere from these noisy measurements, we apply a hierarchical weighted sum to the accumulated pointcloud. Through experiments, we demonstrated that the sphere can be robustly detected even under both types of corruption, outperforming other targets. We evaluated our method using three different types of LiDARs (spinning, solid-state, and non-repetitive) with cameras positioned in three different locations. Furthermore, we validated the robustness of our method to target corruption by experimenting with spheres subjected to various types of degradation. These experiments were conducted in both a planetary test and a field environment. Our code is available at https://github.com/sparolab/MARSCalib.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17130 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of our extrinsic calibration approach for a multi-robot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed method. The camera pipeline (top) detects the ellipse and extracts its 2D center, while the LiDAR pipeline (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the process from Initial ellipse detection to Ellipse rectification. (A) shows edge images of a severely damaged or contaminated sphere (first row), a non-spherical object (second row), and an undamaged sphere (third row). (B) displays the output of Initial ellipse detection, which then proceeds to Ellipse evaluation. The sampled points (Pe, shown in red) in the first and second rows are concentrated… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: From the pointcloud, each line indicates a cluster. Red clusters, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Perspective distortion of a spherical target. Compensation can be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Test environments and setups. (a) A rover with a manipulator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of AprilTag, CopperTag, and a sphere target with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Experiments on damaged sphere targets. (a) Differently corrupted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Automatic lidar-camera calibration of extrinsic parameters using a spherical target,

    T. T ´oth, Z. Pusztai, and L. Hajder, “Automatic lidar-camera calibration of extrinsic parameters using a spherical target,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robot. and Automat. IEEE, 2020, pp. 8580–8586

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Sensor and sensor fusion technology in autonomous vehicles: A review,

    D. J. Yeong, G. Velasco-Hernandez, J. Barry, and J. Walsh, “Sensor and sensor fusion technology in autonomous vehicles: A review,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 6, p. 2140, 2021

    2021

  3. [2]

    A review of multi-sensor fusion slam systems based on 3d lidar,

    X. Xu, L. Zhang, J. Yang, C. Cao, W. Wang, Y . Ran, Z. Tan, and M. Luo, “A review of multi-sensor fusion slam systems based on 3d lidar,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 12, p. 2835, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Adaptive active fusion of camera and single-point lidar for depth estimation,

    D. M. Tran, N. Ahlgren, C. Depcik, and H. He, “Adaptive active fusion of camera and single-point lidar for depth estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 72, pp. 1–9, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Online calibration between cam- era and lidar with spatial-temporal photometric consistency,

    Y . Jing, C. Yuan, and X. Hong, “Online calibration between cam- era and lidar with spatial-temporal photometric consistency,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    A multi-robot exploration plan- ner for space applications,

    V . S. Varadharajan and G. Beltrame, “A multi-robot exploration plan- ner for space applications,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [6]

    Skid-slam: Robust, lightweight, and distributed multi-robot lidar slam in resource-constrained field environments,

    H. Kim, J. Choi, J. Kim, G. Yang, D. Cho, H. Lim, and Y . Cho, “Skid-slam: Robust, lightweight, and distributed multi-robot lidar slam in resource-constrained field environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.08230, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [7]

    Enhancing radioactive environment exploration with bio-inspired swarm robotics: A comparative analysis of l ´evy flight and stigmergy methods,

    H. Ardiny and A. M. Beigzadeh, “Enhancing radioactive environment exploration with bio-inspired swarm robotics: A comparative analysis of l ´evy flight and stigmergy methods,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 181, p. 104794, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    A review on multirobot systems in agriculture,

    C. Ju, J. Kim, J. Seol, and H. I. Son, “A review on multirobot systems in agriculture,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 202, p. 107336, 2022

    2022

  2. [9]

    A novel, efficient and accurate method for lidar camera calibration,

    Z. Huang, X. Zhang, A. Garcia, and X. Huang, “A novel, efficient and accurate method for lidar camera calibration,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robot. and Automat. IEEE, 2024, pp. 14 513–14 519

    2024

  3. [10]

    Automatic camera and range sensor calibration using a single shot,

    A. Geiger, F. Moosmann, ¨O. Car, and B. Schuster, “Automatic camera and range sensor calibration using a single shot,” in 2012 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation . IEEE, 2012, pp. 3936–3943

    2012

  4. [11]

    Calibration between color camera and 3d lidar instruments with a polygonal planar board,

    Y . Park, S. Yun, C. S. Won, K. Cho, K. Um, and S. Sim, “Calibration between color camera and 3d lidar instruments with a polygonal planar board,” Sensors, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 5333–5353, 2014

    2014

  5. [12]

    Extrinsic calibration of lidar and camera with polygon,

    Q. Liao, Z. Chen, Y . Liu, Z. Wang, and M. Liu, “Extrinsic calibration of lidar and camera with polygon,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 200–205

    2018

  6. [13]

    L 2 v 2 t 2 calib: Automatic and unified extrinsic calibration toolbox for different 3d lidar, visual camera and thermal camera,

    J. Zhang, Y . Liu, M. Wen, Y . Yue, H. Zhang, and D. Wang, “L 2 v 2 t 2 calib: Automatic and unified extrinsic calibration toolbox for different 3d lidar, visual camera and thermal camera,” in 2023 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–7

    2023

  7. [14]

    Automatic extrinsic calibration method for lidar and camera sensor setups,

    J. Beltr ´an, C. Guindel, A. De La Escalera, and F. Garc ´ıa, “Automatic extrinsic calibration method for lidar and camera sensor setups,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 17 677–17 689, 2022

    2022

  8. [15]

    Reflectance intensity assisted automatic and accurate extrinsic calibration of 3d lidar and panoramic camera using a printed chessboard,

    W. Wang, K. Sakurada, and N. Kawaguchi, “Reflectance intensity assisted automatic and accurate extrinsic calibration of 3d lidar and panoramic camera using a printed chessboard,” Remote Sensing, vol. 9, no. 8, p. 851, 2017

    2017

  9. [16]

    Pixels and 3-d points alignment method for the fusion of camera and lidar data,

    S. Xie, D. Yang, K. Jiang, and Y . Zhong, “Pixels and 3-d points alignment method for the fusion of camera and lidar data,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 68, no. 10, pp. 3661–3676, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Automatic extrinsic parameter calibration for camera-lidar fusion using spherical target,

    G. Zhang, K. Wu, J. Lin, T. Wang, and Y . Liu, “Automatic extrinsic parameter calibration for camera-lidar fusion using spherical target,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Extrinsic calibration of 2d laser rangefinders based on a mobile sphere,

    S. Chen, J. Liu, T. Wu, W. Huang, K. Liu, D. Yin, X. Liang, J. Hyypp¨a, and R. Chen, “Extrinsic calibration of 2d laser rangefinders based on a mobile sphere,” Remote Sensing, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 1176, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Automatic calibration of multiple cameras and depth sensors with a spherical target,

    J. K ¨ummerle, T. K ¨uhner, and M. Lauer, “Automatic calibration of multiple cameras and depth sensors with a spherical target,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–8

    2018

  13. [21]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo et al. , “Segment anything,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 4015–4026

    2023

  14. [22]

    Pixel-level extrinsic self calibration of high resolution lidar and camera in targetless environments,

    C. Yuan, X. Liu, X. Hong, and F. Zhang, “Pixel-level extrinsic self calibration of high resolution lidar and camera in targetless environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7517–7524, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    General, single-shot, target-less, and automatic lidar-camera extrinsic calibration toolbox,

    K. Koide, S. Oishi, M. Yokozuka, and A. Banno, “General, single-shot, target-less, and automatic lidar-camera extrinsic calibration toolbox,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 11 301–11 307

    2023

  16. [24]

    Lidar and camera calibra- tion using motions estimated by sensor fusion odometry,

    R. Ishikawa, T. Oishi, and K. Ikeuchi, “Lidar and camera calibra- tion using motions estimated by sensor fusion odometry,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 7342–7349

    2018

  17. [25]

    Regnet: Multi- modal sensor registration using deep neural networks,

    N. Schneider, F. Piewak, C. Stiller, and U. Franke, “Regnet: Multi- modal sensor registration using deep neural networks,” in 2017 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1803–1810

    2017

  18. [26]

    Lccnet: Lidar and cam- era self-calibration using cost volume network,

    X. Lv, B. Wang, Z. Dou, D. Ye, and S. Wang, “Lccnet: Lidar and cam- era self-calibration using cost volume network,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2021, pp. 2894–2901

    2021

  19. [27]

    Artuga: A novel multi- modal fiducial marker for aerial robotics,

    R. M. Claro, D. B. Silva, and A. M. Pinto, “Artuga: A novel multi- modal fiducial marker for aerial robotics,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 163, p. 104398, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Artag fiducial marker system applied to vision based spacecraft docking,

    M. Fiala, “Artag fiducial marker system applied to vision based spacecraft docking,” in Proc. Intl. Conf. Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 2005 Workshop on Robot Vision for Space Applications , 2005, pp. 35–40

    2005

  21. [29]

    Detection of markers using deep learning for docking of autonomous underwater vehicle,

    M. Yahya and M. Arshad, “Detection of markers using deep learning for docking of autonomous underwater vehicle,” in 2017 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Automatic Control and Intelligent Systems (I2CACIS). IEEE, 2017, pp. 179–184

    2017

  22. [30]

    Coppertag: A real-time occlusion-resilient fiducial marker,

    X. Bian, W. Chen, X. Tian, and D. Ran, “Coppertag: A real-time occlusion-resilient fiducial marker,” in 2024 IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 7273– 7279

    2024

  23. [31]

    Automatic checkerboard detection for robust camera calibration,

    B. Chen, Y . Liu, and C. Xiong, “Automatic checkerboard detection for robust camera calibration,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–6

    2021

  24. [32]

    Let’s get dirty: Gan based data aug- mentation for camera lens soiling detection in autonomous driving,

    M. Uricar, G. Sistu, H. Rashed, A. V obecky, V . R. Kumar, P. Krizek, F. Burger, and S. Yogamani, “Let’s get dirty: Gan based data aug- mentation for camera lens soiling detection in autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of compu...

    2021

  25. [33]

    Perception and sensing for autonomous vehicles under adverse weather conditions: A survey,

    Y . Zhang, A. Carballo, H. Yang, and K. Takeda, “Perception and sensing for autonomous vehicles under adverse weather conditions: A survey,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 196, pp. 146–177, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    A computational approach to edge detection,

    J. Canny, “A computational approach to edge detection,” IEEE Trans- actions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , no. 6, pp. 679– 698, 1986

    1986

  27. [35]

    The levenberg-marquardt algorithm,

    A. Ranganathan, “The levenberg-marquardt algorithm,” Tutoral on LM algorithm, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 101–110, 2004

    2004

  28. [36]

    A minimal solution for image-based sphere estimation,

    T. T ´oth and L. Hajder, “A minimal solution for image-based sphere estimation,” Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robot. and Automat. , vol. 131, no. 6, pp. 1428–1447, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Method and means for recognizing complex patterns,

    P. V . Hough, “Method and means for recognizing complex patterns,” Dec. 18 1962, uS Patent 3,069,654

    1962

  30. [38]

    3d is here: Point cloud library (pcl),

    R. B. Rusu and S. Cousins, “3d is here: Point cloud library (pcl),” in 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation . IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–4

    2011

  31. [39]

    Lidar measurement bias estimation via return waveform modelling in a context of 3d mapping,

    J. Laconte, S.-P. Desch ˆenes, M. Labussi `ere, and F. Pomerleau, “Lidar measurement bias estimation via return waveform modelling in a context of 3d mapping,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 8100–8106

    2019

  32. [40]

    Automatic extrinsic calibration of a camera and a 3d lidar using line and plane correspondences,

    L. Zhou, Z. Li, and M. Kaess, “Automatic extrinsic calibration of a camera and a 3d lidar using line and plane correspondences,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 5562–5569

    2018

  33. [41]

    Apriltag: A robust and flexible visual fiducial system,

    E. Olson, “Apriltag: A robust and flexible visual fiducial system,” in 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation . IEEE, 2011, pp. 3400–3407

    2011

  34. [42]

    An effective camera-to-lidar spatiotemporal cali- bration based on a simple calibration target,

    L. Grammatikopoulos, A. Papanagnou, A. Venianakis, I. Kalisperakis, and C. Stentoumis, “An effective camera-to-lidar spatiotemporal cali- bration based on a simple calibration target,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 15, p. 5576, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Calibnet: Geo- metrically supervised extrinsic calibration using 3d spatial transformer networks,

    G. Iyer, R. K. Ram, J. K. Murthy, and K. M. Krishna, “Calibnet: Geo- metrically supervised extrinsic calibration using 3d spatial transformer networks,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1110–1117

    2018

Pith tools

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