Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

COSMO-Bench: A Benchmark for Collaborative SLAM Optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read COSMO-Bench provides 24 benchmark datasets for collaborative SLAM back-ends, built from real LiDAR data and realistic communication models.

desk verdict A transparent, useful C-SLAM benchmark suite whose only real weakness is that the temporal synchronization premise is sensible but unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16731 v2 pith:TB3P7U7Q submitted 2025-08-22 cs.RO

Daniel McGann , Easton R. Potokar , Michael Kaess This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords collaborativeSLAMmulti-robotbenchmarkposegraphoptimizationLiDARloopclosureoutlierclassificationcommunicationmodel
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

The paper introduces COSMO-Bench, a suite of 24 benchmark datasets for evaluating distributed collaborative simultaneous localization and mapping (C-SLAM) back-end algorithms. The goal is to fill the gap left by the lack of standard multi-robot benchmarks, which have long existed for single-robot SLAM. The datasets are derived from real-world LiDAR data by temporally synchronizing multiple single-robot trials into plausible multi-robot sequences, then running a baseline front-end and a communication model based on actual multi-robot Wi-Fi data. Each dataset includes reference solutions, empirical noise models, and reference outlier classifications, so back-end algorithms can be compared fairly and reproducibly.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is temporal synchronization: multiple single-robot trials collected in the same environment are shifted in time relative to an anchor trial, effectively simulating concurrent multi-robot operation. This is paired with a two-instance communication model (Wi-Fi and Pro-Radio) that samples connectivity based on inter-robot distance and models bandwidth sharing, deciding which inter-robot measurements occur. The baseline front-end pipeline, using LOAM odometry, keyframe sampling, ScanContext detection, and KISS-Matcher alignment, generates the actual measurements, and empirical noise models derived from reference solutions allow outlier classification via a chi-squared thre

What would settle it

Record a small team of robots driving concurrently through the same campus environments, run the same front-end pipeline, and compare inter-robot loop-closure rates, outlier fractions, and inter-robot distance distributions against COSMO-Bench's synchronized trials; a substantial mismatch would undermine the benchmark's representativeness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that a realistic distributed C-SLAM benchmark can be built entirely from existing single-robot LiDAR data by temporal synchronization, without needing new concurrent multi-robot collection. The resulting 24 datasets contain both intra-robot and inter-robot loop closures with realistic outlier rates, plus high-quality reference ground truth and reference outlier labels. The paper also converts the existing Nebula multi-robot datasets into the same format, making them directly usable with the new benchmark. The key claim is that these datasets meet the requirements of representative measurements, plentiful loop closures, long traversals, accurate referen

Load-bearing premise

Multiple single-robot trials recorded at different times, when shifted onto a common clock, produce inter-robot measurement patterns representative of a team actually driving together.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers can compare distributed C-SLAM back-end algorithms on common data with known reference solutions and outlier labels, enabling reproducible results.
  • The realistic outlier rates and inter-robot measurement distributions support robustness testing of back-end algorithms under non-ideal conditions.
  • The JSON Robot Log (JRL) format makes the datasets human-readable and platform-agnostic, lowering the barrier to adoption.
  • Providing both Wi-Fi and Pro-Radio communication models lets researchers test sensitivity to network bandwidth and range characteristics.
  • Converting the Nebula datasets into the same format allows direct comparison with existing real-world multi-robot data from underground deployments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The synchronization of single-robot trials likely underrepresents correlated multi-robot perception, such as multiple robots observing the same dynamic object from different viewpoints, because the trials are physically disconnected.
  • The communication model's connectivity relies only on distance, ignoring physical obstacles like walls and vegetation; real cluttered environments may yield fewer inter-robot loop closures than the benchmark suggests.
  • Sequences formed from same-environment trials may produce denser inter-robot loop-closure opportunities than a team exploring disjoint areas, so back-end performance measured here could overestimate performance in exploration-oriented missions.
  • The methodology could be cheaply extended by mixing other open-source single-robot LiDAR trials to generate more benchmark sequences, but validating against true concurrent multi-robot data would be needed to confirm representativeness.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces COSMO-Bench, a suite of 24 benchmark datasets for distributed collaborative SLAM (C-SLAM) back-end evaluation. The datasets are generated by temporally synchronizing multiple single-robot LiDAR trials from the Multi-Campus Dataset and CU-Multi, then passing the synchronized data through a baseline C-SLAM front-end (LOAM odometry, distance-based keyframing, ScanContext loop detection, and KISS-Matcher registration). Inter-robot measurements are produced under one of two communication models: a Wi-Fi model fit to real three-robot communication data and a scaled "Pro-Radio" variant. Each dataset includes a survey-grade reference solution, empirical noise models, temporal information, and reference outlier classifications. The authors also convert the Nebula multi-robot datasets into the same JRL format. The central claim is that COSMO-Bench provides a realistic, reproducible, standardized testbed for distributed C-SLAM back-ends.

Significance. If the data-generation methodology is accepted, COSMO-Bench is a significant community resource: it addresses a genuine lack of standard benchmarks for distributed C-SLAM back-ends, provides open access with a DOI, uses real LiDAR data and a documented front-end, and includes reference solutions and temporal information. The authors are commendably explicit about several limitations (Remarks 1, 5, 8), and the conversion of the Nebula datasets into a common format is a useful extra contribution. The main risk is that the central realism claim rests on an unvalidated synchronization procedure and a manually parameterized communication model; both directly shape the inter-robot measurement structure that the benchmark is designed to provide.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV-A] The temporal synchronization procedure is the load-bearing step of the benchmark, but it is not validated. The method samples relative start offsets Δi ~ N(0s, 40s) and 'effectively pretend[s]' that independent trials were collected simultaneously by a multi-robot team. No evidence is provided that the resulting inter-robot measurement distribution, spatial topology, or temporal overlap matches a concurrently operating team. Remark 1 even allows a robot whose local data is finished to remain active and stationary and continue generating inter-robot measurements; this can create loop closures anchored at a fixed pose, a pattern one would not expect in a typical moving team. The paper itself criticizes partitioned single-robot benchmarks for not representing 'topological structure, viewpoint variance, or measurement distribution' of a real multi-robot team; the synchronization approach may
  2. [Sec. IV-C.3] The communication model's connectivity function ϕ(d) is 'manually fitted' to data from a single three-robot experiment and then scaled heuristically for Pro-Radio. The model's parameters (Pmax, α, β, rmax, dinit, dintf, B) are free parameters that directly control which inter-robot loop closures appear in all 24 datasets. The authors acknowledge that physical interference is not explicitly modeled (Remark 5), but the more basic concern is that a single manual fit from one environment may not generalize to the campus environments used in COSMO-Bench. Please report the fit residuals, parameter uncertainty, and ideally a sensitivity analysis showing how benchmark statistics (e.g., IRLC count, outlier rate, topology) vary with these parameters. This would let users assess how strongly conclusions drawn from the benchmark depend on the communication model choice.
  3. [Sec. IV-D.4] The reference outlier classifications are defined using the same empirical noise models that are computed from thresholded 'good' measurements in Sec. IV-D.3. A measurement is labeled an outlier if its residual exceeds the 95% χ² critical value of the fitted Gaussian noise model. This is self-referential: the noise model is estimated only from measurements already judged to be inliers by a user-supplied threshold, so the 5% outlier rate is partly baked into the Gaussian assumption rather than discovered from the data. The labels may not reflect true data association failures. Please report the sensitivity of the outlier labels to the inlier thresholds (e.g., 0.5 m, 0.05 rad) and, if possible, validate a subset against manual inspection or known failure cases.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II] The sentence 'with our benchmarks supporting observing the effects from different distributed C-SLAM back-ends' is awkward and could be rephrased for clarity.
  2. [Fig. 3] The throughput plot uses channel labels C:1-2, C:1-3, C:2-3, but the legend is not self-contained; please include the channel labels directly in the plot or in the caption for readability.
  3. [Sec. IV-A] Since CU-Multi was 'designed intentionally for multi-robot applications,' the authors should briefly clarify whether its trials are truly independent or whether some were collected simultaneously, and why simultaneous trials were not used directly if available.
  4. [Sec. IV-C.4] The xz compression factor distribution is estimated from 20 scans from a single trial. This small sample size should be noted in the text, as the resulting μxz and σxz are used for all datasets.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: COSMO-Bench is built from external real-world LiDAR trials, independent survey-grade reference solutions, and a communication model fitted to external data.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained with respect to external inputs. Measurements are produced by a fixed baseline front-end (LOAM, ScanContext, KISS-Matcher) applied to real-world LiDAR trials from MCD and CU-Multi; reference solutions are extracted from independent survey-grade/RTK-based sources (Sec. IV-D.2); and the inter-robot communication model is fit to the external Lajoie et al. data (Sec. IV-C). No input is defined in terms of the benchmark's target outputs, and no quantity is fitted to reproduce a desired benchmark result. The temporal synchronization of single-robot trials (Sec. IV-A) is an acknowledged modeling assumption with stated side-effects (Remark 1), and the communication model's limitations are conceded (Remark 5); these are validity caveats, not circular reductions. The empirical noise models and chi-squared outlier classification (Sec. IV-D.3-IV-D.4) are self-consistent — the same Q is used for covariances and outlier thresholds — but this is a standard bootstrap for labeling, not a circular derivation of the datasets' central value. Self-citations ([16], [21], [34]) are implementation/tool references and prior algorithm work, not load-bearing evidence for the benchmark's claims. Even the paper's explicit warning about the urban Nebula reference (Remark 8) demonstrates that it is not concealing input-dependence.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central value of the benchmark depends on several fitted or assumed quantities: communication model parameters, empirical noise models from single trials, and the synchronization of single-robot trials. None of these are derived from first principles, but most are grounded in external data or acknowledged limitations.

free parameters (6)
  • Wi-Fi connectivity model parameters (Pmax, alpha, beta, rmax, d_init, d_intf, B) = 0.7, 1.1, 0.1, 70 m, 30 m, 40 m, 2000 KB/s
    Manually fitted to connectivity data from Lajoie et al. [38]; the closed-form phi(d) is described as derived from manual curve fitting.
  • Pro-Radio connectivity model parameters = 0.8, 1.8, 0.3, 200 m, 150 m, 150 m, 1000 KB/s
    Scaled from Wi-Fi model hyperparameters to match expected behavior of professional radio hardware; not fit to external data.
  • Compression factor distribution (mu_xz, sigma_xz) = 0.653, 0.04
    Empirically computed from a random sample of 20 LiDAR scans from KTH Day 6 trial (Sec. IV-C.4).
  • Prior pose noise std devs = sigma_r=1e-4 rad, sigma_t=1e-3 m
    Manually defined in Sec. IV-D.1.
  • Empirical noise models Q per platform = covariance matrix per platform (single trial)
    Computed from measurements of a single trial per environment (Remark 7); used to weight residuals and classify outliers.
  • Keyframe spacing d_kf = 2 m
    Chosen as standard keyframe threshold in Sec. IV-B.2.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LiDAR scans from trials at different times are mutually consistent due to invariance to visual differences
    Stated in Sec. IV-A as the basis for temporally synchronizing single-robot trials into multi-robot sequences.
  • ad hoc to paper Synchronized single-robot trials with random start offsets Delta_i ~ N(0, 40s) produce representative multi-robot team data
    The synchronization strategy in Sec. IV-A is central to generating all datasets; no validation against true multi-robot deployments is provided.
  • domain assumption Inter-robot connectivity is a function of distance only; physical interference is not modeled
    Assumed in Sec. IV-C.2; the authors acknowledge in Remark 5 that this limits accuracy.
  • domain assumption Reference solutions from MCD and CU-Multi are accurate enough to serve as ground truth
    Relied on in Sec. IV-D.2; the authors do note a warning for the optional Nebula urban dataset (Remark 8).
  • standard math Measurement residuals are Gaussian, allowing chi-squared outlier classification
    Used in Sec. IV-D.4 to define outlier thresholds from empirical covariance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of COSMO-Bench: A Benchmark for Collaborative SLAM Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TB3P7U7Q

@misc{pith2026250816731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: COSMO-Bench: A Benchmark for Collaborative SLAM Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TB3P7U7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16731}
}
read the original abstract

Recent years have seen a focus on research into distributed optimization algorithms for multi-robot Collaborative Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (C-SLAM). Research in this domain, however, is made difficult by a lack of standard benchmark datasets. Such datasets have been used to great effect in the field of single-robot SLAM, and researchers focused on multi-robot problems would benefit greatly from dedicated benchmark datasets. To address this gap, we design and release the Collaborative Open-Source Multi-robot Optimization Benchmark (COSMO-Bench) -- a suite of 24 datasets derived from a baseline C-SLAM front-end and real-world LiDAR data. Data DOI: https://doi.org/10.1184/R1/29652158

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16731 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The COSMO-Bench datasets. For each sequence we plot the reference solution and enumerate metadata including – The sequence name, source data, component trials, total duration (MM:SS), total distance traveled, and the number (#) of measurements plus outlier rate (%) for both intra-robot (LC) and inter-robot (IRLC) loop-closures (#, %). For each sequence we generate a dataset using both the Wi-Fi and Pro-Radio communi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example results from each step in our distributed C-SLAM front-end on the kth r3 00 dataset. 2a depicts the odometry estimated by LOAM in dark colors, the reference trajectories in lighter colors, and the selected keyframes as dots along those trajectories, with each color representing one of the 3 robots. 2b depicts all potential loop-closures detected by ScanContext, with detections colored based on the robot that… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Summary of Wi-Fi communication data recorded by Lajoie et al. [38], including per-channel throughput (left) and probability of inter-robot connectivity (right) against inter-robot distance. In the connectivity plots, we additionally plot 99% confidence intervals, though these are overly optimistic as the data is correlated. From these figures we can draw some conclusions about the communication network. Firstly, we … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model hyperparameters (left) and connectivity functions ϕ(d) (right) for the Wi-Fi and Pro-Radio communication models. 4) Interactions with Front-End: To utilize these concrete models to simulate inter-robot communication for the pur￾pose of supporting the front-end de…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The Nebula datasets. For each dataset, we plot the reference solution and enumerate metadata including – The dataset name, involved robots, total duration (MM:SS), total distance traveled, and the number (#) of measurements plus outlier rate (%) for both intra-robot (L…

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. Learning Adaptive Solvers for Distributed Factor Graph Optimization on Matrix Lie Groups

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A learned feedback policy replaces manual parameter tuning in distributed Riemannian optimization over matrix Lie groups, achieving lower objective values on multi-robot mapping benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Towards collabo- rative simultaneous localization and mapping: a survey of the current research landscape,

    P. Lajoie, B. Ramtoula, F. Wu, and G. Beltrame, “Towards collabo- rative simultaneous localization and mapping: a survey of the current research landscape,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 971– 1000, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    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. Leonard, “Past, present, and future of simultaneous localization and mapping: Toward the robust-perception age,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics (TRO) , vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1309–1332, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Fast iterative alignment of pose graphs with poor initial estimates,

    E. Olson, J. Leonard, and S. Teller, “Fast iterative alignment of pose graphs with poor initial estimates,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , (Orlando, USA), pp. 2262–2269, 2006

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    From angular manifolds to the integer lattice: Guaranteed orientation estimation with application to pose graph optimization,

    L. Carlone and A. Censi, “From angular manifolds to the integer lattice: Guaranteed orientation estimation with application to pose graph optimization,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics (TRO) , vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 475–492, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Initialization techniques for 3D SLAM: A survey on rotation estimation and its use in pose graph optimization,

    L. Carlone, R. Tron, K. Daniilidis, and F. Dellaert, “Initialization techniques for 3D SLAM: A survey on rotation estimation and its use in pose graph optimization,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , (Seattle, USA), pp. 4597–4604, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    A fast and accurate approximation for planar pose graph optimization,

    L. Carlone, R. Aragues, J. Castellanos, and B. Bona, “A fast and accurate approximation for planar pose graph optimization,” Intl. J. of Robotics Research (IJRR) , vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 965–987, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    SE-Sync: A certifiably correct algorithm for synchronization over the special euclidean group,

    D. Rosen, L. Carlone, A. Bandeira, and J. Leonard, “SE-Sync: A certifiably correct algorithm for synchronization over the special euclidean group,” Intl. J. of Robotics Research (IJRR), vol. 38, no. 2-3, pp. 95–125, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    iMCB-PGO: Incremental minimum cycle basis construction and application to online pose graph optimization,

    K. Chen, F. Bai, S. Huang, and Y . Sun, “iMCB-PGO: Incremental minimum cycle basis construction and application to online pose graph optimization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) , vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 10185–10192, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    SuperNoV A: Algorithm-hardware co-design for resource-aware slam,

    S. Kim, R. Hsiao, B. Nikolic, J. Demmel, and Y . Shao, “SuperNoV A: Algorithm-hardware co-design for resource-aware slam,” in Proc. ACM Intl. Conf. on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) , pp. 1035–1051, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Exactly sparse memory efficient SLAM using the multi-block alternating direction method of multipliers,

    S. Choudhary, L. Carlone, H. Christensen, and F. Dellaert, “Exactly sparse memory efficient SLAM using the multi-block alternating direction method of multipliers,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , (Hamburg, DE), pp. 1349– 1356, Oct. 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    GeoD: Consensus-based geodesic distributed pose graph optimization,

    E. Cristofalo, E. Montijano, and M. Schwager, “GeoD: Consensus-based geodesic distributed pose graph optimization,” arXiv:2010.00156 [cs.RO], arXiv preprint, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Distributed certifiably correct pose-graph optimization,

    Y . Tian, K. Khosoussi, D. Rosen, and J. How, “Distributed certifiably correct pose-graph optimization,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics (TRO) , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 2137–2156, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Asynchronous and parallel distributed pose graph optimization,

    Y . Tian, A. Koppel, A. Bedi, and J. How, “Asynchronous and parallel distributed pose graph optimization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L), vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 5819–5826, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Localized and incremental probabilistic inference for large-scale networked dynamical systems,

    K. Matsuka and S. Chung, “Localized and incremental probabilistic inference for large-scale networked dynamical systems,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics (TRO) , vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 3516–3535, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Majorization minimization methods for distributed pose graph optimization,

    T. Fan and T. Murphey, “Majorization minimization methods for distributed pose graph optimization,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics (TRO), vol. 40, pp. 22–42, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Asynchronous distributed smoothing and mapping via on-manifold consensus ADMM,

    D. McGann, K. Lassak, and M. Kaess, “Asynchronous distributed smoothing and mapping via on-manifold consensus ADMM,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), (Yokohama, JP), pp. 4577–4583, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Lidar odometry survey: recent advancements and remaining challenges,

    D. Lee, M. Jung, W. Yang, and A. Kim, “Lidar odometry survey: recent advancements and remaining challenges,” Intelligent Service Robotics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 95–118, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    DDF-SAM 2.0: Consistent distributed smoothing and mapping,

    A. Cunningham, V . Indelman, and F. Dellaert, “DDF-SAM 2.0: Consistent distributed smoothing and mapping,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), (Karlsruhe, DE), pp. 5220– 5227, May 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Distributed mapping with privacy and communication constraints: Lightweight algorithms and object-based models,

    S. Choudhary, L. Carlone, C. Nieto, J. Rogers, H. Christensen, and F. Dellaert, “Distributed mapping with privacy and communication constraints: Lightweight algorithms and object-based models,” Intl. J. of Robotics Research (IJRR) , vol. 36, no. 12, pp. 1286–1311, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    A robot web for distributed many-device localization,

    R. Murai, J. Ortiz, S. Saeedi, P. Kelly, and A. J. Davison, “A robot web for distributed many-device localization,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics (TRO), vol. 40, pp. 121–138, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    iMESA: Incremental distributed optimiza- tion for collaborative simultaneous localization and mapping,

    D. McGann and M. Kaess, “iMESA: Incremental distributed optimiza- tion for collaborative simultaneous localization and mapping,” in Proc. Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , (Delft, NL), 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Hyperion–a fast, versatile symbolic gaussian belief propagation framework for continuous-time SLAM,

    D. Hug, I. Alzugaray, and M. Chli, “Hyperion–a fast, versatile symbolic gaussian belief propagation framework for continuous-time SLAM,” in Proc. Eur. Conf. on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pp. 215– 231, Springer, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    G2o: A general framework for graph optimization,

    R. K ¨ummerle, G. Grisetti, H. Strasdat, K. Konolige, and W. Burgard, “G2o: A general framework for graph optimization,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , (Shanghai, CN), pp. 3607–3613, May 2011

    2011

  16. [24]

    Nonlinear constraint network optimization for efficient map learning,

    G. Grisetti, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “Nonlinear constraint network optimization for efficient map learning,” IEEE Tran. on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 428–439, 2009

    2009

  17. [25]

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

    Y . Zhu, Y . Kong, Y . Jie, S. Xu, and H. Cheng, “GRACO: A multimodal dataset for ground and aerial cooperative localization and mapping,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 966– 973, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

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

    Y . Tian, Y . Chang, L. Quang, A. Schang, C. Nieto-Granda, J. How, and L. Carlone, “Resilient and distributed multi-robot visual SLAM: Datasets, experiments, and lessons learned,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 11027–11034, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    S3E: A multi-robot multimodal dataset for collaborative SLAM,

    D. Feng, Y . Qi, S. Zhong, Z. Chen, Q. Chen, H. Chen, J. Wu, and J. Ma, “S3E: A multi-robot multimodal dataset for collaborative SLAM,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L), vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 11401–11408, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    DiTer++: Diverse terrain and multi-modal dataset for multi-robot SLAM in multi-session environments,

    J. Kim, H. Kim, S. Jeong, Y . Shin, and Y . Cho, “DiTer++: Diverse terrain and multi-modal dataset for multi-robot SLAM in multi-session environments,” arXiv:2412.05839 [cs.RO], arXiv preprint, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    CoPeD – advancing multi-robot collaborative perception: A comprehensive dataset in real-world environments,

    Y . Zhou, L. Quang, C. Nieto-Granda, and G. Loianno, “CoPeD – advancing multi-robot collaborative perception: A comprehensive dataset in real-world environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L), vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 6416–6423, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    CU-Multi: A dataset for multi-robot data association,

    D. Albin, M. Mena, A. Thomas, H. Biggie, X. Sun, D. Woods, S. McGuire, and C. Heckman, “CU-Multi: A dataset for multi-robot data association,” arXiv:2505.17576 [cs.RO], arXiv preprint, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    The UTIAS multi-robot cooperative localization and mapping dataset,

    K. Y . Leung, Y . Halpern, T. D. Barfoot, and H. H. Liu, “The UTIAS multi-robot cooperative localization and mapping dataset,” Intl. J. of Robotics Research (IJRR) , vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 969–974, 2011

    2011

  24. [32]

    LAMP 2.0: A robust multi-robot SLAM system for operation in challenging large-scale underground environments,

    Y . Chang, K. Ebadi, C. Denniston, M. Ginting, A. Rosinol, A. Reinke, M. Palieri, J. Shi, A. Chatterjee, B. Morrell, A. Agha-mohammadi, and L. Carlone, “LAMP 2.0: A robust multi-robot SLAM system for operation in challenging large-scale underground environments,” IEEE Robotics...

    2022

  25. [33]

    MCD: Diverse large-scale multi-campus dataset for robot perception,

    T. Nguyen, S. Yuan, T. Nguyen, P. Yin, H. Cao, L. Xie, M. Wozniak, P. Jensfelt, M. Thiel, J. Ziegenbein, and N. Blunder, “MCD: Diverse large-scale multi-campus dataset for robot perception,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , (Seattle, US),...

    2024

  26. [34]

    A comprehensive evaluation of LiDAR odometry techniques,

    E. Potokar and M. Kaess, “A comprehensive evaluation of LiDAR odometry techniques,” arXiv:2507.16000 [cs.RO], arXiv preprint, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    LOAM: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time.,

    J. Zhang and S. Singh, “LOAM: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time.,” in Proc. Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , Berkeley, CA, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

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

    G. Kim and A. Kim, “Scan context: Egocentric spatial descriptor for place recognition within 3d point cloud map,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Intl. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , (Brisbane, AU), pp. 4802–4809, Oct. 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    KISS-Matcher: Fast and robust point cloud registration revisited,

    H. Lim, D. Kim, G. Shin, J. Shi, I. Vizzo, H. Myung, J. Park, and L. Carlone, “KISS-Matcher: Fast and robust point cloud registration revisited,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), (Atlanta, US), May 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Multi-robot decentralized collabo- rative SLAM in planetary analogue environments: Dataset, challenges, and lessons learned,

    P. Lajoie, K. Soma, H. Bong, A. Lemieux-Bourque, R. Zhang, V . Varadharajan, and G. Beltrame, “Multi-robot decentralized collabo- rative SLAM in planetary analogue environments: Dataset, challenges, and lessons learned,” IEEE Trans. on Field Robotics (TFR) , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    A micro lie theory for state estimation in robotics,

    J. Sol `a, J. Deray, and D. Atchuthan, “A micro lie theory for state estimation in robotics,” arXiv:1812.01537 [cs.RO], arXiv preprint, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    An accurate closed-form estimate of ICP’s covariance,

    A. Censi, “An accurate closed-form estimate of ICP’s covariance,” in Proc. IEEE Intl. Conf. on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , (Roma, IT), pp. 3167–3172, Apr. 2007

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.