Exploration Without Global Consistency Using Local Volume Consolidation

Andreas Ziegler; Davide Scaramuzza; Titus Cieslewski

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Exploration Without Global Consistency Using Local Volume Consolidation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A robot can fully explore an unknown space without ever building a globally consistent map.

desk verdict A genuinely useful local-polygon exploration representation with a clean central claim, but the load-bearing place-recognition assumption is only tested with an oracle, and the consolidation radius R is never specified. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01423 v1 pith:5ZLEGK6T submitted 2019-09-03 cs.RO

Titus Cieslewski , Andreas Ziegler , Davide Scaramuzza This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.RO

keywords autonomousexplorationmaprepresentationlocalpolygonsposegraphstateestimationdriftfrontier-basedplanningplacerecognition

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a robot exploring an unknown environment does not need a globally consistent map. It proposes a map made of local polygons, each representing the field of view at one pose, connected by relative pose estimates in a pose graph that is never globally optimized. Overlaps between polygons are resolved only among nearby poses within a consolidation radius. The authors show in simulation and a real-world experiment that this local representation reaches full coverage of free space even with large odometry drift, while grid-based maps with and without loop closure fail. The trade-off is longer exploration time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the local volume: a polygon built from one depth measurement, with edges labeled obstacle, frontier, or free. Frontier consolidation is the operation that re-labels a frontier edge as free when it lies inside another local volume; it is performed only within a consolidation scope obtained by Dijkstra search over the pose graph up to a radius $R$. This radius is the distance over which relative pose estimates are trusted to have small drift. The pose graph itself is never globally optimized, and navigation between distant map vertices is done by teach-and-repeat style path following, which tolerates a globally inconsistent graph.

What would settle it

Run the same exploration in a feature-poor or perceptually aliased environment where visual place recognition inside the consolidation radius is unreliable, and measure final coverage; if coverage falls below full, the method fails without the assumed place-recognition reliability. Alternatively, in simulation, set the consolidation radius $R$ smaller than the distance over which drift accumulates and observe premature termination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that exploration completion, knowing when all reachable free space has been covered, can be decided from local consistency alone. By labeling each local polygon's boundary as obstacle, frontier, or free, and re-labeling frontiers as free only when another polygon within a local consolidation scope covers them, the representation keeps the boundary between known and unknown space correct without needing a single consistent global frame. In simulation the approach always reaches full coverage in open, maze, and indoor-like environments at the largest tested drift, whereas grid-based representations with and without loop closure fall short, especially in the maze. A real-world run with wheel odometry and visual place recognition confirms the behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that whenever the robot returns to within a fixed radius of a previously visited place, place recognition and relative pose estimation return a correct transform; if that fails, frontiers are not consolidated and exploration may stop early.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Global map optimization becomes unnecessary for exploration, removing a costly step that is especially attractive for multi-robot teams.
Existing frontier-based exploration algorithms can be adapted to this representation by replacing the global grid with local polygons and pose-graph navigation.
At the cost of roughly 1.5 to 3 times longer travel until the robot believes coverage is complete, all free space is covered under drift levels where grid-based maps terminate early.
The approach is argued to extend to three dimensions, with volume intersections replacing edge intersections and meshes or local grids replacing polygons.

Reading between the lines

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

If global consistency truly is unnecessary, exploration can be decentralized: each robot maintains its own local volumes and shares only place-recognition edges, avoiding cross-robot map alignment.
The consolidation radius $R$ is a hidden parameter; a natural extension is to choose it adaptively from the estimated drift rate, which the paper does not specify.
The failure of loop-closure grid maps in the maze suggests the limitation is not computational cost but representational: even perfect loop closures cannot fix a map built in a globally wrong frame.
A testable extension is to actively plan robot motion to increase place-recognition recall within $R$, since the method's success depends directly on that recall.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper makes a real claim—frontier-based exploration can complete coverage using local polygon volumes connected by relative pose edges, with no global consistency—and supports it well enough to take seriously. The debt to Howard et al.'s manifold polygons is clear and acknowledged; the new piece is labeling polygon edges as obstacle/frontier/free and consolidating overlaps only within a local pose-graph neighborhood. That is a sound way to avoid costly global optimization, and the completion criterion (no frontiers left) is coherent.

The central logic holds up. If place recognition provides correct relative poses within a consolidation scope, then unresolved frontiers are exactly the ones not yet observed from a nearby pose, and coverage completion follows. The simulation does show the grid baselines failing under large drift while the proposed representation reaches full coverage in all three environments. The real-world demonstration is genuine, with NetVLAD/ORB/P3P relative pose estimation, though teach-and-repeat is replaced by motion tracking. The citation pattern is fair: Howard et al. are credited, Atlas and TSDF manifolds are discussed, and the self-citation to [6] is for the actual planner used as a baseline, not an issue.

Soft spots, in proportion. First, the simulation uses an oracle place recognition model: whenever true pose is within dpr, the correct previous pose and exact relative transform are provided. Section 6 says recall is varied, but what is varied is dpr, not a recall probability. So false negatives—missed loop closures leaving frontier edges unconsolidated—are never tested. False positives, which the paper acknowledges as harder to deal with, are also absent. Given the method's own statement that it relies on good place recognition performance, this is a real gap, not a nitpick. Second, the consolidation radius R is load-bearing and never given a numerical value or sensitivity analysis. Without knowing R, it is hard to tell how much of the success depends on a favorable choice. Third, Figure 6 reports ten samples per setting without error bars; the coverage results look robust across the plotted points, but the dexp/dmax comparisons are harder to judge without them.

I don't think these problems are fatal. The paper would benefit from a recall-sweep experiment and a specification or sensitivity analysis of R, and should be revised before archival publication. But the core idea is sound, the experiments are mostly on point, and the paper is clearly written.

Who is this for? Robotics researchers working on exploration, submap representations, and long-horizon or multi-robot autonomy. It deserves a serious referee; the conditional verdict is the right call.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 2D map representation for exploration that avoids global map consistency. Instead of a global grid, it stores local polygons, each representing the field of view from a single pose, connected in a pose graph with relative pose estimates. Frontier edges of these polygons are re-labeled as free only when they fall inside another polygon within a local consolidation scope, defined by the radius R computed along the pose graph. The authors adapt a frontier-based exploration planner from prior work to this representation, simulate it in three environments under varying odometry noise and place-recognition distance, compare it to grid-based baselines with and without loop closure, and validate it in a real-world experiment. The central claim is that the proposed representation allows full coverage of free space even under large state-estimate drift, whereas grid-based representations fail, at the cost of longer exploration time.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper makes a valuable conceptual contribution: global map consistency is not necessary for exploration completion. This is a clean and falsifiable claim, supported by a problem statement that ties completion to the absence of frontiers (Section 3) and by a representation that explicitly tracks frontier labels (Section 4). The comparison is fair in that the same frontier-based planner [6] is used for both the proposed method and the baselines, so no exploration-policy parameter is retrofitted to manufacture the headline result. The real-world experiment, although limited, demonstrates that the core idea works outside simulation. However, the strength of the experimental evidence is limited by the oracle place-recognition model and the unspecified consolidation radius R, which are load-bearing for the claimed robustness.

major comments (3)

[Section 6.1, 6.4] The simulation does not actually vary place-recognition recall, despite the abstract and Section 6 stating that place recognition is evaluated under 'varying recall.' In Section 6.1, whenever the true pose falls within distance d_pr of a previous pose, the correct identifier and exact relative transform are provided; only d_pr is varied in Section 6.4, and there is no stochastic false-negative or false-positive model. Consequently, the failure modes that Section 4.3 acknowledges qualitatively are never examined: a missed loop closure would leave frontier edges unconsolidated and could prevent the algorithm from ever declaring completion, while a false positive could relabel true frontiers as free and cause premature termination. Since the headline claim is robustness to large drift 'given reliable place recognition,' the absence of any test of the reliability assumption is a major gap. Please add experiments with explicit recall and precision parameters, or at least a sensitivity analysis in which a fraction of loop closures is dropped or spurious loop closures are injected.
[Section 4.3, Section 6] The consolidation radius R is never given a numerical value and no sensitivity analysis is provided. R is load-bearing because it determines which local polygons are compared for frontier consolidation; Section 4.3 defines R only as the distance over which pose estimation 'has small drift,' but this distance is never quantified or linked to the noise parameters used in the simulations. Without knowing R or testing its effect, the reported full coverage could be an artifact of a favorable R choice rather than a property of the representation. Please report the R values used in each experiment and include a sweep over R (or, equivalently, over the ratio R/d_FOV) to show how coverage and exploration time depend on this parameter.
[Section 8] The real-world validation omits a component that is central to the proposed system. The deliberate state of the exploration algorithm navigates to remote frontier-holding vertices using teach-and-repeat [8], but Section 8 states that teach-and-repeat was not implemented and the motion tracking system was used instead to let the robot backtrack its trajectory. Since teach-and-repeat is the mechanism by which the robot moves between local volumes without global consistency, using ground-truth motion tracking bypasses the very drift-robustness aspect that the method is designed to provide. The authors should either implement a drift-prone teach-and-repeat system or clearly state that the real-world experiment validates the map representation and consolidation only under externally provided navigation, not the full exploration system.

minor comments (5)

[Figure 4 caption] The caption contains a grammatical error: 'They frontiers above the red volumes' should be 'The frontiers above the red volumes.'
[Section 4.1] The depth sensor model is described as 'equally distributed within the FOV,' but no angular resolution or number of rays is given. Please specify the number of depth samples per scan and the ray spacing, since the polygon construction and the depth-edge threshold δ depend on it.
[Section 6.1, Equations (3)-(4)] The notation for the pose increment η_{T_{R_{k-1},R_k}} is confusing: it appears to be a transform appended to the true pose update, but it is written as a subscript on the relative transform. Please define the symbol explicitly and make clear whether it is a left or right multiplication.
[Section 6.4, Figure 8] Figure 8's caption uses β for the loop-closure distance, but the text in Section 6.4 defines the parameter as d_pr. Please unify the notation and define β in the text.
[Section 8] The sentence about restricting the vertical field of view of the panoramic images is vague; please specify the exact vertical extent used and why that prevents place recognition from structure visible everywhere in the room.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coverage claim is evaluated against ground-truth coverage, and the reliance on place recognition is an explicit external assumption rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. First, the central claim of full coverage is verified against a ground-truth coverage ratio (Section 6.3: "the coverage ratio is calculated by dividing the count of cells in known free space by the count of cells in free space"), so the result is not defined into existence by the representation's own frontier labels. Second, frontier consolidation (Section 4.3) relabels polygon edges, but its effect on true coverage is measured externally, and the completion criterion is not equated with the representation's internal state alone. Third, the exploration planner from the authors' prior work [6] is applied identically to the proposed representation and to the grid-based baselines, so it does not smuggle in the headline result. Fourth, the simulated place-recognition oracle (Section 6.1) and the consolidation scope R are explicit assumptions or free parameters; the paper states "given reliable place recognition" in Section 1.1 and acknowledges in Section 4.3 that the method "relies on good place recognition performance." These are external capabilities, not parameters fitted to the coverage target. No equation reduces to its own inputs, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation chain. The paper is self-contained relative to its stated assumptions, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The representation introduces no new physical entities. The key unpaid assumptions are the availability of reliable place recognition and relative pose estimation, and the existence of a consolidation radius R over which pose estimates have small drift. These are stated in the paper but not independently verified or parameterized.

free parameters (3)

Consolidation radius R
Defines the Dijkstra neighborhood in the pose graph for frontier consolidation (Section 4.3). No value or tuning method is given; this is load-bearing because too small R leaves false frontiers and too large R risks wrong consolidation under drift.
Depth edge threshold delta
Used to classify adjacent depth samples as obstacle vs frontier edges (Section 4.1). The value is not reported, which affects map semantics.
Place recognition radius d_pr = 0.5 to 2.0 times sensor range
Simulated place recognition is triggered when the current pose is within d_pr of a previous pose (Section 6.1). It is an experimental variable, not fitted, but it directly controls how much frontier consolidation happens.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Reliable place recognition and relative pose estimation are available when the robot revisits a place within the consolidation radius R.
The coverage guarantee is conditional on this; stated in Section 4.3 and the contributions ('given reliable place recognition').
domain assumption The environment is a bounded 2D region whose free space is connected.
Section 3 defines V as bounded region in R^2 and omits trivial exceptions like disconnected free space from the completion criterion.
domain assumption Pose estimates integrated along the shortest path in the pose graph have small drift within radius R.
Section 4.3 defines R as the distance over which pose estimation has small drift; this is assumed, not measured.
domain assumption Depth samples can be converted into polygons with edges classified as obstacle, frontier, or free using the threshold delta.
Section 4.1 describes the heuristic edge classification; the threshold delta is not reported.
standard math Absence of frontiers implies full coverage of free space.
Section 3 proves this by contradiction, with trivial exceptions; this is a standard frontier-based exploration criterion.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploration Without Global Consistency Using Local Volume Consolidation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ZLEGK6T

@misc{pith2026190901423,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploration Without Global Consistency Using Local Volume Consolidation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ZLEGK6T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01423}
}

read the original abstract

In exploration, the goal is to build a map of an unknown environment. Most state-of-the-art approaches use map representations that require drift-free state estimates to function properly. Real-world state estimators, however, exhibit drift. In this paper, we present a 2D map representation for exploration that is robust to drift. Rather than a global map, it uses local metric volumes connected by relative pose estimates. This pose-graph does not need to be globally consistent. Overlaps between the volumes are resolved locally, rather than on the faulty estimate of space. We demonstrate our representation with a frontier-based exploration approach, evaluate it under different conditions and compare it with a commonly-used grid-based representation. We show that, at the cost of longer exploration time, using the proposed representation allows full coverage of space even for very large drift in the state estimate, contrary to the grid-based representation. The system is validated in a real world experiment and we discuss its extension to 3D.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01423 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Our representation, visualized for a simulation without drift in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** A local volume obtained from one measurement. The red lines starting at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Frontier consolidation prompted by place recognition. See Fig. 2 for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The simulated environments: “Open”, “Maze” and “Forest house”. All [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Expected distance until discovery dexp and distance until termination dmax versus final coverage for the evaluated approaches, with different noise intensity, on different maps. For fair comparison, dexp and dmax are omitted for samples where the final coverage is belo…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: True coverage as a function of distance travelled for individual runs at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: dexp and dmax when using our representation in the open and maze environments with noise multiplier α = 0.5, for different relative loop closure distances β. Place recognition is provided by the simulator for any two poses when the distance between them is below β ti…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: (a) Real environment in which we have validated our approach. (b) Close [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: (a) Ground truth and representation once exploration is complete. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[6]

In: IEEE/RSJ Int

Cieslewski, T., Kaufmann, E., Scaramuzza, D.: Rapid exploration with multi- rotors: A frontier selection method for high speed ﬂight. In: IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (IROS), pp. 2135–2142 (2017). DOI 10.1109/IROS.2017. 8206030

doi:10.1109/iros.2017 2017
[8]

In: Conf

van Es, S.K., Barfoot, T.D.: Being in two places at once: Smooth visual path following on globally inconsistent pose graphs. In: Conf. Comput. Robot Vis. (CRV) (2015). DOI 10.1109/crv.2015.17

work page doi:10.1109/crv.2015.17 2015
[1]

In: IEEE Int

Akdeniz, B.C., Bozma, H.I.: Exploration and topological map building in unknown environments. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), pp. 1079–1084 (2015). DOI 10.1109/icra.2015.7139310

arXiv 2015
[2]

In: IEEE Conf

Arandjelovi´ c, R., Gronat, P., Torii, A., Pajdla, T., Sivic, J.: NetVLAD: CNN ar- chitecture for weakly supervised place recognition. In: IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. (CVPR), pp. 5297–5307 (2016). DOI 10.1109/CVPR.2016.572

doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.572 2016
[3]

In: IEEE Int

Bl¨ ochliger, F., Fehr, M., Dymczyk, M., Schneider, T., Siegwart, R.: Topomap: Topological mapping and navigation based on visual SLAM maps. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), pp. 1–9 (2018). DOI 10.1109/ICRA.2018.8460641

arXiv 2018
[4]

In: IEEE Int

Bosse, M., Newman, P., Leonard, J., Soika, M., Feiten, W., Teller, S.: An Atlas framework for scalable mapping. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), vol. 2, pp. 1899–1906 (2003). DOI 10.1109/robot.2003.1241872

arXiv 2003
[5]

In: IEEE/RSJ Int

Caccavale, A., Schwager, M.: Wireframe mapping for resource-constrained robots. In: IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (IROS), pp. 1–9 (2018). DOI 10. 1109/IROS.2018.8594057

work page arXiv 2018
[7]

In: IEEE Int

Connolly, C., et al.: The determination of next best views. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), vol. 2, pp. 432–435 (1985)

work page 1985

Show all 30 references

[9]

Fischler, M.A., Bolles, R.C.: Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model ﬁtting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun. ACM 24(6), 381–395 (1981). DOI 10.1145/358669.358692

1981
[10]

Furgale, P., Barfoot, T.D.: Visual teach and repeat for long-range rover autonomy. J. Field Robot. 27(5), 534–560 (2010). DOI 10.1002/rob.20342

2010 doi
[11]

IEEE Trans

Gao, X.S., Hou, X.R., Tang, J., Cheng, H.F.: Complete solution classiﬁcation for the perspective-three-point problem. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 25(8), 930–943 (2003). DOI 10.1109/TPAMI.2003.1217599

2003 arXiv
[12]

Gonz´ alez-Ba˜ nos, H.H., Latombe, J.C.: Navigation strategies for exploring indoor environments. Int. J. Robot. Research 21(10–11), 829–848 (2002). DOI 10.1177/ 0278364902021010834

2002
[13]

Greene, W.N., Roy, N.: FLaME: Fast lightweight mesh estimation using variational smoothing on delaunay graphs. In: Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV), pp. 4696–4704 (2017). DOI 10.1109/ICCV.2017.502

2017 doi
[14]

Holz, D., Basilico, N., Amigoni, F., Behnke, S.: Evaluating the eﬃciency of frontier- based exploration strategies. In: Int. Symp. Robotics (ISR), pp. 1–8 (2010)

2010
[15]

Howard, A., Parker, L.E., Sukhatme, G.S.: Experiments with a large heterogeneous mobile robot team: Exploration, mapping, deployment and detection. Int. J. Robot. Research 25(5–6), 431–447 (2006). DOI 10.1177/0278364906065378

2006 doi
[16]

Howard, A., Sukhatme, G.S., Matari´ c, M.J.: Multi-robot mapping using manifold representations. Proc. IEEE 94(9), 1360–1369 (2006)

2006
[17]

In: SIGGRAPH, p

Izadi, S., Newcombe, R.A., Kim, D., Hilliges, O., Molyneaux, D., Hodges, S., Kohli, P., Shotton, J., Davison, A., Fitzgibbon, A.: KinectFusion: Real-time dynamic 3D surface reconstruction and interaction. In: SIGGRAPH, p. 23 (2011) 16 Titus Cieslewski et al

2011
[18]

In: IEEE Int

K¨ ummerle, R., Grisetti, G., Strasdat, H., Konolige, K., Burgard, W.: g2o: A general framework for graph optimization. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA) (2011)

2011
[19]

Lucas, B.D., Kanade, T.: An iterative image registration technique with an appli- cation to stereo vision. In: Int. Joint Conf. Artiﬁcial Intell. (IJCAI), pp. 674–679 (1981)

1981
[20]

arXiv e-prints (2017)

Millane, A., Taylor, Z., Oleynikova, H., Nieto, J.I., Siegwart, R., Cadena, C.: TSDF manifolds: A scalable and consistent dense mapping approach. arXiv e-prints (2017). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07242

2017 arXiv
[21]

In: IEEE Int

Moravec, H., Elfes, A.: High resolution maps from wide angle sonar. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), vol. 2, pp. 116–121 (1985). DOI 10.1109/ROBOT. 1985.1087316

1985
[22]

In: RSS Workshop: Geometry and Beyond - Representations, Physics, and Scene Under- standing for Robotics (2016)

Oleynikova, H., Millane, A., Taylor, Z., Galceran, E., Nieto, J., Siegwart, R.: Signed distance ﬁelds: A natural representation for both mapping and planning. In: RSS Workshop: Geometry and Beyond - Representations, Physics, and Scene Under- standing for Robotics (2016)

2016
[23]

In: IEEE Int

Papachristos, C., Khattak, S., Alexis, K.: Uncertainty-aware receding horizon ex- ploration and mapping using aerial robots. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), pp. 4568–4575 (2017). DOI 10.1109/ICRA.2017.7989531

2017
[24]

Rublee, E., Rabaud, V., Konolige, K., Bradski, G.: ORB: An eﬃcient alternative to SIFT or SURF. In: Int. Conf. Comput. Vis. (ICCV) (2011)

2011
[25]

IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(15), 230–235 (2016)

Schmuck, P., Scherer, S.A., Zell, A.: Hybrid metric-topological 3d occupancy grid maps for large-scale mapping. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49(15), 230–235 (2016). DOI 10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.738

2016 doi
[26]

In: IEEE/RSJ Int

S¨ underhauf, N., Protzel, P.: Switchable constraints for robust pose graph SLAM. In: IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (IROS) (2012)

2012
[27]

In: IEEE/RSJ Int

Teixeira, L., Chli, M.: Real-time mesh-based scene estimation for aerial inspection. In: IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (IROS), pp. 4863–4869 (2016). DOI 10.1109/iros.2016.7759714

2016
[28]

Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated (2010)

Wallgrun, J.O.: Hierarchical Voronoi Graphs: Spatial Representation and Rea- soning for Mobile Robots. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated (2010). DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-10345-2

2010 doi
[29]

In: Proc

Wurm, K.M., Hornung, A., Bennewitz, M., Stachniss, C., Burgard, W.: OctoMap: A probabilistic, ﬂexible, and compact 3D map representation for robotic systems. In: Proc. ICRA 2010 Workshop on Best Practice in 3D Perception and Modeling for Mobile Manipulation (2010)

2010
[30]

In: IEEE Int

Yamauchi, B.: A frontier-based approach for autonomous exploration. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), pp. 146–151 (1997)

1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [6]

In: IEEE/RSJ Int

Cieslewski, T., Kaufmann, E., Scaramuzza, D.: Rapid exploration with multi- rotors: A frontier selection method for high speed ﬂight. In: IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (IROS), pp. 2135–2142 (2017). DOI 10.1109/IROS.2017. 8206030

doi:10.1109/iros.2017 2017

[2] [8]

In: Conf

van Es, S.K., Barfoot, T.D.: Being in two places at once: Smooth visual path following on globally inconsistent pose graphs. In: Conf. Comput. Robot Vis. (CRV) (2015). DOI 10.1109/crv.2015.17

work page doi:10.1109/crv.2015.17 2015

[3] [1]

In: IEEE Int

Akdeniz, B.C., Bozma, H.I.: Exploration and topological map building in unknown environments. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), pp. 1079–1084 (2015). DOI 10.1109/icra.2015.7139310

arXiv 2015

[4] [2]

In: IEEE Conf

Arandjelovi´ c, R., Gronat, P., Torii, A., Pajdla, T., Sivic, J.: NetVLAD: CNN ar- chitecture for weakly supervised place recognition. In: IEEE Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recog. (CVPR), pp. 5297–5307 (2016). DOI 10.1109/CVPR.2016.572

doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.572 2016

[5] [3]

In: IEEE Int

Bl¨ ochliger, F., Fehr, M., Dymczyk, M., Schneider, T., Siegwart, R.: Topomap: Topological mapping and navigation based on visual SLAM maps. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), pp. 1–9 (2018). DOI 10.1109/ICRA.2018.8460641

arXiv 2018

[6] [4]

In: IEEE Int

Bosse, M., Newman, P., Leonard, J., Soika, M., Feiten, W., Teller, S.: An Atlas framework for scalable mapping. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), vol. 2, pp. 1899–1906 (2003). DOI 10.1109/robot.2003.1241872

arXiv 2003

[7] [5]

In: IEEE/RSJ Int

Caccavale, A., Schwager, M.: Wireframe mapping for resource-constrained robots. In: IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robot. Syst. (IROS), pp. 1–9 (2018). DOI 10. 1109/IROS.2018.8594057

work page arXiv 2018

[8] [7]

In: IEEE Int

Connolly, C., et al.: The determination of next best views. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom. (ICRA), vol. 2, pp. 432–435 (1985)

work page 1985