Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 47 references

DL-VINS-Factory: A Modular Framework for Learned Visual Front-Ends in Visual-Inertial SLAM

T0 review · 3 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-07-03 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Learned visual front-ends are viable for real-time embedded VI-SLAM but not universally superior to classical tracking.

desk verdict This paper supplies a practical open-source modular testbed and concrete benchmark numbers for swapping learned extractors into VI-SLAM, but the evidence for its main takeaway rests on a single classical baseline and thin statistical reporting. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.01757 v1 pith:E3WX3M4F submitted 2026-07-02 cs.CV cs.RO

Shoon Kit Lim , Melissa Jia Ying Chong , Ting Yang Ling This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords visual-inertialSLAMlearnedfeaturesfeatureextractionopticalflowloopclosureembeddedsystemsALIKEDLightGlue
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 presents DL-VINS-Factory to plug several learned feature extractors into a complete visual-inertial SLAM pipeline and measure their effect on accuracy and speed. It compares ALIKED, RaCo, SuperPoint and XFeat paired with either Lucas-Kanade flow or LightGlue matching against a GFTT baseline, using the same Ceres sliding-window estimator and optional AnyLoc loop closure. Across indoor, outdoor, aggressive-motion and degraded datasets the results show measurable accuracy gains for some learned combinations yet no blanket advantage, with all valid setups reaching real-time rates on a Jetson after TensorRT acceleration. A sympathetic reader cares because the work supplies concrete numbers on when deep-learning detectors actually help inside a tightly coupled SLAM system rather than in isolation.

What carries the argument

DL-VINS-Factory, a modular integration layer that attaches learned extractors to either LK optical-flow tracking or LG descriptor matching, then feeds the resulting tracks into a shared Ceres sliding-window back-end with optional AnyLoc DINOv2-VLAD loop closure.

What would settle it

A fifth dataset or operating condition in which every learned front-end either exceeds the real-time FPS limits or produces higher ATE than the GFTT+LK baseline across the board would falsify the viability claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DL-VINS-Factory demonstrates that learned front-ends can be swapped into a shared VI-SLAM architecture; relative to GFTT+LK, ALIKED+LG lowers EuRoC ATE by 5 percent monocular and 7 percent stereo with loop closure, by 12 percent on NTU-VIRAL stereo, while SuperPoint+LK and RaCo+LK cut ATE by 29 percent and 38 percent on the two Botanic Garden cameras; every configuration runs between 29-47 FPS monocular and 18-33 FPS stereo on Jetson hardware, and AnyLoc returns roughly 2-7 times more valid loops than BRIEF+DBoW2.

Load-bearing premise

The four chosen datasets together with the GFTT+LK baseline adequately represent the range of conditions and classical methods against which learned front-ends should be judged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Learned extractors can be inserted without altering the back-end optimizer or loop-closure module.
  • TensorRT acceleration on Jetson AGX Orin keeps all tested configurations inside real-time bounds.
  • AnyLoc loop closure yields substantially more valid loops than classical bag-of-words methods.
  • Optical-flow tracking remains preferable in some visual environments even when learned keypoints are available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Additional datasets with different sensors or lighting statistics could shift the observed ranking between learned and classical front-ends.
  • The apparent superiority of learned methods is sensitive to the precise classical baseline chosen for comparison.
  • The same modular structure could be reused to benchmark future extractors or matchers without re-implementing the estimator.
  • Hardware-specific acceleration remains essential for any claim of practicality on embedded platforms.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents DL-VINS-Factory, a modular open-source framework integrating learned feature extractors (ALIKED, RaCo, SuperPoint, XFeat) with LK optical flow or LightGlue matching into a tightly-coupled VI-SLAM pipeline sharing a Ceres sliding-window backend and optional AnyLoc loop closure. Across EuRoC, NTU-VIRAL, Botanic Garden and SubT-MRS, it reports that learned front-ends run in real time on Jetson AGX Orin (29-47 FPS monocular, 18-33 FPS stereo) and yield mixed accuracy results versus a GFTT+LK baseline: 5% ATE reduction on EuRoC monocular, 7% on EuRoC stereo with loop closure, 12% on NTU-VIRAL stereo, with optical-flow tracking preferred on Botanic Garden and case-dependent gains on SubT-MRS. The central claim is that learned front-ends are viable for embedded VI-SLAM but not universally superior to classical tracking.

Significance. If the empirical findings are robust, the work supplies a practical, reproducible toolkit for testing learned visual front-ends inside a full VI-SLAM stack and identifies concrete regimes (aggressive motion, loop closure) where descriptor matching helps. The open-source release and embedded timing numbers are directly usable by the robotics community.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Experimental results] Abstract and experimental results: the reported ATE reductions (5% EuRoC monocular, 7% stereo with loop closure, 12% NTU-VIRAL stereo) are given as point values with no error bars, no statistical significance tests, and no description of run count, dataset splits, or failure-case handling, so the viability and superiority claims cannot be quantitatively assessed.
  2. [Results and discussion] Baseline and conclusion: the statement that learned front-ends are 'not universally superior to classical tracking' is supported only by comparison to GFTT+LK; no additional classical pipelines (e.g., ORB-SLAM-style detection/matching or other detectors) are evaluated, leaving open whether the nuanced conclusion generalizes beyond the chosen baseline.
  3. [Experimental setup] Dataset justification: the four datasets are described as covering indoor/outdoor/aggressive/degraded conditions, yet the paper supplies no explicit argument or ablation showing that this selection adequately samples the space of operating regimes needed to support the 'not universally superior' claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that AnyLoc yields 'roughly 2--7× more valid loops' than BRIEF+DBoW2 but does not define the criterion used to count a loop as valid.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve the presentation of results, clarify baselines, and strengthen dataset justification.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Experimental results] Abstract and experimental results: the reported ATE reductions (5% EuRoC monocular, 7% stereo with loop closure, 12% NTU-VIRAL stereo) are given as point values with no error bars, no statistical significance tests, and no description of run count, dataset splits, or failure-case handling, so the viability and superiority claims cannot be quantitatively assessed.

    Authors: We agree that the reported ATE values are point estimates and that additional details would strengthen the quantitative assessment. In the revised manuscript we will add the number of runs performed per configuration, any observed variability, a description of the evaluation protocol including dataset splits, and notes on failure-case handling. Formal statistical significance testing was not performed in the original work; we will note this limitation explicitly in the discussion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion] Baseline and conclusion: the statement that learned front-ends are 'not universally superior to classical tracking' is supported only by comparison to GFTT+LK; no additional classical pipelines (e.g., ORB-SLAM-style detection/matching or other detectors) are evaluated, leaving open whether the nuanced conclusion generalizes beyond the chosen baseline.

    Authors: The GFTT+LK baseline was selected because it provides the most direct comparison to the optical-flow tracking configurations within our shared Ceres backend. We acknowledge that the conclusion is therefore scoped to this baseline. In revision we will explicitly qualify the statement to reflect this scope and add a short discussion of how other classical pipelines (such as ORB-based matching) might differ, while noting that full integration of alternative back-ends lies outside the current modular front-end focus. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Experimental setup] Dataset justification: the four datasets are described as covering indoor/outdoor/aggressive/degraded conditions, yet the paper supplies no explicit argument or ablation showing that this selection adequately samples the space of operating regimes needed to support the 'not universally superior' claim.

    Authors: The four datasets were chosen for their complementary operating regimes (structured indoor, aggressive aerial motion, unstructured outdoor, and visually degraded subterranean) and their established use in the VI-SLAM literature. The observed case-dependent performance differences across these regimes directly support the non-universal superiority claim. In the revised experimental-setup section we will add an explicit paragraph justifying the selection on these grounds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: purely empirical benchmarking with no derivations or fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper describes a modular integration framework (DL-VINS-Factory) for learned feature extractors (ALIKED, RaCo, SuperPoint, XFeat) paired with LK or LG tracking, sharing a Ceres back-end and optional AnyLoc loop closure. All reported results consist of direct ATE and runtime measurements on four fixed datasets (EuRoC, NTU-VIRAL, Botanic Garden, SubT-MRS) relative to a GFTT+LK baseline. No equations, parameter fits, uniqueness theorems, or self-citations are invoked to derive any quantity; the viability and 'not universally superior' statements are simple empirical summaries of the tabulated comparisons. The study is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no load-bearing steps that reduce to their own inputs.

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

No mathematical model or derivation is present; the work is an empirical software framework and benchmark study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DL-VINS-Factory: A Modular Framework for Learned Visual Front-Ends in Visual-Inertial SLAM." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E3WX3M4F

@misc{pith2026260701757,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DL-VINS-Factory: A Modular Framework for Learned Visual Front-Ends in Visual-Inertial SLAM},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E3WX3M4F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.01757}
}
abstract

Deep-learning features excel in visual matching, yet their practical value in tightly coupled visual-inertial SLAM (VI-SLAM) remains insufficiently characterized. We present DL-VINS-Factory, a unified framework that integrates learned feature extractors (ALIKED, RaCo, SuperPoint, XFeat) with either Lucas--Kanade (LK) optical-flow tracking or LightGlue (LG) descriptor matching. All front-ends share a sliding-window Ceres back-end, with optional AnyLoc DINOv2-VLAD loop closure, and 4-DoF pose-graph optimization. We benchmark the system across the four datasets covering indoor, unstructured outdoor, aggressive-motion, and visually degraded conditions. Results show that learned front-ends are viable for real-time embedded VI-SLAM, but are not universally superior to classical tracking. Relative to the corresponding GFTT+LK baseline, ALIKED+LG reduces EuRoC ATE by $5\%$ in monocular odometry and by $7\%$ in stereo with loop-closure. On NTU-VIRAL, where aggressive aerial motion increases inter-frame viewpoint change, ALIKED+LG stereo reduces loop-closed ATE by $12\%$. In Botanic Garden dataset, optical-flow tracking remains preferable, but learned keypoints still improve over the baseline GFTT, in which SuperPoint+LK reduces grayscale camera ATE by $29\%$, while RaCo+LK reduces RGB camera ATE by $38\%$. On SubT-MRS, learned front-ends display varying degree of improvement based on individual cases. With TensorRT acceleration on a Jetson AGX Orin, all valid configurations run in real time between $29$--$47$ FPS in monocular mode and $18$--$33$ FPS in stereo mode for the EuRoC and NTU-VIRAL datasets. AnyLoc further confirms roughly $2$--$7\times$ more valid loops than BRIEF+DBoW2. The implementation is open-sourced at https://github.com/limshoonkit/DL-VINS-Factory-ROS2/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01757 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System overview of the proposed DL-VINS-Factory framework. Dashed blue blocks represent the original VINS-Fusion implementation, whereas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) ALIKED model serialized into two independent engines, with custom CUDA Kernel replacing the DKD for keypoint selection. b) RaCo reused [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of feature distribution and temporal tracking across extractors and datasets. Blue points show tracked current-frame features, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Median ATE ratio comparing stereo versus monocular accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean ATE comparing Lucas-Kanade optical flow (+LK) against [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Trajectory evaluation on the SubT MRS smoke room sequence with origin aligned to ground truth (GT). Results are obtained with maximum extracted keypoints capped at 256. ”X” markers indicate the onset of diver￾gence, while inset images highlight the transition from part…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Trajectory evaluation on the SubT MRS Lowlight 1 sequence, comparing various tracking methods against ground truth (GT) using SE3 alignment. The top plot shows the full length, where several methods experience significant divergence near the end of the run. The bottom …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cross-platform ATE[m] reproducibility scatter plot in log scale. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average per-frame compute breakdown on the EuRoC dataset. The stacked bars illustrate the latency contributions of individual front-end and back-end [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Top) Jetson power consumption and (Bottom) feature-extraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Keypoint count ablation on Jetson AGX Orin. Relative accuracy (left) and front-end compute time (right) are normalized to a 256-keypoint baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: EuRoC mono-inertial 3D trajectory plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: EuRoC stereo-inertial 3D trajectory plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: NTU-VIRAL mono-inertial 3D trajectory plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: NTU-VIRAL stereo-inertial 3D trajectory plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Botanic Garden Gray mono-inertial 3D trajectory plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Botanic Garden Gray stereo-inertial 3D trajectory plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Botanic Garden RGB mono-inertial 3D trajectory plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Botanic Garden RGB stereo-inertial 3D trajectory plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: SubT MRS mono-inertial 3D trajectory plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_20.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Orb: An efficient alternative to sift or surf,

    E. Rublee, V . Rabaud, K. Konolige, and G. Bradski, “Orb: An efficient alternative to sift or surf,” in2011 International Conference on Computer Vision, 2011, pp. 2564–2571

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Brisk: Binary robust invariant scalable keypoints,

    S. Leutenegger, M. Chli, and R. Y . Siegwart, “Brisk: Binary robust invariant scalable keypoints,” in2011 International Conference on Computer Vision, 2011, pp. 2548–2555

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Comparative study of deep learning based features in slam,

    C. Deng, K. Qiu, R. Xiong, and C. Zhou, “Comparative study of deep learning based features in slam,” in2019 4th Asia-Pacific Conference on Intelligent Robot Systems (ACIRS), 2019, pp. 250–254

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Superpoint: Self- supervised interest point detection and description,

    D. DeTone, T. Malisiewicz, and A. Rabinovich, “Superpoint: Self- supervised interest point detection and description,” in2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 2018, pp. 337–33 712

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    SuperGlue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks,

    P.-E. Sarlin, D. DeTone, T. Malisiewicz, and A. Rabinovich, “SuperGlue: Learning feature matching with graph neural networks,” inCVPR, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11763

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Closed- loop benchmarking of stereo visual-inertial slam systems: Understanding the impact of drift and latency on tracking accuracy,

    Y . Zhao, J. S. Smith, S. H. Karumanchi, and P. A. Vela, “Closed- loop benchmarking of stereo visual-inertial slam systems: Understanding the impact of drift and latency on tracking accuracy,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2020, pp. 1105–1112

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

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

    D. Galvez-L ´opez and J. D. Tardos, “Bags of binary words for fast place recognition in image sequences,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1188–1197, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Anyloc: Towards universal visual place recognition,

    N. Keethaet al., “Anyloc: Towards universal visual place recognition,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1286–1293, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam,

    C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodr ´ıguez, J. M. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard ´os, “Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual–inertial, and multimap slam,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1874–1890, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Okvis2-x: Open keyframe-based visual-inertial slam configurable with dense depth or lidar, and gnss,

    S. Boche, J. Jung, S. B. Laina, and S. Leutenegger, “Okvis2-x: Open keyframe-based visual-inertial slam configurable with dense depth or lidar, and gnss,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 41, pp. 6064– 6083, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    A general optimisation-based framework for global pose estimation with multiple sensors,

    T. Qin, S. Cao, J. Pan, and S. Shen, “A general optimisation-based framework for global pose estimation with multiple sensors,”IET Cyber- Systems and Robotics, vol. 7, no. 1, p. e70023, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1049/csy2.70023

    2025 doi

  4. [12]

    Openvins: A research platform for visual-inertial estimation,

    P. Geneva, K. Eckenhoff, W. Lee, Y . Yang, and G. Huang, “Openvins: A research platform for visual-inertial estimation,” in2020 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2020, pp. 4666–4672

    2020

  5. [13]

    Kimera: an open- source library for real-time metric-semantic localization and mapping,

    A. Rosinol, M. Abate, Y . Chang, and L. Carlone, “Kimera: an open- source library for real-time metric-semantic localization and mapping,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2020, pp. 1689–1696

    2020

  6. [14]

    Airslam: An efficient and illumination-robust point-line visual slam system,

    K. Xu, Y . Hao, S. Yuan, C. Wang, and L. Xie, “Airslam: An efficient and illumination-robust point-line visual slam system,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 41, pp. 1673–1692, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Gcnv2: Efficient correspondence prediction for real-time slam,

    J. Tang, L. Ericson, J. Folkesson, and P. Jensfelt, “Gcnv2: Efficient correspondence prediction for real-time slam,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3505–3512, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Dxslam: A robust and efficient visual slam system with deep features,

    D. Liet al., “Dxslam: A robust and efficient visual slam system with deep features,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 4958–4965

    2020

  9. [17]

    Hfnet-slam: An accurate and real-time monocular slam system with deep features,

    L. Liu and J. M. Aitken, “Hfnet-slam: An accurate and real-time monocular slam system with deep features,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 4,

  10. [18]

    Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/4/2113

    [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/4/2113

  11. [19]

    Supslam: A robust visual inertial slam system using superpoint for unmanned aerial vehicles,

    C. H. Quach, M. D. Phung, H. V . Le, and S. Perry, “Supslam: A robust visual inertial slam system using superpoint for unmanned aerial vehicles,” in2021 8th NAFOSTED Conference on Information and Computer Science (NICS), 2021, pp. 507–512

    2021

  12. [20]

    D-vins: Dynamic adaptive visual–inertial slam with imu prior and semantic constraints in dynamic scenes,

    Y . Sunet al., “D-vins: Dynamic adaptive visual–inertial slam with imu prior and semantic constraints in dynamic scenes,” Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 15, 2023. [Online]. Available: https: //www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/15/15/3881

    2023

  13. [21]

    Supervins: A real- time visual-inertial slam framework for challenging imaging conditions,

    H. Luo, Y . Liu, C. Guo, Z. Li, and W. Song, “Supervins: A real- time visual-inertial slam framework for challenging imaging conditions,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 25, no. 13, pp. 26 042–26 050, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    LoFTR: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers,

    J. Sun, Z. Shen, Y . Wang, H. Bao, and X. Zhou, “LoFTR: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers,”CVPR, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow,

    Z. Teed and J. Deng, “Raft: Recurrent all-pairs field transforms for optical flow,” inComputer Vision – ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part II. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2020, p. 402–419. [Online]. Available: https...

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    Tightly-coupled visual- inertial odometry with robust feature association in dynamic illumination environments,

    J. Zhang, C. Zhang, Q. Liu, Q. Ma, and J. Qin, “Tightly-coupled visual- inertial odometry with robust feature association in dynamic illumination environments,”Robotica, vol. 43, no. 6, p. 2304–2319, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    DROID-SLAM: Deep visual SLAM for monoc- ular, stereo, and RGB-D cameras,

    Z. Teed and J. Deng, “DROID-SLAM: Deep visual SLAM for monoc- ular, stereo, and RGB-D cameras,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Deep patch visual slam,

    L. Lipson, Z. Teed, and J. Deng, “Deep patch visual slam,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2024: 18th European Conference, Milan, Italy, September 29–October 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part II. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2024, p. 424–440. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10...

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly supervised place recognition,

    R. Arandjelovic, P. Gronat, A. Torii, T. Pajdla, and J. Sivic, “Netvlad: Cnn architecture for weakly supervised place recognition,” in2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 5297–5307

    2016

  20. [28]

    Mixvpr: Feature mixing for visual place recognition,

    A. Ali-Bey, B. Chaib-Draa, and P. Gigu ´ere, “Mixvpr: Feature mixing for visual place recognition,” in2023 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2023, pp. 2997–3006

    2023

  21. [29]

    Eigenplaces: Training viewpoint robust models for visual place recognition,

    G. Berton, G. Trivigno, B. Caputo, and C. Masone, “Eigenplaces: Training viewpoint robust models for visual place recognition,” in2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 11 046–11 056

    2023

  22. [30]

    Rethinking visual geo- localization for large-scale applications,

    G. Berton, C. Masone, and B. Caputo, “Rethinking visual geo- localization for large-scale applications,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 4868– 4878

    2022

  23. [31]

    DINOv2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,

    M. Oquabet al., “DINOv2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,”Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2024, featured Certification. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/ forum?id=a68SUt6zFt

    2024

  24. [32]

    VINS-Mono: A robust and versatile monoc- ular visual-inertial state estimator,

    T. Qin, P. Li, and S. Shen, “VINS-Mono: A robust and versatile monoc- ular visual-inertial state estimator,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1004–1020, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    Aliked: A lighter keypoint and descriptor extraction network via deformable transformation,

    X. Zhaoet al., “Aliked: A lighter keypoint and descriptor extraction network via deformable transformation,”IEEE Transactions on Instru- mentation and Measurement, vol. 72, pp. 1–16, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    RaCo: Ranking and Covariance for Practical Learned Keypoints ,

    A. Shenoi, P. Lindenberger, P.-E. Sarlin, and M. Pollefeys, “ RaCo: Ranking and Covariance for Practical Learned Keypoints ,” in2026 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society, Mar. 2026, pp. 267–276. [Online]. Available: https://...

    2026 doi

  27. [35]

    Xfeat: Accelerated features for lightweight image matching,

    G. Potje, F. Cadar, A. Araujo, R. Martins, and E. R. Nascimento, “Xfeat: Accelerated features for lightweight image matching,” in2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 2682–2691

    2024

  28. [36]

    MAC-VO: Metrics-aware covariance for learning-based stereo visual odometry,

    Y . Qiu, Y . Chen, Z. Zhang, W. Wang, and S. Scherer, “MAC-VO: Metrics-aware covariance for learning-based stereo visual odometry,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2025, pp. 3803–3814

    2025

  29. [37]

    Lightglue: Local feature matching at light speed,

    P. Lindenberger, P.-E. Sarlin, and M. Pollefeys, “Lightglue: Local feature matching at light speed,” in2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 17 581–17 592

    2023

  30. [38]

    MAGSAC++, a fast, reliable and accurate robust estimator,

    D. Barath, J. Noskova, M. Ivashechkin, and J. Matas, “MAGSAC++, a fast, reliable and accurate robust estimator,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020, pp. 1304–1312

    2020

  31. [39]

    Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs,

    J. Johnson, M. Douze, and H. J ´egou, “Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs,”IEEE Transactions on Big Data, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 535– 547, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets,

    M. Burriet al., “The euroc micro aerial vehicle datasets,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1157–1163, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0278364915620033 JOURNAL OF LATEX 17

    2016

  33. [41]

    Ntu viral: A visual-inertial-ranging-lidar dataset, from an aerial vehicle viewpoint,

    T.-M. Nguyenet al., “Ntu viral: A visual-inertial-ranging-lidar dataset, from an aerial vehicle viewpoint,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 270–280, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/02783649211052312

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    Botanicgarden: A high-quality dataset for robot navigation in unstructured natural environments,

    Y . Liuet al., “Botanicgarden: A high-quality dataset for robot navigation in unstructured natural environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2798–2805, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Subt-mrs dataset: Pushing slam towards all-weather environments,

    S. Zhaoet al., “Subt-mrs dataset: Pushing slam towards all-weather environments,” in2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024, pp. 22 647–22 657

    2024

  36. [44]

    Good features to track,

    J. Shi and Tomasi, “Good features to track,” in1994 Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1994, pp. 593–600

    1994

  37. [45]

    An iterative image registration technique with an application to stereo vision,

    B. D. Lucas and T. Kanade, “An iterative image registration technique with an application to stereo vision,” inProceedings of the 7th Inter- national Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2, ser. IJCAI’81. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.,...

    1981

  38. [46]

    Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,

    D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,”International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 91–110, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1023/B: VISI.0000029664.99615.94

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    Breaking of brightness consistency in optical flow with a lightweight cnn network,

    Y . Lin, S. Wang, Y . Jiang, and B. Han, “Breaking of brightness consistency in optical flow with a lightweight cnn network,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 6840–6847, 2024. JOURNAL OF LATEX 18 APPENDIXA COVARIANCE-WEIGHTEDREPROJECTION This section det...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.