Real-time 3D mapping is fundamental for autonomous robotic navigation, with Euclidean Signed Distance Fields (ESDFs) serving as the standard representation for online motion planning. While recent advancements in non- projective distance fields yield highly accurate maps, their computational overhead remains a severe bottleneck. Conventional integrators redundantly re-fuse millions of depth pixels every frame, even long after the corresponding voxels have converged, wasting significant computational resources in environments dominated by large planar surfaces. In this paper, we present SHIFT (Surface-aware High-speed Integration For TSDFs), an efficient mapping framework designed to reduce this per-frame update cost. By exploiting structural redundancy directly from 3D depth geometry, SHIFT compresses flat local regions into weighted super-rays and freezes flat-voxel gradients. A compact ESDF voxel layout further reduces the memory footprint of the remaining wavefront. Extensive evaluations across various RGB-D and LiDAR sequences show that SHIFT cuts TSDF cost by 1.42 to 4.07 times, while holding mesh error within millimeters, and reduces ESDF-layer memory by up to 28%
Figure 2: Integration cost vs. voxel size, all methods. Top: TSDF time per depth frame. Bottom: ESDF time per ESDF refresh (not per depth frame). SHIFT (blue) is the lowest TSDF curve on every dataset and every resolution, and its ESDF cost tracks Voxfield while staying well below the projective baselines.
Figure 3: Accuracy vs. voxel size. SHIFT tracks Voxfield on every sequence and stays below the projective baselines on TSDF RMSE at 10 cm (RGB-D) and 25 cm (LiDAR).
Figure 4: Per-vertex Mesh → GT distance, Ours vs. Voxfield, on the Flat floor @ 10 cm and the N. College ground plane @ 25 cm.
Chamfer-L1
Coverage
ESDF-GT
Dataset
Vox.
Ours
Vf.
Ours
Vf.
Ours
Vf.
Flat
10
3.82
3.71
87.7
88.0
7.23
6.72
Cow & Lady
10
7.44
7.54
82.1
81.7
9.54
9.17
TUM
10
4.74
4.71
99.7
99.7
8.24
8.37
N. College
25
10.37
10.39
94.7
94.6
23.35
24.08
Table 2: Chamfer-L1, reconstruction coverage, and ESDF-GT RMSE at the representative voxel (“Vox.”, cm). Chamfer-L1 and ESDF-GT in cm, coverage in %.
TSDF
Backend
End-to-end
Dataset
Vox.
Vf.
Ours
Vf.
Ours
Vf.
Ours
Flat
5
26.70
9.99 (2.67 × )
29.95
13.87 (2.16 × )
41.56
25.25 (1.65 × )
10
15.32
4.67 (3.28 × )
15.71
5.11 (3.08 × )
27.38
16.55 (1.66 × )
15
13.38
3.62 (3.70 × )
13.53
3.79 (3.57 × )
25.28
15.13 (1.67 × )
20
12.67
3.22 (3.94 × )
12.74
3.30 (3.86 × )
24.49
14.61 (1.68 × )
25
12.36
3.04 (4.07 × )
12.40
3.09 (4.01 × )
24.07
14.51 (1.66 × )
Table 3: Per-frame runtime in ms for Voxfield (“Vf.”) and SHIFT (“Ours”) across voxel sizes (“Vox.”, cm), with SHIFT’s speedup in parentheses ( >1 means SHIFT is faster). “TSDF” is the integration stage the method modifies; “Backend” excludes the shared front end and end-to-end includes it.
Dataset
Vox.
ESDF layer (MB)
Process RSS (MB)
Ours
Voxfield
Ratio
Ours
Voxfield
Flat
10
109.7
118.8
0.92
278.0
237.6
Cow & Lady
10
118.8
148.5
0.80
373.4
373.1
TUM
10
119.1
148.8
0.80
283.8
280.4
N. College
25
1844.3
2551.5
0.72
2227.4
2840.9
Table 4: Memory footprint at the representative voxel size (“Vox.”, cm). “Ratio” is our ESDF layer over Voxfield’s.
Configuration
Total
TSDF
TSDF
Mesh
(s)
(s)
RMSE
→ GT
Flat @ 10 cm (RGB-D)
Voxfield
10.99
6.11
3.31
1.75
+ Classify only
10.87
6.30
3.48
1.90
+ Super-rays (SHIFT)
6.54
1.89
3.87
1.94
− Skipping
6.55
1.89
3.88
1.94
Table 5: Component ablation on Flat and N. College. Times in s, errors in cm. Speedups are not repeated here; see Tab. 3 . Rows marked + add a stage cumulatively; − Skipping removes the skip test from full SHIFT and is not a further stage. Best among the three cumulative configurations in bold.
Flat @ 10 cm
N. College @ 25 cm
Param.
Value
Total
RMSE
Total
RMSE
δskip (cm)
0
6.55
3.88
104.4
12.82
1
6.54
3.87
102.7
12.82
3
6.54
3.82
104.1
12.83
Cell P
8
6.76
3.86
102.7
12.82
12
6.54
3.87
110.3
12.98
Table 6: Hyperparameter sensitivity. Total time in seconds, TSDF RMSE in cm. Paper defaults are bold in the value column; P=12 is the RGB-D default and P=8 the LiDAR default.
Symbol / hyperparameter
RGB-D
LiDAR
Patch size P
12
8
Depth noise factor β
0.002
0.0015
Noise floor σmin (m)
0.004
0.004
Edge depth jump τ0 (m)
0.04
0.08
Max. edge cell fraction εedge
0
0.5
Connectivity angle θlidar ( ∘ )
–
10
Table 7: Every classifier/fusion symbol from Section 3, mapped to its launch-time value.
Dataset
flat
edge
curved
Flat
78.9%
4.4%
16.7%
Cow & Lady
42.1%
2.6%
55.3%
TUM
47.3%
2.0%
50.7%
N. College
70.6%
8.8%
20.6%
Table 8: Per-pixel classifier label distribution, averaged over the logged frames of the representative-voxel run. LiDAR classifies more edge pixels than any RGB-D sequence.
Dataset
Method
Mean
Std
Min
Max
Flat
Voxfield
15.32
0.45
11.01
28.79
SHIFT
4.67
0.32
1.14
8.42
Cow & Lady
Voxfield
13.53
3.39
5.35
19.32
SHIFT
8.85
4.19
2.41
17.19
TUM
Voxfield
11.69
1.23
8.50
15.20
SHIFT
5.99
1.62
3.21
11.89
Table 9: Per-frame TSDF update time (ms) at the representative voxel size (10 cm), mean ± std with [min, max] shown as separate columns.
Figure 5: Stage breakdown across the ablation ladder for Flat and N. College. Without bundling, the classifier inflates the front end; bundling then recovers it in the TSDF stage.
Figure 6: Sensitivity of the three main hyperparameters (Table 6 in the main paper), normalized to the default configuration ( =100% ). Red is TSDF time, blue is TSDF RMSE. Skip tolerance and freeze threshold are visually flat; LiDAR classifier cell size is the only knob with a clear effect.
Figure 7: Front-end time (top) and Chamfer-L1 (bottom) vs. voxel size.
Figure 8: TSDF coverage (top) and reconstruction coverage (bottom) vs. voxel size.
Figure 9: ESDF ground-truth RMSE (top) and ESDF-layer memory (bottom) vs. voxel size. SHIFT is lower than Voxfield at every voxel size on every dataset for memory.
Reactive collision avoidance in unknown, cluttered environments must perceive obstacles and correct motion within milliseconds. Existing methods rely on maps for high-rate collision queries, but their acceleration structures require pre- processing. That cost is amortized in long-horizon planning, where a map serves millions of queries; reactive planning, however, is a near-field, short-horizon problem with potentially only hundreds of queries per measurement, where building a map may not pay off. We propose a mapless, Graphics Processing Unit (GPU)-accelerated Euclidean Signed Distance Field (ESDF) query with negligible pre-processing that operates directly on posed depth images, with resolution set by pooling the image rather than by a voxel size. On an embedded GPU it is simultaneously more accurate and lower in total latency than every voxel-grid configuration we measured between 2 cm and 20 cm, at one to two orders of magnitude less memory at matched resolution. With our query integrated into a Model Predictive Controller (MPC), simulated runs in laser-scanned forests at up to 9 m/s collide in 0.4 % through dense branches, against 5.9 % with the best voxel grid and 5.5 % with the best mapless baseline at our resolution, whose failures we attribute to voxel resolution and total latency respectively. We deploy the system onboard at two forest sites and fly at commanded speeds of up to 4 m/s.
Leonard Freißmuth, Cedric Le Gentil, Helen Oleynikova +1
Real-time volumetric mapping for a planning robot is dominated by the cost of integrating and storing information at the finest resolution, yet only a small fraction of any map ever lies on or near a path the planner actually considers. We exploit this with a tiered-resolution mapping mechanism that integrates LiDAR into a single map structure at two resolutions simultaneously: fine inside a corridor around the robot's current plan, and coarse everywhere else. As opposed to traditional navigation pipelines where path planning uses the mapping result and provides no feedback, we propose a feedback loop where planning also informs mapping to dynamically integrate information at different leaf resolutions. Across two real-world teleoperated datasets, replayed and scored offline against an independent full-resolution map, the tiered maps are 13-15x smaller and require 6-8x less integration CPU time than a uniform fine map, while producing paths at a similar cost per meter as the ones generated from fine resolution maps on both scenarios. A uniform coarse map reaches the same size savings but its path quality collapses (+210% cost per meter) on the harder scenario, because it over-discretizes terrain the robot must traverse. Tiering approximates the coarse map's cheapness without its failure mode.
Afonso E. Carvalho, David Portugal, Paulo Peixoto +1
Institute of Systems and Robotics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal · Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Efficient and scalable 3D occupancy mapping is essential for autonomous robot applications in unknown environments. However, traditional occupancy grid representations suffer from two fundamental limitations. First, explicitly storing all voxels in three-dimensional space leads to prohibitive memory consumption. Second, exhaustive ray casting incurs high update latency. A recent representation alleviate memory demands by maintaining only the voxels on the two-dimensional boundary, yet they still rely on full ray casting updates. This work advances the boundary-based framework with a highly efficient update scheme. We introduce a truncated ray casting strategy that restricts voxel traversal to the exterior of the boundary, which dramatically reduces the number of updated voxels. In addition, we propose a direct boundary update mechanism that removes the need for an auxiliary local 3D occupancy grid, further reducing memory usage and simplifying the map update pipeline. We name our framework as D-BDM. Extensive evaluations on public datasets demonstrate that our approach achieves significantly lower update time and reduced memory consumption compared with the baseline methods, as well as the prior boundary-based approach.
Benxu Tang, Yixi Cai, Fanze Kong +2
Mechatronics and Robotic Systems (MaRS) Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Hong Kong · Department of Robotics, Perception, and Learning, KTH Royal Institute of Technology