aiqbench analysis
This paper provides a rigorous theoretical analysis of the discrepancy between maximum clique and maximum consensus formulations in robust point cloud registration for robotics. By deriving geometric conditions and error bounds, it clarifies when the computationally efficient maximum clique approximation diverges significantly from the optimal maximum consensus solution. These findings are critical for researchers developing reliable SLAM systems and computer vision algorithms that depend on accurate 3D alignment under noisy conditions.
On Maximum Clique and Maximum Consensus Formulations in Point Cloud Registration
arXiv:2610.27275v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Maximum clique and maximum consensus are widely used formulations for robust point cloud registration in robotics. Maximum consensus seeks one transformation that aligns as many matches as possible, while maximum clique selects matches through pairwise distance tests. Maximum clique is often used as a substitute for or an approximation to maximum consensus, with empirical evidence suggesting a close relationship. However, how closely the two formulations agree is not fully understood. We study this relationship theoretically. We show that a maximum clique can have arbitrarily large alignment error and be arbitrarily larger than the maximum consensus set at any fixed positive tolerance, and derive geometric conditions that bound this error. When rotation is fixed, we derive sharp error bounds and tests that exactly characterize maximum consensus for the translation subproblem. Finally, we study group-$k$ consistency, which tests groups of $k$ matches, and determine the smallest group sizes that guarantee alignment error bounds independent of point cloud scale and geometry. These are $d+1$ for rotations and translations and $d+2$ when reflections are allowed, in dimensions $d\ge 2$. Interactive examples and proof verification using the Lean theorem prover are available at https://ariarobotics.github.io/mc-vs-mc-registration/.
Abstract:Maximum clique and maximum consensus are widely used formulations for robust point cloud registration in robotics. Maximum consensus seeks one transformation that aligns as many matches as possible, while maximum clique selects matches through pairwise distance tests. Maximum clique is often used as a substitute for or an approximation to maximum consensus, with empirical evidence suggesting a close relationship. However, how closely the two formulations agree is not fully understood. We study this relationship theoretically. We show that a maximum clique can have arbitrarily large alignment error and be arbitrarily larger than the maximum consensus set at any fixed positive tolerance, and derive geometric conditions that bound this error. When rotation is fixed, we derive sharp error bounds and tests that exactly characterize maximum consensus for the translation subproblem. Finally, we study group-$k$ consistency, which tests groups of $k$ matches, and determine the smallest group sizes that guarantee alignment error bounds independent of point cloud scale and geometry. These are $d+1$ for rotations and translations and $d+2$ when reflections are allowed, in dimensions $d\ge 2$. Interactive examples and proof verification using the Lean theorem prover are available at this https URL.
8 pages, 7 figures. Interactive examples and Lean proof verification: this https URL
Robotics (cs.RO); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)
arXiv:2610.27275 [cs.RO]
(or arXiv:2610.27275v1 [cs.RO] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.27275 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 303 words
Related coverage
Degeneracy-Resilient Teach and Repeat for Geometrically Challenging Environments Using FMCW Lidar
arXiv · Sep 3, 2026
Letting AI Formulate the Research Question: Autonomous Research Agents
arXiv · Oct 31, 2026
Generalized-CVO: Fast and Correspondence-Free Local Point Cloud Registration with Second Order Riemannian Optimization
arXiv · Jun 10, 2026

DOCOMO Expands Production Use of D-Wave Quantum Technology
Quantum Zeitgeist · Oct 15, 2026