Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Hyperbolic-constraint Point Cloud Reconstruction from Single RGB-D Images

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that representing point cloud features in hyperbolic space, with a hyperbolic Chamfer distance and regularized triplet loss, improves single-view 3D reconstruction and reports average gains of about 6 percent in F1 score…

desk verdict Real idea, broken equations: the hyperbolic losses as printed cannot be computed, so the F1 gains over NU-MCC are not yet attributable to hyperbolic geometry. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09055 v1 pith:AMRCV6XZ submitted 2024-12-12 cs.CV

Wenrui Li , Zhe Yang , Wei Han , Hengyu Man , Xingtao Wang , Xiaopeng Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords hyperbolicspacepointcloudreconstructionRGB-DPoincaréballChamferdistancetripletlosshierarchicalstructureCO3D-v2
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 tries to establish that moving feature embeddings for single-view 3D point cloud reconstruction from Euclidean space into hyperbolic space improves reconstruction quality. The reason to care is that object parts form tree-like hierarchies, and hyperbolic space can embed trees with much less distortion than Euclidean space. The proposed model, HcPCR, adds a hyperbolic Chamfer distance, a regularization loss that pushes partial clouds toward the center and complete clouds toward the boundary of a Poincaré ball, and a triplet loss that separates categories. On the CO3D-v2 benchmark, the authors report average gains over NU-MCC of 5.9% in F1 score, 5.2% in completeness, and 5.6% in accuracy.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Poincaré ball model of hyperbolic space, $\mathbb{P}_k^n = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^n : \|x\| < 1/|k|\}$, together with two maps: a projection $\Gamma_P$ from Euclidean vectors into the ball and a tangent-space map $\Psi_P$ from the ball to a local Euclidean tangent plane. The paper defines a hyperbolic Chamfer distance by replacing the Euclidean point distance with the Poincaré distance $d(x,y) = \frac{2}{\sqrt{k}} \operatorname{arctanh}(\sqrt{k} \| -x \oplus_k y\|)$, and adds two losses built on these maps: the regularization loss $L_Z = \max(0, -\Gamma_P(W^+) + \Gamma_P(P^+) + \gamma/N)$ with an adaptive margin computed by an MLP, and the triplet loss $L_T = \max(0, d(\Psi_P(W^+), \Psi_P(P^+)) - d(\Psi_P(W^+), \Psi_P(P^-)) + \varepsilon)$. Together they enforce that partial clouds sit closer to the center than whole clouds and that classes are separated by geodesic distance.

What would settle it

Implement Eqs. (10) and (12) exactly as printed in a standard autodiff framework: if the losses do not produce a scalar (or training diverges) because the vector-valued max or the tangent-space-to-Poincaré distance is undefined, then the reported improvements cannot be attributed to hyperbolic geometry. Alternatively, retrain on CO3D-v2 with the curvature $k$ set to a value at which hyperbolic distance becomes Euclidean while keeping all other components unchanged; if the gains vanish, the hyperbolic metric is what carries the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hyperbolic geometry is the right setting for relating partial and complete point clouds. The paper's HcPCR model takes an RGB-D image, extracts global and local features with vision transformers, maps both into a Poincaré ball, and trains with a loss that combines the NU-MCC loss with a hyperbolic regularization term and a hyperbolic triplet term. The regularization term encodes a part-whole hierarchy, placing simpler parts near the center of the ball and larger parts nearer the boundary; the triplet term pulls together parts and wholes of the same class while pushing different classes apart. The authors argue that Euclidean space cannot represent the tree-like composition of objects without distortion, so the same losses that hurt in Euclidean space help once the geometry matches the data's hierarchical structure.

Load-bearing premise

The training objective must be a well-defined, differentiable scalar function as written; in particular, the expression in the regularization loss subtracts and adds vector embeddings inside a max, and the triplet loss feeds tangent-space vectors into a hyperbolic distance, so the paper implicitly assumes some norm or valid mapping that it does not state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reported gains imply that existing transformer-based single-view reconstruction models can be improved by re-embedding their features in hyperbolic space and adding only two loss terms, without changing the backbone.
  • If the part-whole hierarchy claim holds, the same regularized triplet formulation should transfer to other tasks where partial observations relate to full structures, such as shape completion from occluded images.
  • The ablation results imply that regularization losses designed for hyperbolic space actively degrade Euclidean training, so applying these losses without the geometric change is counterproductive.
  • The curvature $k$ becomes a key hyperparameter; the sensitivity observed in ablations suggests that practitioners should tune $k$ per dataset or learn it during training.
  • The $\delta$-hyperbolicity evaluation indicates that the learned feature space becomes more tree-like, offering a quantitative check on whether the model actually exploits hierarchy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not explore is treating the curvature $k$ as a learned parameter rather than a fixed value, which could remove a sensitive hyperparameter and adapt to datasets with different amounts of hierarchy.
  • The hyperbolic Chamfer distance could be combined with density-aware or other robust Chamfer variants, since the paper only tests the plain hyperbolic replacement and does not isolate the effect of outlier sensitivity.
  • The part-whole hierarchy losses might apply to multi-view reconstruction or neural fields, where partial observations are even more explicitly related to a complete object, though this is speculative and untested.
  • The paper does not report statistical significance or variance across runs; if the 5.9% F1 gain is within run-to-run noise, the hierarchy story would need stronger evidence.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HcPCR, a single-view RGB-D point cloud reconstruction method built on NU-MCC, which embeds partial and complete point-cloud features into a Poincaré-ball model of hyperbolic space. The contributions are a hyperbolic Chamfer distance (Eq. 7), a regularization loss L_Z (Eq. 10) with adaptive margins, and a triplet loss L_T (Eq. 12), in addition to the NU-MCC loss L_N. The authors report improved F1, completeness, and accuracy over MCC and NU-MCC on CO3D-v2 and provide ablations over margins, curvature, and δ-hyperbolicity.

Significance. If the method worked as described, the paper would be a useful first application of hyperbolic geometry to single-view RGB-D point cloud reconstruction. The main comparison is against an external benchmark (F1, precision, recall), so the principal result is not circular, and the reported improvements are potentially interesting. However, the manuscript has serious mathematical gaps in the central loss definitions and the proposed HyperCD is not used in the total loss, so the current text does not support the claim that the gains come from hyperbolic constraints. The δ-hyperbolicity ablation (Table 2) is also weak evidence because it measures the effect of a regularizer explicitly designed to create a hierarchy.

major comments (5)
  1. [Hyperbolic Point Cloud loss, Eq. (10)] L_Z = max(0, -Γ_P(W+) + Γ_P(P+) + γ/N) is a vector-valued expression: Γ_P maps to vectors in R^n, so max(0, vector) is undefined. Even interpreted elementwise, the expression does not encode the stated scalar margin between hyperbolic norms. A norm such as max(0, ||Γ_P(W+)|| - ||Γ_P(P+)|| + γ/N) is required. As written, this loss cannot be optimized and cannot be responsible for the reported gains.
  2. [Hyperbolic Point Cloud loss, Eq. (12)] L_T evaluates the hyperbolic distance d from Eq. (7) on Ψ_P(W+), Ψ_P(P+), and Ψ_P(P-). However, Ψ_P outputs tangent-space vectors in T_{z_P} P_n^k, whereas d is defined for points in the Poincaré ball through Möbius addition. The argument of d is therefore not in the domain of the distance. If the intended distance is the Euclidean norm of tangent vectors, then the loss is not a hyperbolic-distance triplet loss and the text must say so.
  3. [Hyperbolic distance, Eqs. (7)-(8)] With the stated curvature k = -0.14, √k is imaginary and Eq. (7) is not real-valued. The limit in Eq. (8) is also inconsistent with Eq. (7): for the displayed formula one obtains approximately 2k||x-y|| as k→0, not 2||x-y||. The standard Poincaré distance uses 2/√|k| arctanh(√|k| ||x⊕y||). This error invalidates the distance metric that is central to the hyperbolic losses.
  4. [Method / Hyperbolic Point Cloud loss, Eq. (9)] The paper introduces a Hyperbolic Chamfer Distance in Eq. (7), but the total loss L = L_N + L_Z + L_T does not include it; L_N is described only as 'all losses in NU-MCC'. No experiment or ablation varies the use of HyperCD. Thus the central proposed distance is not actually used in the training objective, and the reader cannot tell whether the reported improvements are caused by hyperbolic geometry or by the extra L_Z and L_T terms.
  5. [Table 1 / Results Comparison] The quantitative comparisons report no error bars, number of runs, or statistical tests. The claimed average improvements of 5.9%, 5.2%, and 5.6% in F1 score, completeness, and accuracy could be within run-to-run variation. Given the invalid loss definitions in Eqs. (10) and (12), the experimental results are not reproducible from the manuscript as written.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The Poincaré ball is defined with radius 1/|k|, but the Möbius formulas in Eq. (3) and the distance in Eq. (7) correspond to the standard normalization with radius 1/√|k|; please reconcile the normalization conventions.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The prefactor '2p |k|λ_k(z_P)' in the tangent-space mapping appears to be a typographical error for a factor involving 2/√|k|; as printed, the expression is dimensionally inconsistent.
  3. [After Eq. (12)] The text says 'δ is a hyperparameter that controls the separation degree between positive and negative samples', but Eq. (12) uses ε, not δ; this is a notation inconsistency.
  4. [Table 2] The δ-hyperbolicity values are reported without error bars or significance testing, and the improvement from 0.326 to 0.294 is expected because the regularizer is designed to push embeddings into a hierarchical arrangement; the claim of inherent hyperbolicity should be stated more cautiously.
  5. [Related work / experiments] Since Lin et al. already proposed a Hyperbolic Chamfer Distance for point cloud completion, the paper should compare with that method or explicitly explain how the proposed distance differs beyond being used in a different reconstruction setting.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Main reconstruction benchmark is external and non-circular; the delta-hperbolicity ablation is mildly self-fulfilling.

  1. self definitional [Equation (10) and 'Ablation study for δ-hyperbolicity' (Table 2)]
    "The regularizer LZ in Eq. (10) introduces a part-whole hierarchy by encouraging partial embeddings to be closer to the center of the Poincaré ball, while the overall embeddings are closer to the edge. ... The δ values computed in the experiments evaluated the overall similarity of sample features to an ideal tree-like structure, where δ values close to 0 indicate stronger hyperbolicity."

    The δ-hyperbolicity comparison (EN 0.326 vs EN+Eh 0.294) is presented as evidence that the hyperbolic network 'reveals hierarchical features.' But LZ was explicitly constructed to push partial embeddings toward the center and whole embeddings toward the edge of the Poincaré ball, i.e., to impose the very norm-ordering that makes the embedding look hierarchical. Measuring δ-hyperbolicity after training with that regularizer is therefore largely a check that the regularizer achieved its design goal, not an independent confirmation of the hyperbolic-geometry hypothesis. The central reconstruction claim (F1/CD gains over NU-MCC on CO3D-v2) is measured against external ground truth and is not circular; this step is a mild interpretational circularity in an ablation.

full rationale

The paper's headline result—reconstruction improvements over MCC and NU-MCC on CO3D-v2—is evaluated with external F1, completeness, and accuracy metrics against ground-truth point clouds, so the main performance claim is not circular. The only noticeable self-referential element is the δ-hyperbolicity ablation: the regularizer LZ in Eq. (10) is defined to impose a part-whole norm hierarchy, and Table 2 then reports that embeddings trained with that regularizer are more hyperbolic. This is a mild self-fulfilling sanity check rather than an independent discovery, but it does not feed back into the external benchmark. Separately, the hyperbolic losses in Eqs. (10) and (12) are not well-defined as written (vector max in Eq. (10); tangent-space vectors fed into a hyperbolic distance in Eq. (12); sqrt(k) with k = -0.14 in Eq. (7)), and the 'Hyperbolic Chamfer Distance' of Eq. (7) is the standard Poincaré distance already named in the cited Lin et al. 2023 work. These are correctness and novelty concerns, not circularity of the derivation, and they do not change the verdict that the central benchmark comparison is self-contained.

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

The central claim rests on fitted hyperparameters, including curvature and margins, and on borrowed hyperbolic formulas. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • curvature k = -0.14
    Chosen by ablation on CO3D-v2 validation (right of Fig. 4); the paper states best performance occurs at this value.
  • initial margin gamma0 = 1000
    Set in Implementation details; no ablation over this exact value is reported.
  • triplet margin epsilon = 4
    Set in Implementation details; no ablation is reported.
  • alpha = 2.0
    Listed in Implementation details but never defined in the method text; its role is unclear.
  • adaptive margin MLP weights = learned during training
    The margin in Eq. (11) is computed by an MLP on concatenated features; these weights are fit to data, and the initial margin gamma0 is a hyperparameter.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Point cloud objects have a tree-like hierarchical structure that is well represented by hyperbolic space.
    Motivates the entire method (Introduction, Fig. 1); the only evidence offered is the delta-hyperbolicity measurement in Table 2.
  • standard math The standard Poincare ball formulas, including Mobius addition and tangent mapping, apply at the stated curvature.
    Eqs. (3) and (4) rely on these formulas, but the paper's curvature sign is inconsistent, so the formulas are not correctly instantiated.
  • domain assumption The part-whole regularization idea from Montanaro et al. (2022) transfers to single-view reconstruction.
    The loss in Eq. (10) is borrowed without re-derivation for the RGB-D reconstruction setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hyperbolic-constraint Point Cloud Reconstruction from Single RGB-D Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AMRCV6XZ

@misc{pith2026241209055,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hyperbolic-constraint Point Cloud Reconstruction from Single RGB-D Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AMRCV6XZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09055}
}
read the original abstract

Reconstructing desired objects and scenes has long been a primary goal in 3D computer vision. Single-view point cloud reconstruction has become a popular technique due to its low cost and accurate results. However, single-view reconstruction methods often rely on expensive CAD models and complex geometric priors. Effectively utilizing prior knowledge about the data remains a challenge. In this paper, we introduce hyperbolic space to 3D point cloud reconstruction, enabling the model to represent and understand complex hierarchical structures in point clouds with low distortion. We build upon previous methods by proposing a hyperbolic Chamfer distance and a regularized triplet loss to enhance the relationship between partial and complete point clouds. Additionally, we design adaptive boundary conditions to improve the model's understanding and reconstruction of 3D structures. Our model outperforms most existing models, and ablation studies demonstrate the significance of our model and its components. Experimental results show that our method significantly improves feature extraction capabilities. Our model achieves outstanding performance in 3D reconstruction tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09055 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. This figure illustrates the efficient embedding of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the HcPCR. To enhance the understanding of the hierarchical structure of the point clouds, we em [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualisation comparison on CO3D-v2 validation set. We have selected three categories. Each category contained two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation Study of different margin and curvature. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualisation results of ablation study with (w) or without (w/o) the full loss function. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The HcPCR embedding is used to represent the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    P.; and Re, C

    Chami, I.; Gu, A.; Nguyen, D. P.; and Re, C. 2021. HoroPCA: Hyperbolic Dimensionality Reduction via Horospherical Projections. In Meila, M.; and Zhang, T., eds., Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 1419--1429. PMLR

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    X.; Funkhouser, T.; Guibas, L.; Hanrahan, P.; Huang, Q.; Li, Z.; Savarese, S.; Savva, M.; Song, S.; Su, H.; Xiao, J.; Yi, L.; and Yu, F

    Chang, A. X.; Funkhouser, T.; Guibas, L.; Hanrahan, P.; Huang, Q.; Li, Z.; Savarese, S.; Savva, M.; Song, S.; Su, H.; Xiao, J.; Yi, L.; and Yu, F. 2015. ShapeNet: An Information-Rich 3D Model Repository. arXiv:1512.03012

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Chen, H.; Liu, S.; Chen, W.; Li, H.; and Hill, R. 2021. Equivariant Point Network for 3D Point Cloud Analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 14514--14523

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Chen, R.; Chen, Y.; Jiao, N.; and Jia, K. 2023. Fantasia3D: Disentangling Geometry and Appearance for High-quality Text-to-3D Content Creation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 22246--22256

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Chen, Z.; Pu, B.; Zhao, L.; He, J.; and Liang, P. 2025. Divide and augment: Supervised domain adaptation via sample-wise feature fusion. Information Fusion, 115: 102757

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Chen, Z.; Zhang, J.; Lai, Z.; Chen, J.; Liu, Z.; and Li, J. 2022. Geometry-aware guided loss for deep crack recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 4703--4712

    work page 2022

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    G.; and Gui, L.-Y

    Cheng, Y.-C.; Lee, H.-Y.; Tulyakov, S.; Schwing, A. G.; and Gui, L.-Y. 2023. SDFusion: Multimodal 3D Shape Completion, Reconstruction, and Generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 4456--4465

    2023

  2. [10]

    Chou, G.; Bahat, Y.; and Heide, F. 2023. Diffusion-SDF: Conditional Generative Modeling of Signed Distance Functions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2262--2272

    2023

  3. [11]

    Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; Uszkoreit, J.; and Houlsby, N. 2021. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. arXiv:2010.11929

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fang, P.; Harandi, M.; Le, T.; and Phung, D. 2023. Hyperbolic geometry in computer vision: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10764

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ganea, O.; Becigneul, G.; and Hofmann, T. 2018. Hyperbolic Neural Networks. In Bengio, S.; Wallach, H.; Larochelle, H.; Grauman, K.; Cesa-Bianchi, N.; and Garnett, R., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Associates, Inc

    2018

  6. [14]

    Guo, Y.; Guo, H.; and Yu, S. X. 2022. CO-SNE: Dimensionality Reduction and Visualization for Hyperbolic Data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 21--30

    2022

  7. [15]

    Guo, Y.; Wang, H.; Hu, Q.; Liu, H.; Liu, L.; and Bennamoun, M. 2021. Deep Learning for 3D Point Clouds: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 43(12): 4338--4364

    2021

  8. [16]

    M.; Neumann, G.; and Mathis-Ullrich, F

    Henrich, P.; Gyenes, B.; Scheikl, P. M.; Neumann, G.; and Mathis-Ullrich, F. 2024. Registered and Segmented Deformable Object Reconstruction From a Single View Point Cloud. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 3129--3138

    2024

  9. [17]

    Hong, J.; Hayder, Z.; Han, J.; Fang, P.; Harandi, M.; and Petersson, L. 2023. Hyperbolic Audio-visual Zero-shot Learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 7873--7883

    2023

  10. [18]

    Khrulkov, V.; Mirvakhabova, L.; Ustinova, E.; Oseledets, I.; and Lempitsky, V. 2020. Hyperbolic Image Embeddings. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Li, W.; Ma, Z.; Deng, L.-J.; Fan, X.; and Tian, Y. 2023 a . Neuron-Based Spiking Transmission and Reasoning Network for Robust Image-Text Retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 33(7): 3516--3528

    2023

  12. [20]

    Li, W.; Ma, Z.; Deng, L.-J.; Wang, P.; Shi, J.; and Fan, X. 2023 b . Reservoir Computing Transformer for Image-Text Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM '23, 5605–5613. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Li, W.; Xiong, R.; and Fan, X. 2024. Multi-layer Probabilistic Association Reasoning Network for Image-Text Retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 1--1

    2024

  14. [22]

    Li, W.; Zhao, X.-L.; Ma, Z.; Wang, X.; Fan, X.; and Tian, Y. 2023 c . Motion-Decoupled Spiking Transformer for Audio-Visual Zero-Shot Learning. MM '23, 3994–4002. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400701085

    2023

  15. [23]

    Li, Y.; Bu, R.; Sun, M.; Wu, W.; Di, X.; and Chen, B. 2018. PointCNN: Convolution On X-Transformed Points. In Bengio, S.; Wallach, H.; Larochelle, H.; Grauman, K.; Cesa-Bianchi, N.; and Garnett, R., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31. Curran Ass...

    2018

  16. [24]

    Li, Z.; Liao, J.; Tang, C.; Zhang, H.; Li, Y.; Bian, Y.; Sheng, X.; Feng, X.; Li, Y.; Gao, C.; et al. 2024. USTC-TD: A Test Dataset and Benchmark for Image and Video Coding in 2020s. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08481

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    D.; and Zhang, Z

    Lin, F.; Yue, Y.; Hou, S.; Yu, X.; Xu, Y.; Yamada, K. D.; and Zhang, Z. 2023. Hyperbolic Chamfer Distance for Point Cloud Completion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 14595--14606

    2023

  18. [26]

    Lionar, S.; Xu, X.; Lin, M.; and Lee, G. H. 2023. NU-MCC: Multiview Compressive Coding with Neighborhood Decoder and Repulsive UDF. In Oh, A.; Naumann, T.; Globerson, A.; Saenko, K.; Hardt, M.; and Levine, S., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36,...

    2023

  19. [27]

    McInnes, L.; Healy, J.; and Melville, J. 2020. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction. arXiv:1802.03426

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Mescheder, L.; Oechsle, M.; Niemeyer, M.; Nowozin, S.; and Geiger, A. 2019. Occupancy Networks: Learning 3D Reconstruction in Function Space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Montanaro, A.; Valsesia, D.; and Magli, E. 2022. Rethinking the compositionality of point clouds through regularization in the hyperbolic space. In Koyejo, S.; Mohamed, S.; Agarwal, A.; Belgrave, D.; Cho, K.; and Oh, A., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems,...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Murez, Z.; van As, T.; Bartolozzi, J.; Sinha, A.; Badrinarayanan, V.; and Rabinovich, A. 2020. Atlas: End-to-End 3D Scene Reconstruction from Posed Images. In Vedaldi, A.; Bischof, H.; Brox, T.; and Frahm, J.-M., eds., Computer Vision -- ECCV 2020, 414--431. Cham: Springer Int...

    2020

  23. [31]

    Nickel, M.; and Kiela, D. 2017. Poincar\' e Embeddings for Learning Hierarchical Representations. In Guyon, I.; Luxburg, U. V.; Bengio, S.; Wallach, H.; Fergus, R.; Vishwanathan, S.; and Garnett, R., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran As...

    2017

  24. [32]

    V.; Nguyen, M

    Phan, A. V.; Nguyen, M. L.; Nguyen, Y. L. H.; and Bui, L. T. 2018. DGCNN: A convolutional neural network over large-scale labeled graphs. Neural Networks, 108: 533--543

    2018

  25. [33]

    R.; Su, H.; Mo, K.; and Guibas, L

    Qi, C. R.; Su, H.; Mo, K.; and Guibas, L. J. 2017 a . PointNet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3D Classification and Segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2017

  26. [34]

    R.; Yi, L.; Su, H.; and Guibas, L

    Qi, C. R.; Yi, L.; Su, H.; and Guibas, L. J. 2017 b . PointNet++: Deep Hierarchical Feature Learning on Point Sets in a Metric Space. In Guyon, I.; Luxburg, U. V.; Bengio, S.; Wallach, H.; Fergus, R.; Vishwanathan, S.; and Garnett, R., eds., Advances in Neural Information Proc...

    2017

  27. [35]

    Rao, Y.; Lu, J.; and Zhou, J. 2020. Global-Local Bidirectional Reasoning for Unsupervised Representation Learning of 3D Point Clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Rao, Y.; Lu, J.; and Zhou, J. 2023. PointGLR: Unsupervised Structural Representation Learning of 3D Point Clouds. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(2): 2193--2207

    2023

  29. [37]

    Reizenstein, J.; Shapovalov, R.; Henzler, P.; Sbordone, L.; Labatut, P.; and Novotny, D. 2021. Common Objects in 3D: Large-Scale Learning and Evaluation of Real-Life 3D Category Reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), ...

    2021

  30. [38]

    Sarkar, R. 2012 a . Low Distortion Delaunay Embedding of Trees in Hyperbolic Plane. In van Kreveld, M.; and Speckmann, B., eds., Graph Drawing, 355--366. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3-642-25878-7

    2012

  31. [39]

    Sarkar, R. 2012 b . Low Distortion Delaunay Embedding of Trees in Hyperbolic Plane. In van Kreveld, M.; and Speckmann, B., eds., Graph Drawing, 355--366. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2012

  32. [40]

    B.; and Freeman, W

    Sun, X.; Wu, J.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Xue, T.; Tenenbaum, J. B.; and Freeman, W. T. 2018. Pix3D: Dataset and Methods for Single-Image 3D Shape Modeling. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Tang, C.; Sheng, X.; Li, Z.; Zhang, H.; Li, L.; and Liu, D. 2024. Offline and Online Optical Flow Enhancement for Deep Video Compression. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, 5118--5126

    2024

  34. [42]

    Wu, C.-Y.; Johnson, J.; Malik, J.; Feichtenhofer, C.; and Gkioxari, G. 2023. Multiview Compressive Coding for 3D Reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 9065--9075

    2023

  35. [43]

    Wu, T.; Pan, L.; Zhang, J.; Wang, T.; Liu, Z.; and Lin, D. 2021. Density-aware Chamfer Distance as a Comprehensive Metric for Point Cloud Completion. arXiv:2111.12702

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Wu, W.; Qi, Z.; and Fuxin, L. 2019. PointConv: Deep Convolutional Networks on 3D Point Clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Yang, Z.; Li, W.; and Cheng, G. 2024. SHMamba: Structured Hyperbolic State Space Model for Audio-Visual Question Answering. arXiv:2406.09833

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    L.; and Leskovec, J

    Ying, R.; He, R.; Chen, K.; Eksombatchai, P.; Hamilton, W. L.; and Leskovec, J. 2018. Graph Convolutional Neural Networks for Web-Scale Recommender Systems. KDD '18. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450355520

    2018

  39. [47]

    Yu, X.; Xu, M.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Ye, C.; Wu, Y.; Yan, Z.; Zhu, C.; Xiong, Z.; Liang, T.; Chen, G.; Cui, S.; and Han, X. 2023. MVImgNet: A Large-Scale Dataset of Multi-View Images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 9...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.