Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

DC-PCN: Point Cloud Completion Network with Dual-Codebook Guided Quantization

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two complementary codebooks give state-of-the-art point cloud completion accuracy.

desk verdict Solid incremental VQ-completion paper whose SOTA claim needs a validation protocol and variance estimates before the 0.07 margin over AdaPoinTr is believable. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10966 v1 pith:AUY3VWYJ submitted 2025-01-19 cs.CV cs.AI

Qiuxia Wu , Haiyang Huang , Kunming Su , Zhiyong Wang , Kun Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords pointcloudcompletiondual-codebookquantizationvectortransformerencoder-decoderinformationexchangeChamferDistanceF-Score3Dshapereconstruction
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

Point cloud completion reconstructs a full 3D shape from a partial scan, and the paper argues that a core obstacle is ambiguity: the same object surface can be sampled into many different point clouds, so continuous features learned from one sampling can be inconsistent. DC-PCN tackles this by quantizing shallow and deep features against two codebooks, mapping similar surface features onto the same discrete code and thereby giving one surface one representation. The paper also contributes a quantized information exchange mechanism that deduplicates, re-targets, and merges codes between the two codebooks. On the PCN, ShapeNet_Part, and ShapeNet34 benchmarks, the authors report the best average Chamfer Distance and F-Score among all compared methods, including an average CD-$\ell_1$ of 6.46 in the standard scaled units and an F-Score@1% of 0.850 on PCN. A sympathetic reader would care because a representation that is stable across samplings should produce cleaner, more faithful completions in downstream 3D tasks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dual-codebook quantization scheme along with its quantized information exchange (QIE). An encoder-codebook $C_E$ and a decoder-codebook $C_D$, each a set of $K$ code vectors, replace each feature vector with its nearest code under Euclidean distance, following the VQ-VAE discretization idea. QIE has three parts: code deduplication, which removes repeated codes; code distribution re-targeting, which uses cascading MLPs to project codes from one codebook's distribution into the other's; and code merging, which blends matched codes by an adaptive weight equal to their cosine similarity. The loss combines Chamfer Distance on the coarse and complete clouds with an internal codebook loss that spreads codes apart and an external loss that pulls re-targeted codes toward their decoder-codebook matches.

What would settle it

A decisive experiment is to fix one codebook size for all datasets, select it only on a validation split, and retrain both DC-PCN and the closest baseline several times with different seeds. If the PCN CD-$\ell_1$ gap of 0.07 shrinks or reverses, the state-of-the-art claim rests on per-dataset tuning rather than the method. A second check would compare the distances between quantized codes from two different samplings of the same surface against the distances between the unquantized features; if quantization does not pull same-surface codes closer, the invariance story is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that discretizing features with two complementary codebooks removes sampling-induced ambiguity and that this is what pushes completion quality past prior methods. The authors' argument is that point-based completion networks operate on continuous latent features, so different samplings of the same surface yield different features and the decoder must accommodate that variability. DC-PCN forces shallow features through an encoder-codebook and deep features through a decoder-codebook, replacing each feature vector with its nearest code vector. A quantized information exchange mechanism then deduplicates the two code sets, re-targets encoder codes into the decoder-codebook's distribution, and merges matched codes using a cosine-similarity weight. The paper reports top results on all three benchmarks, and on PCN the average CD-$\ell_1$ of 6.46 and F-Score@1% of 0.850 are the best among the methods compared, with an MMD of 0.373 on KITTI.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the per-dataset codebook sizes, which the authors tuned and report as optimal, were selected without using test-set labels; if they were tuned to minimize test error, the small reported margins over the closest baseline could be a selection artifact rather than a property of the method.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers reproduce, DC-PCN sets the best published results among the compared methods on the PCN benchmark, with CD-$\ell_1$ 6.46 and F-Score@1% 0.850.
  • The ablations support the dual-codebook design: dropping the encoder-codebook costs 0.05 in CD-$\ell_1$, dropping the decoder-codebook costs 0.01, and replacing both with a shared codebook costs 0.15.
  • On ShapeNet34's 21 unseen categories, DC-PCN still achieves the best CD-$\ell_2$ among compared methods, which the paper reads as evidence of generalizability.
  • On real-world KITTI car scans, the method reports MMD 0.373, an improvement of 0.019 over the strongest compared baseline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the paper's own ablation does not separate the contribution of quantization from the contribution of the re-targeting MLP; isolating the two would test whether the key mechanism is discretization or simply extra learned parameters.
  • Inference: because the codebook sizes were tuned per dataset, an adaptive, data-driven codebook-size policy is the natural next step and would determine whether the method can be deployed on new scan distributions without per-dataset search.
  • Inference: the invariance rationale transfers beyond completion; any task in which multiple partial observations of one 3D surface must share a representation could be reframed as a dual-codebook quantization problem.
  • Inference: the reported margins over the closest baseline are small (0.07 in PCN CD-$\ell_1$), so an independent multi-seed reproduction with rules fixed in advance would be the cleanest check that the advantage is systematic rather than tuning-dependent.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DC-PCN, an encoder-decoder point cloud completion network that introduces two vector-quantization codebooks: an encoder-codebook applied to shallow regional features before the transformer encoder, and a decoder-codebook applied to deep features before the shape predictor. A quantized information exchange (QIE) module deduplicates, re-targets, and merges codes from the two codebooks, and a contrastive-style codebook loss is added to Chamfer-distance supervision. The method is evaluated on PCN, ShapeNet_Part, ShapeNet34, and KITTI, reporting the best or competitive Chamfer distance and F-Score, with a claimed state-of-the-art average CD-l1 of 6.46 on PCN. Ablations on PCN (Table 5) decompose the gains attributable to the encoder codebook, decoder codebook, and QIE.

Significance. If the reported results are robust, the dual-codebook design is a meaningful extension of VQ-based point cloud completion: quantizing at both shallow and deep levels and exchanging information between codebooks targets the sampling-ambiguity problem, and the paper provides a clearly specified loss structure and an ablation that includes a shared-codebook control. The authors also release code, which supports reproducibility. The central weakness is empirical: all gains over the baseline and over prior state of the art are 0.01--0.07 in the primary metric, come from single runs with no variance estimates, and depend on per-dataset codebook sizes whose selection protocol is not described. The stress-test concern about small margins and codebook tuning therefore lands, and it is load-bearing for the headline claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Limitations; Table 1; Table 5] The state-of-the-art claim is not supported by the evidence as reported. The full model improves over the no-codebook baseline A by 0.07 CD-l1 (6.53 to 6.46) in Table 5, which is exactly the size of the reported improvement over AdaPoinTr in Table 1 (6.53 to 6.46). The individual ablations add only 0.05 (EC), 0.01 (DC), and 0.01 (QIE), and no error bars or multiple-seed results are provided. Run-to-run variation of this magnitude would erase both the internal ablation conclusions and the headline margin. The Limitations paragraph further admits that the codebook sizes are 'the optimal values obtained by changing different parameters,' but the search space, the selection criterion, and whether the test split was used are not specified. The authors should report multiple runs with mean and standard deviation (or equivalent statistical evidence) and a validation-based hyperparameter selection protocol, or the state-of-the-art claim should be withdrawn.
  2. [Implementation Details; Methodology, 'Dual-Codebook for Discrete Representations'] The central hyperparameters are not reported. The paper never gives the codebook size K or dimension R, the number of regions M, the deep-feature dimensions H and C, the optimizer, learning rate, batch size, training epochs, or the region/FPS parameters, so the method cannot be reproduced from the text; the only implementation information is the GPU type. Because K is acknowledged to be a sensitive, per-dataset tuned hyperparameter, a table of the chosen K, R, and other training details is required.
  3. [Eq. (1) and 'Dual-Codebook for Discrete Representations'] The paper does not explain how gradients are propagated through the hard argmin quantization in Eq. (1). If a straight-through estimator is assumed, it should be stated explicitly; if codebook vectors are updated only through the described 'interactive' update, that procedure should also be specified. Without this detail, the optimization of the encoder, decoder, and codebooks cannot be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Performance on ShapeNet_Part Dataset] The text says AdaPoinTr and PoinTr achieved 6.10 and 6.26 respectively, but Table 2 lists their averages as 6.3 and 6.1; the order is reversed and should be corrected.
  2. [Ablation Study, 'Quantized Information Exchanging'] The two-paragraph description of the QIE ablation is duplicated almost verbatim; the duplicate should be removed.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption contains an extra 'and' in '(b) and the decoder-codebook'; it should be cleaned up.
  4. [References] The reference for HyperCD (Zhu, Fan, and Weng 2024) appears to point to a survey on point cloud data augmentation, not to a point cloud completion method; the citation should be verified and corrected.
  5. [Eq. (4)] The summation in Eq. (4) uses indices starting at i=0, whereas the deduplicated sets were earlier defined with indices starting at t=1 and l=1; the notation should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; external benchmark evaluation is self-contained, with a minor hyperparameter-selection caveat.

full rationale

The paper makes no theoretical derivation chain that could reduce to its own inputs. Its central claim, state-of-the-art point cloud completion, is evaluated on standard external benchmarks (PCN, ShapeNet_Part, ShapeNet34, and KITTI) with standard metrics (CD, F-Score, MMD) on held-out test sets. The method components, including the encoder-codebook, decoder-codebook, and quantized information exchanging mechanism, are defined independently of the reported metrics; no equation equates the completion output to a fitted value of the metric itself. The only self-citation, Mo et al. 2025, shares authors Hu and Wang with the present paper, but it is a peripheral introduction reference on point-cloud sampling and is not load-bearing for any claimed result. The Limitations paragraph states that 'the sizes of codebooks in the experiments are all the optimal values obtained by changing different parameters.' This is a validation-protocol concern, not circularity, because the searched hyperparameters are not the quantities being predicted and the benchmark comparisons are external. The reported margins are small, and the lack of error bars or a validation protocol means the SOTA claim carries correctness risk, but that risk is about experimental rigor, not circular reasoning. Accordingly, the score is 1, reflecting only the mild hyperparameter-selection caveat.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one fitted hyperparameter (codebook size K) that the authors explicitly tuned per dataset, and on two domain assumptions about feature similarity and distribution alignment. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; the invented_entities list is empty because the codebooks are architectural components whose only evidence is the paper's own experiments.

free parameters (1)
  • Codebook size K (and dimension R) for encoder and decoder codebooks = Not reported; chosen per dataset by parameter search
    The Limitations state: 'The sizes of codebooks in the experiments are all the optimal values obtained by changing different parameters.' These choices directly affect the reported CD and F-Score, so they are fitted to the benchmarks.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Chamfer Distance is an adequate distortion metric for point cloud completion quality.
    Used in Eq. 7 for training and in all tables for evaluation; it is the field standard, though it has known biases (e.g., it does not penalize non-uniform density).
  • domain assumption Features from point clouds of the same surface are similar enough that shared code vectors reduce sampling ambiguity.
    Motivates the entire dual-codebook design; see Methodology section 'Dual-Codebook for Discrete Representations'.
  • domain assumption The re-targeting MLP can align encoder and decoder codebook distributions so that merged codes improve completion.
    Assumed in the QIE 'Code Distribution Re-Targeting' subsection; no direct verification of distribution alignment is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DC-PCN: Point Cloud Completion Network with Dual-Codebook Guided Quantization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUY3VWYJ

@misc{pith2026250110966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DC-PCN: Point Cloud Completion Network with Dual-Codebook Guided Quantization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUY3VWYJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10966}
}
read the original abstract

Point cloud completion aims to reconstruct complete 3D shapes from partial 3D point clouds. With advancements in deep learning techniques, various methods for point cloud completion have been developed. Despite achieving encouraging results, a significant issue remains: these methods often overlook the variability in point clouds sampled from a single 3D object surface. This variability can lead to ambiguity and hinder the achievement of more precise completion results. Therefore, in this study, we introduce a novel point cloud completion network, namely Dual-Codebook Point Completion Network (DC-PCN), following an encder-decoder pipeline. The primary objective of DC-PCN is to formulate a singular representation of sampled point clouds originating from the same 3D surface. DC-PCN introduces a dual-codebook design to quantize point-cloud representations from a multilevel perspective. It consists of an encoder-codebook and a decoder-codebook, designed to capture distinct point cloud patterns at shallow and deep levels. Additionally, to enhance the information flow between these two codebooks, we devise an information exchange mechanism. This approach ensures that crucial features and patterns from both shallow and deep levels are effectively utilized for completion. Extensive experiments on the PCN, ShapeNet\_Part, and ShapeNet34 datasets demonstrate the state-of-the-art performance of our method.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10966 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between different approaches: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DC-PCN architecture. To achieve consistent and unambiguous latent representations for point clouds, a dual-codebook [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of codebook distributions of (a) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the results on PCN. The results of our method show higher-level noise suppression and have refined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of the results on ablation settings A, B, D and E. Our method exhibits superiority when dealing with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B.; Xu, D.; Gwak, J.; Chen, K.; and Savarese, S

    Choy, C. B.; Xu, D.; Gwak, J.; Chen, K.; and Savarese, S. 2016. 3 D - R 2 N 2: A Unified Approach for Single and Multi-View 3D Object Reconstruction. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 628--644. Springer

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Cui, R.; Qiu, S.; Anwar, S.; Liu, J.; Xing, C.; Zhang, J.; and Barnes, N. 2023. P2c: Self-Supervised Point Cloud Completion from Single Partial Clouds. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 14351--14360

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Dai, A.; Ruizhongtai Qi, C.; and Nie ner, M. 2017. Shape Completion Using 3D-Encoder-Predictor Cnns and Shape Synthesis. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 5868--5877

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Fei, B.; Yang, W.; Chen, W.-M.; Li, Z.; Li, Y.; Ma, T.; Hu, X.; and Ma, L. 2022 a . Comprehensive Review of Deep Learning-Based 3D Point Cloud Completion Processing and Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Fei, B.; Yang, W.; Chen, W.-M.; and Ma, L. 2022 b . VQ-DcTr: Vector-Quantized Autoencoder with Dual-Channel Transformer Points Splitting for 3D Point Cloud Completion. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 4769--4778

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    F.; Rodriguez, M.; and Gupta, A

    Girdhar, R.; Fouhey, D. F.; Rodriguez, M.; and Gupta, A. 2016. Learning a Predictable and Generative Vector Pepresentation for Objects. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 484--499. Springer

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    G.; Russell, B

    Groueix, T.; Fisher, M.; Kim, V. G.; Russell, B. C.; and Aubry, M. 2018. A Papier-M \^a ch \'e Approach to Learning 3D Surface Generation. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 216--224

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    R.; and Hu, S.-M

    Guo, M.-H.; Cai, J.-X.; Liu, Z.-N.; Mu, T.-J.; Martin, R. R.; and Hu, S.-M. 2021. PCT: Point Cloud Transformer. Computational Visual Media, 7: 187--199

    work page 2021

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Han, X.; Li, Z.; Huang, H.; Kalogerakis, E.; and Yu, Y. 2017. High-Resolution Shape Completion Using Deep Neural Networks for Global Structure and Local Geometry Inference. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 85--93

    2017

  2. [10]

    Huang, Z.; Yu, Y.; Xu, J.; Ni, F.; and Le, X. 2020. Pf-Net: Point Fractal Network for 3D Point Cloud Completion. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 7662--7670

    2020

  3. [11]

    Liu, M.; Sheng, L.; Yang, S.; Shao, J.; and Hu, S.-M. 2020. Morphing and Sampling Network for Dense Point Cloud Completion. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, 11596--11603

    2020

  4. [12]

    J.; Pauly, M.; Wand, M.; and Ceylan, D

    Mitra, N. J.; Pauly, M.; Wand, M.; and Ceylan, D. 2013. Symmetry in 3D Geometry: Extraction and Applications. In Computer Graphics Forum, volume 32, 1--23. Wiley Online Library

    2013

  5. [13]

    Mittal, P.; Cheng, Y.-C.; Singh, M.; and Tulsiani, S. 2022. Autosdf: Shape Priors for 3D Completion, Reconstruction and Generation. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 306--315

    2022

  6. [14]

    Mo, C.; Hu, K.; Long, C.; Yuan, D.; and Wang, Z. 2025. Motion Keyframe Interpolation for Any Human Skeleton via Temporally Consistent Point Cloud Sampling and Reconstruction. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 159--175. Springer

    2025

  7. [15]

    E.; and Huang, G

    Pan, X.; Xia, Z.; Song, S.; Li, L. E.; and Huang, G. 2021. 3D Object Detection with Pointformer. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 7463--7472

    2021

  8. [16]

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

    Qi, C. R.; Su, H.; Mo, K.; and Guibas, L. J. 2017. Pointnet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3D Classification and Segmentation. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 652--660

    2017

  9. [17]

    Tang, J.; Gong, Z.; Yi, R.; Xie, Y.; and Ma, L. 2022. Lake-Net: Topology-Aware Point Cloud Completion by Localizing Aligned Keypoints. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1726--1735

    2022

  10. [18]

    R.; Ranftl, R.; Li, Z.; Koltun, V.; and Brox, T

    Tatarchenko, M.; Richter, S. R.; Ranftl, R.; Li, Z.; Koltun, V.; and Brox, T. 2019. What Do Single-View 3D Reconstruction Networks Learn? In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3405--3414

    2019

  11. [19]

    P.; Kosaraju, V.; Rezatofighi, H.; Reid, I.; and Savarese, S

    Tchapmi, L. P.; Kosaraju, V.; Rezatofighi, H.; Reid, I.; and Savarese, S. 2019. Topnet: Structural Point Cloud Decoder. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 383--392

    2019

  12. [20]

    Van Den Oord, A.; Vinyals, O.; et al. 2017. Neural Discrete Representation Learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30

    2017

  13. [21]

    H.; and Lee, G

    Wang, X.; Ang Jr, M. H.; and Lee, G. H. 2020. Cascaded Refinement Network For Point Cloud Completion. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 790--799

    2020

  14. [22]

    Wen, X.; Xiang, P.; Han, Z.; Cao, Y.-P.; Wan, P.; Zheng, W.; and Liu, Y.-S. 2021. Pmp-Net: Point Cloud Completion by Learning Multi-Step Point Moving Paths. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 7443--7452

    2021

  15. [23]

    Wu, X.; Wu, X.; Luan, T.; Bai, Y.; Lai, Z.; and Yuan, J. 2024. FSC: Few-Point Shape Completion. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 26077--26087

    2024

  16. [24]

    Wu, Z.; Song, S.; Khosla, A.; Yu, F.; Zhang, L.; Tang, X.; and Xiao, J. 2015. 3D Shapenets: A Deep Representation for Volumetric Shapes. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1912--1920

    2015

  17. [25]

    Xiang, P.; Wen, X.; Liu, Y.-S.; Cao, Y.-P.; Wan, P.; Zheng, W.; and Han, Z. 2021. Snowflakenet: Point Cloud Completion by Snowflake Point Deconvolution with Skip-Transformer. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 5499--5509

    2021

  18. [26]

    Xie, H.; Yao, H.; Zhou, S.; Mao, J.; Zhang, S.; and Sun, W. 2020. Grnet: Gridding Residual Network for Dense Point Cloud Completion. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 365--381. Springer

    2020

  19. [27]

    J.; Lischinski, D.; Cohen-Or, D.; and Huang, H

    Yan, X.; Lin, L.; Mitra, N. J.; Lischinski, D.; Cohen-Or, D.; and Huang, H. 2022. Shapeformer: Transformer-Based Shape Completion Via Sparse Representation. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 6239--6249

    2022

  20. [28]

    Yang, Y.; Feng, C.; Shen, Y.; and Tian, D. 2018. Foldingnet: Point Cloud Auto-Encoder Via Deep Grid Deformation. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 206--215

    2018

  21. [29]

    Yu, X.; Rao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Liu, Z.; Lu, J.; and Zhou, J. 2021. Pointr: Diverse Point Cloud Completion with Geometry-Aware Transformers. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 12498--12507

    2021

  22. [30]

    Yu, X.; Rao, Y.; Wang, Z.; Lu, J.; and Zhou, J. 2023. AdaPoinTr: Diverse Point Cloud Completion With Adaptive Geometry-Aware Transformers. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2301.04545

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Yuan, W.; Khot, T.; Held, D.; Mertz, C.; and Hebert, M. 2018. PCN: Point Completion Network. In International Conference on 3D Vision, 728--737. IEEE

    2018

  24. [32]

    Zhang, W.; Yan, Q.; and Xiao, C. 2020. Detail Preserved Point Cloud Completion Via Separated Feature Aggregation. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 512--528. Springer

    2020

  25. [33]

    H.; and Koltun, V

    Zhao, H.; Jiang, L.; Jia, J.; Torr, P. H.; and Koltun, V. 2021. Point Transformer. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 16259--16268

    2021

  26. [34]

    Zhou, H.; Cao, Y.; Chu, W.; Zhu, J.; Lu, T.; Tai, Y.; and Wang, C. 2022. Seedformer: Patch Seeds Based Point Cloud Completion with Upsample Transformer. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 416--432. Springer

    2022

  27. [35]

    Zhu, Q.; Fan, L.; and Weng, N. 2024. Advancements in Point Cloud Data Augmentation for Deep Learning: A Survey. Pattern Recognition, 110532

    2024

  28. [36]

    Zhu, Z.; Chen, H.; He, X.; Wang, W.; Qin, J.; and Wei, M. 2023. Svdformer: Complementing Point Cloud Via Self-View Augmentation and Self-Structure Dual-Generator. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 14508--14518

    2023

  29. [37]

    , " * 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...

  30. [38]

    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 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.