Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 50 references

An Iterative Task-Driven Framework for Resilient LiDAR Place Recognition in Adverse Weather

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that joint, alternating training of LiDAR restoration and place recognition beats separate pipelines in rain, snow, and fog.

desk verdict Iterative joint training of restoration and recognition is a real, well-supported contribution; the Boreas pairing and self-referential FSS are fixable soft spots. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14806 v2 pith:3G24TS2R submitted 2025-04-21 cs.RO

Xiongwei Zhao , Xieyuanli Chen , Xu Zhu , Xingxiang Xie , Haojie Bai , Congcong Wen , Rundong Zhou , Qihao Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords LiDARplacerecognitionadverseweatherdatarestorationiterativetask-drivenlearninglossfrequency-domainfeaturemixingwaveletpyramiddescriptorrangeimage
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 tries to establish that LiDAR place recognition in rain, snow, and fog fails partly because restoration and recognition are trained as separate stages, so the restored range image is not optimized for what the recognizer needs. Its framework, ITDNet, alternates between training a range-image restoration module and a place-recognition descriptor module in successive epochs, letting the recognizer's global descriptors act as pseudo-labels that supervise the restorer through a KL-divergence task-driven loss. On synthetic Weather-KITTI and Weather-Apollo and on real-world Boreas, this joint "Union" mode consistently beats both direct recognition on degraded scans and a separate restore-then-recognize pipeline; for example, snow R@1 on Weather-KITTI Sequence 00 rises from 0.15 direct and 0.74 separate to 0.84 Union. If the claim holds, adverse-weather localization is a task-coupling problem, not just a denoising or descriptor problem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the alternating optimization loop between the LDR and LPR modules. The LDR module is a U-Net built from Dual-Domain Mixer (DDM) blocks, which alternate FFT-based frequency mixing with depthwise spatial mixing to suppress high-frequency weather noise, and Semantic-Aware Generator (SAG) blocks, which inject multi-scale semantic context. The LPR module applies two-level wavelet decomposition, refines each sub-band with Multi-Frequency Transformer (MFT) blocks using frequency-guided window attention, and aggregates the scales through a Wavelet Pyramid NetVLAD (WPN) block. The two are tied together by the task-driven loss, a KL divergence between the softmaxed global descriptors of restored and clean scans produced by the frozen LPR teacher, combined with an L1 reconstruction loss on range and intensity, with the task-driven weight raised from 0.01 to 0.1 after the first 30 epochs.

What would settle it

Remove the task-driven KL loss from the LDR training on Boreas while keeping everything else fixed; if recall on the hard split does not fall below the reported 0.63 R@1, the iterative coupling is not what produces the Union gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that LiDAR data restoration and LiDAR place recognition should be optimized together, in alternating epochs, with each task shaping the other. In even epochs the LPR module is trained with triplet loss on restored queries and clean database scans; in odd epochs the LDR module is trained with a reconstruction loss plus a task-driven loss that pulls the global descriptor of the restored scan toward the descriptor of the clean scan, using the previous epoch's LPR module as a frozen teacher. The paper reports that this Union mode outperforms Direct use of degraded scans and Separate restoration-then-recognition on every tested dataset and weather condition, and it introduces the Feature Similarity Score to show that alignment in feature space, rather than pixel fidelity, tracks recognition gains.

Load-bearing premise

The real-world claim rests on the assumption that pairing each degraded Boreas scan with the nearest clean scan from another season (within 0.01 m and 0.1 degrees) yields genuinely matching scene pairs, an assumption the paper itself flags as vulnerable to environmental misalignment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A navigation stack using ITDNet could keep recognizing places in snow, fog, and rain at substantially higher top-1 recall than running restoration and recognition as separate stages.
  • Restoration quality for place recognition should be measured by feature-level alignment rather than pixel-level similarity; the paper's Feature Similarity Score predicts downstream retrieval better than SSIM.
  • The Union advantage appears across synthetic and real-world data and across snow, fog, and rain, so the benefit is not tied to a single corruption type.
  • Range-image-based recognizers gain more from the restoration module than point-based recognizers do, pointing to image-based pipelines as the natural integration target.
  • At roughly 24 ms per scan with about 29.86 million parameters, the full framework is fast enough for real-time onboard use.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same alternating pseudo-label coupling could be carried over to other degraded-input perception pairs, such as dehazing with object detection or desnowing with semantic segmentation; the paper surveys union-learning precedents but does not test those pairs.
  • Using the Feature Similarity Score as a training reward could let the restorer learn without clean paired scans, which would directly address the cross-season pairing problem the paper acknowledges on the real-world dataset.
  • Because the Union gains over Separate are larger on synthetic data than on Boreas, the practical ceiling may sit in how well degraded and clean scans can be paired; improving pair generation or moving to self-supervised restoration is a plausible next step.
  • The task-driven loss may be acting mainly as a semantic regularizer on the restorer; if so, a lighter feature-matching penalty could capture most of the Union gain at lower training cost.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes ITDNet, an iterative task-driven framework that couples a LiDAR data restoration (LDR) module with a LiDAR place recognition (LPR) module. The LDR module uses Dual-Domain Mixer (DDM) and Semantic-Aware Generator (SAG) blocks, while the LPR module uses Multi-Frequency Transformer (MFT) and Wavelet Pyramid NetVLAD (WPN) blocks. Training alternates between the two modules: the LPR is trained with triplet loss, and the LDR is trained with a reconstruction loss plus a KL-divergence task-driven loss that aligns descriptors of restored scans to descriptors of clean scans using pseudo-labels from the previous LPR epoch. Experiments on Weather-KITTI, Weather-Apollo, and Boreas compare Direct, Separate, and Union modes against OverlapTransformer, LCDNet, and CVTNet. Reported results show that Union consistently outperforms Separate, which outperforms Direct, and the paper also introduces the Feature Similarity Score (FSS) metric and the Weather-Apollo dataset.

Significance. If the results hold, the main contribution is a practical demonstration that restoration and place recognition can be co-trained to mutual benefit in adverse weather. The iterative pseudo-label scheme is simple and appears effective across three datasets, and the architectural components (DDM, SAG, MFT, WPN) are clearly motivated. The Weather-Apollo dataset is a useful addition, and the FSS metric could be of interest to the community. However, the evidence base is narrow: only three baselines, no error bars, and the only real-world dataset relies on approximate cross-season training pairs. The FSS metric is also partially circular because it uses the same LPR model that provides pseudo-labels to the LDR. These issues prevent the state-of-the-art claim from being fully established as presented.

major comments (5)
  1. [§IV-A, Eq. (26)] The LDR training pairs on Boreas are generated by pose-matching degraded Seq 02/03 scans to the nearest Seq 00 scan under strict pose thresholds (0.01 m, 0.1 deg), with the paper acknowledging that environmental changes may cause misalignment. Because Boreas is the only real-world dataset, the validity of these pairs is load-bearing for the real-world claim. The defense that the approximation is 'sufficient' is circular, since it cites the improved LPR numbers that were produced by the same pairs. Please report the number of matched pairs, show qualitative examples of the pairs, and provide a control experiment (e.g., an LDR trained only on the synthetic datasets and applied to Boreas) to isolate whether the real-world gains depend on valid cross-season pairs.
  2. [Tables II–IV] All results are single-run point estimates, and the Union-vs-Separate gains on Boreas are small (e.g., R@1 0.71 vs 0.65 easy, 0.63 vs 0.58 hard). Without multiple seeds or statistical significance measures, the claim that Union consistently outperforms Separate is not statistically supported. Please report means and standard deviations over at least three runs, or justify why single-run comparisons are sufficient in this setting.
  3. [§IV-C, Tables II–IV] The 'Separate' setting is described as pairing each LPR model with ITDNet-D 'via separate training,' but the paper never states whether this ITDNet-D is trained with the task-driven loss (Eq. 16) or only with the reconstruction loss (Eq. 15), nor the epoch budget for the separate modules. If the same jointly trained ITDNet-D is reused, the Union-vs-Separate comparison conflates joint optimization with the effect of the task-driven loss and is unfair. Please specify the exact training protocol for the Separate setting and retrain if necessary.
  4. [Eq. (27) and Table V] The FSS metric uses global descriptors from the same LPR model that provides pseudo-labels to the LDR during training, so the high FSS value for ITDNet may reflect feature-space overfitting rather than restoration quality. The paper's claim that FSS 'correlates well with downstream LPR performance' is based on only four methods and is therefore not established. The independent R@1 and R@1% columns in Table V are more reliable; please either remove the strong FSS claim or validate FSS against an independently trained descriptor (e.g., a frozen LPR not used in training).
  5. [§IV-C and Abstract] The 'state-of-the-art' claim is supported by only three baselines (OT, LCDNet, CVTNet). Given the breadth of LiDAR place recognition literature, please add at least one or two standard recent methods (e.g., PointNetVLAD, MinkLoc3D, or a recent transformer-based descriptor) to the Direct/Separate comparisons, or temper the SOTA claim to 'superior to the compared methods.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV-A, first paragraph] 'We conduct qualitative evaluations on three large-scale LiDAR datasets' should be 'quantitative evaluations,' since the section reports tables of numeric metrics.
  2. [Eqs. (16)–(17)] The notation p_j and \hat p_j is confusing because p is used elsewhere for point clouds; these are feature vectors, so please rename them to clarify the distinction.
  3. [Algorithm 1] Please specify whether epoch numbering starts at 1 so the odd/even parity is unambiguous; the text and algorithm should agree on which epoch trains which module.
  4. [Table VI] The checkmark columns are not aligned with the component names, making it hard to see which component is removed in each row, and the text omits discussion of the MFT and WPN ablations.
  5. [Figure 2(b) caption] The caption says 'the restored image is decomposed,' but the LDR operates on range images, not natural images; please rephrase to 'the restored range image features.'
  6. [Abstract and references] The GitHub URL is broken across lines; please provide it as a single URL. Also, if a peer-reviewed version of reference [7] (ResLPRNet) exists, please cite it in addition to the arXiv preprint.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

FSS metric re-encodes the LDR training objective; central R@1 results remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III-B (Eq. 16, task-driven loss) and Sec. IV-B (Eq. 27, FSS metric); Table V]
    "To further capture the task-driven benefits of restoration, we introduce a novel Feature Similarity Score (FSS), which measures the semantic alignment between restored and clean inputs by calculating the cosine similarity of their global descriptors obtained from the LPR model. In each iteration, the LPR model from the previous epoch provides global descriptors as pseudo-labels, and we enforce consistency by minimizing the KL divergence between the descriptors of restored and clean point clouds."

    The LDR is trained with LLTD (Eq. 16), the KL divergence between softmaxed LPR descriptors of restored and clean scans. FSS (Eq. 27) is the cosine similarity between the same LPR descriptors. Both quantify the same alignment objective, and FSS is computed with the same ITDNet-P model that generated the pseudo-labels. Thus the FSS advantage of ITDNet in Table V (0.95 vs 0.46-0.75) largely restates the training objective rather than independently measuring restoration quality, while the main R@1 retrieval results remain independent.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that ITDNet achieves state-of-the-art LPR in adverse weather — is supported by R@1/R@1%/F1 metrics on Weather-KITTI, Weather-Apollo, and Boreas. These retrieval metrics are evaluated on held-out queries against clean databases; they are not derived from any fitted parameter or from the LPR pseudo-labels used during training, so they constitute external benchmarks. The alternating LPR-pseudo-label/restoration loop is a self-training strategy rather than a logical circularity, because the final evaluation does not use the pseudo-labels. The only genuine circular step is the FSS metric: Eq. 16 trains the LDR to align softmaxed descriptors of restored and clean scans, and Eq. 27 defines FSS as the cosine similarity of those same descriptors using the same LPR backbone. Therefore the FSS comparison in Table V is partly self-definitional. The Boreas cross-season pairing issue is a data-validity risk, not a formal circularity: the paper's statement that the approximation 'proves sufficient' citing improved Table IV numbers is post-hoc, but the pairing equation does not force those retrieval results. No load-bearing self-citation is present: ResLPR [7] has overlapping authors but is used as a baseline and related-work contrast, not as the justification for ITDNet's design.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard frequency-domain math, domain assumptions about LiDAR noise and range-image projection, and two paper-specific assumptions: the reliability of LPR pseudo-labels and the validity of cross-season pose-matched training targets. The hand-set loss weight and triplet margin are free parameters that affect results but are not fitted to test data.

free parameters (3)
  • Task-driven loss weight λ (warm-up schedule) = 0.01 for first 30 epochs, 0.1 afterward
    Hand-selected to balance reconstruction and task-driven losses; directly controls LDR training and the influence of LPR pseudo-labels.
  • Triplet margin m = not reported
    Required in Eq. 25 for the LPR triplet loss, but its value is not given in the paper, making exact replication impossible.
  • Boreas pairing thresholds = 0.01 m spatial, 0.1° angular
    Hand-selected thresholds for matching degraded scans to clean reference scans across seasons; determines the quality of LDR training targets on Boreas.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math FFT and wavelet transforms have the properties stated (global receptive field, frequency separation)
    Used in the FMX and MFT blocks without further proof; these are standard results.
  • standard math NetVLAD pooling provides a differentiable global descriptor
    Adopted from Arandjelovic et al. and used in the WPN block.
  • domain assumption Noise in LiDAR range images is concentrated in high-frequency bands, while scene structure is in low-frequency bands
    This is the motivation for the DDM and MFT designs, stated in Sections I and III-B but not empirically validated on LiDAR data.
  • domain assumption Spherical projection of point clouds into range images preserves enough structure for place recognition
    Standard for range-image based methods like OverlapTransformer and CVTNet; the paper relies on it without re-validation.
  • ad hoc to paper Pseudo-labels from the current LPR module are reliable enough to guide restoration
    The task-driven loss LLTD assumes the LPR module's descriptors are meaningful targets; this is the core iterative training assumption and is not proven, only empirically supported.
  • ad hoc to paper A closest pose-matched scan from a different season is an adequate clean target for restoration training
    The Boreas pairing strategy in Section IV-A assumes that scans within 0.01 m and 0.1° correspond to the same place despite seasonal changes, which the paper admits may cause misalignment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Iterative Task-Driven Framework for Resilient LiDAR Place Recognition in Adverse Weather." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3G24TS2R

@misc{pith2026250414806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Iterative Task-Driven Framework for Resilient LiDAR Place Recognition in Adverse Weather},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3G24TS2R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14806}
}
read the original abstract

LiDAR place recognition (LPR) plays a vital role in autonomous navigation. However, existing LPR methods struggle to maintain robustness under adverse weather conditions such as rain, snow, and fog, where weather-induced noise and point cloud degradation impair LiDAR reliability and perception accuracy. To tackle these challenges, we propose an Iterative Task-Driven Framework (ITDNet), which integrates a LiDAR Data Restoration (LDR) module and a LiDAR Place Recognition (LPR) module through an iterative learning strategy. These modules are jointly trained end-to-end, with alternating optimization to enhance performance. The core rationale of ITDNet is to leverage the LDR module to recover the corrupted point clouds while preserving structural consistency with clean data, thereby improving LPR accuracy in adverse weather. Simultaneously, the LPR task provides feature pseudo-labels to guide the LDR module's training, aligning it more effectively with the LPR task. To achieve this, we first design a task-driven LPR loss and a reconstruction loss to jointly supervise the optimization of the LDR module. Furthermore, for the LDR module, we propose a Dual-Domain Mixer (DDM) block for frequency-spatial feature fusion and a Semantic-Aware Generator (SAG) block for semantic-guided restoration. In addition, for the LPR module, we introduce a Multi-Frequency Transformer (MFT) block and a Wavelet Pyramid NetVLAD (WPN) block to aggregate multi-scale, robust global descriptors. Finally, extensive experiments on Weather-KITTI, Boreas, and our proposed Weather-Apollo datasets demonstrate that, ITDNet outperforms existing LPR methods, achieving state-of-the-art performance in adverse weather.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14806 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three modes of LPR under adverse weather. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) FFT operation: The central frequency spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Overall Architecture of ITDNet. (a) Iterative learning process of ITDNet, the LDR and LPR modules are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Details of the DDM Block, which integrates fre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Details of the SAG Block, which dynamically [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Details of the MFT Block. The input feature is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Recall@N curves on the adverse weather datasets. ”WK” denotes Weather-KITTI, ”WA” denotes Weather-Apollo, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative results of top-1 retrievals of different LPR methods and the proposed ITDNet-D restoration on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of feature similarity matrices using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cvtnet: A cross-view transformer network for lidar-based place recognition in autonomous driving envi- ronments,

    J. Ma, G. Xiong, J. Xu, and X. Chen, “Cvtnet: A cross-view transformer network for lidar-based place recognition in autonomous driving envi- ronments,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 4039–4048, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Multimodal features and accurate place recognition with robust optimization for lidar–visual–inertial slam,

    X. Zhao, C. Wen, S. Manoj Prakhya, H. Yin, R. Zhou, Y . Sun, J. Xu, H. Bai, and Y . Wang, “Multimodal features and accurate place recognition with robust optimization for lidar–visual–inertial slam,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 73, pp. 1–16, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    M-divo: Multiple tof rgb-d cameras-enhanced depth–inertial–visual odometry,

    J. Xu, W. Yu, S. Huang, S. Yuan, L. Zhao, R. Li, and L. Xie, “M-divo: Multiple tof rgb-d cameras-enhanced depth–inertial–visual odometry,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal , vol. 11, no. 23, pp. 37 562–37 570, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    High precision and robust vehicle localization algorithm with visual-lidar-imu fusion,

    J. Cheng, L. Zhang, Q. Chen, Z. Fu, and L. Du, “High precision and robust vehicle localization algorithm with visual-lidar-imu fusion,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Apmc-lom: Accurate 3d lidar odometry and mapping based on pyramid warm-up registration and multi-constraint optimization,

    H. Liu, H. Gao, J. Shi, C. Xu, D. Qu, and W. Hua, “Apmc-lom: Accurate 3d lidar odometry and mapping based on pyramid warm-up registration and multi-constraint optimization,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Evaluation of range sensing-based place recognition for long-term urban localization,

    W. Ma, H. Yin, L. Yao, Y . Sun, and Z. Su, “Evaluation of range sensing-based place recognition for long-term urban localization,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent V ehicles, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4905–4916, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    ResLPR: A LiDAR Data Restoration Network and Benchmark for Robust Place Recognition Against Weather Corruptions

    W. Kuang, X. Zhao, Y . Shen, C. Wen, H. Lu, Z. Zhou, and X. Chen, “Reslpr: A lidar data restoration network and benchmark for ro- bust place recognition against weather corruptions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12350, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Full waveform lidar for ad- verse weather conditions,

    A. M. Wallace, A. Halimi, and G. S. Buller, “Full waveform lidar for ad- verse weather conditions,” IEEE Transactions on V ehicular Technology, vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 7064–7077, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    What happens for a tof lidar in fog?

    Y . Li, P. Duthon, M. Colomb, and J. Ibanez-Guzman, “What happens for a tof lidar in fog?” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 6670–6681, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Robust multimodal vehicle detection in foggy weather using complementary lidar and radar signals,

    K. Qian, S. Zhu, X. Zhang, and L. E. Li, “Robust multimodal vehicle detection in foggy weather using complementary lidar and radar signals,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 444–453

    2021

  3. [11]

    Robust multi-task learning network for complex lidar point cloud data preprocessing,

    L. Zhao, Y . Hu, X. Yang, Z. Dou, and L. Kang, “Robust multi-task learning network for complex lidar point cloud data preprocessing,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 237, p. 121552, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    4denoisenet: Adverse weather denoising from adjacent point clouds,

    A. Sepp ¨anen, R. Ojala, and K. Tammi, “4denoisenet: Adverse weather denoising from adjacent point clouds,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 456–463, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Triplemixer: A 3d point cloud denoising model for adverse weather,

    X. Zhao, C. Wen, Y . Wang, H. Bai, and W. Dou, “Triplemixer: A 3d point cloud denoising model for adverse weather,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13802, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Energy-based detection of adverse weather effects in lidar data,

    A. Piroli, V . Dallabetta, J. Kopp, M. Walessa, D. Meissner, and K. Diet- mayer, “Energy-based detection of adverse weather effects in lidar data,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 4322–4329, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Dlc-slam: A robust lidar-slam system with learning-based denoising and loop closure,

    K. Liu and M. Cao, “Dlc-slam: A robust lidar-slam system with learning-based denoising and loop closure,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 2876–2884, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Reloc: A restoration-assisted framework for robust image tampering localization,

    P. Zhuang, H. Li, R. Yang, and J. Huang, “Reloc: A restoration-assisted framework for robust image tampering localization,” IEEE Transactions on Information F orensics and Security , vol. 18, pp. 5243–5257, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Detection- friendly dehazing: Object detection in real-world hazy scenes,

    C. Li, H. Zhou, Y . Liu, C. Yang, Y . Xie, Z. Li, and L. Zhu, “Detection- friendly dehazing: Object detection in real-world hazy scenes,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 8284–8295, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Scan context: Egocentric spatial descriptor for place recognition within 3d point cloud map,

    G. Kim and A. Kim, “Scan context: Egocentric spatial descriptor for place recognition within 3d point cloud map,” in 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 4802–4809

    2018

  11. [19]

    Appearance-based loop detection from 3d laser data using the normal distributions transform,

    M. Magnusson, H. Andreasson, A. Nuchter, and A. J. Lilienthal, “Appearance-based loop detection from 3d laser data using the normal distributions transform,” in 2009 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2009, pp. 23–28

    2009

  12. [20]

    A fast histogram-based similarity measure for detecting loop closures in 3-d lidar data,

    T. R ¨ohling, J. Mack, and D. Schulz, “A fast histogram-based similarity measure for detecting loop closures in 3-d lidar data,” in 2015 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 736–741

    2015

  13. [21]

    A fast lidar place recognition and localization method by fusing local and global search,

    P. Shi, J. Li, and Y . Zhang, “A fast lidar place recognition and localization method by fusing local and global search,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 202, pp. 637–651, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Pointnetvlad: Deep point cloud based retrieval for large-scale place recognition,

    M. A. Uy and G. H. Lee, “Pointnetvlad: Deep point cloud based retrieval for large-scale place recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 4470–4479

    2018

  15. [23]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    R. Q. Charles, H. Su, M. Kaichun, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in 2017 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 77–85

    2017

  16. [24]

    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,” in Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 5297–5307

    2016

  17. [25]

    Lps-net: Lightweight parameter- shared network for point cloud-based place recognition,

    C. Liu, G. Chen, and R. Song, “Lps-net: Lightweight parameter- shared network for point cloud-based place recognition,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 448–454

    2024

  18. [26]

    Overlaptransformer: An efficient and yaw-angle-invariant transformer network for lidar-based place recognition,

    J. Ma, J. Zhang, J. Xu, R. Ai, W. Gu, and X. Chen, “Overlaptransformer: An efficient and yaw-angle-invariant transformer network for lidar-based place recognition,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6958–6965, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Survey on lidar perception in adverse weather conditions,

    M. Dreissig, D. Scheuble, F. Piewak, and J. Boedecker, “Survey on lidar perception in adverse weather conditions,” in 2023 IEEE Intelligent V ehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  20. [29]

    Learn to model and filter point cloud noise for a near-infrared tof lidar in adverse weather,

    T. Yang, Q. Yu, Y . Li, and Z. Yan, “Learn to model and filter point cloud noise for a near-infrared tof lidar in adverse weather,” IEEE Sensors Journal, 2023

    2023

  21. [30]

    3d is here: Point cloud library (pcl),

    R. B. Rusu and S. Cousins, “3d is here: Point cloud library (pcl),” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2011, pp. 1–4

    2011

  22. [31]

    Dsor: A scalable statistical filter for removing falling snow from lidar point clouds in severe winter weather,

    A. Kurup and J. Bos, “Dsor: A scalable statistical filter for removing falling snow from lidar point clouds in severe winter weather,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07078, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  23. [32]

    A scalable and accurate de-snowing algorithm for lidar point clouds in winter,

    W. Wang, X. You, L. Chen, J. Tian, F. Tang, and L. Zhang, “A scalable and accurate de-snowing algorithm for lidar point clouds in winter,” Remote Sensing , vol. 14, no. 6, p. 1468, 2022

    2022

  24. [33]

    Fast and accurate desnowing algorithm for lidar point clouds,

    J.-I. Park, J. Park, and K.-S. Kim, “Fast and accurate desnowing algorithm for lidar point clouds,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 160 202– 160 212, 2020

    2020

  25. [34]

    Mo- bileweathernet for lidar-only weather estimation,

    M. P. Da Silva, D. Carneiro, J. Fernandes, and L. F. Texeira, “Mo- bileweathernet for lidar-only weather estimation,” in 2023 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  26. [35]

    Cnn-based lidar point cloud de-noising in adverse weather,

    R. Heinzler, F. Piewak, P. Schindler, and W. Stork, “Cnn-based lidar point cloud de-noising in adverse weather,” IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2514–2521, 2020

    2020

  27. [36]

    Perception and sensing for autonomous vehicles under adverse weather conditions: A survey,

    Y . Zhang, A. Carballo, H. Yang, and K. Takeda, “Perception and sensing for autonomous vehicles under adverse weather conditions: A survey,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 196, pp. 146–177, 2023

    2023

  28. [37]

    Deep learning- based robust positioning for all-weather autonomous driving,

    Y . Almalioglu, M. Turan, N. Trigoni, and A. Markham, “Deep learning- based robust positioning for all-weather autonomous driving,” Nature machine intelligence, vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 749–760, 2022. 13

    2022

  29. [38]

    Ultra-fast deraining plugin for vision-based perception of autonomous driving,

    J. Li, J. Hu, P. Fu, J. Yang, J. Jiang, and Y . Zhang, “Ultra-fast deraining plugin for vision-based perception of autonomous driving,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , 2024

    2024

  30. [39]

    A convolutional network for joint deraining and dehazing from a single image for autonomous driving in rain,

    H. Sun, M. H. Ang, and D. Rus, “A convolutional network for joint deraining and dehazing from a single image for autonomous driving in rain,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 962–969

    2019

  31. [40]

    Uscformer: Unified trans- former with semantically contrastive learning for image dehazing,

    Y . Wang, J. Xiong, X. Yan, and M. Wei, “Uscformer: Unified trans- former with semantically contrastive learning for image dehazing,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 11 321–11 333, 2023

    2023

  32. [41]

    An oriented object detector for hazy remote sensing images,

    B. Liu, S.-B. Chen, J.-X. Wang, J. Tang, and B. Luo, “An oriented object detector for hazy remote sensing images,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2024

    2024

  33. [42]

    Bridging the gap between haze scenarios: A unified image dehazing model,

    Y . Feng, Z. Su, L. Ma, X. Li, R. Liu, and F. Zhou, “Bridging the gap between haze scenarios: A unified image dehazing model,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2024

    2024

  34. [43]

    Collaboration of dehazing and object detection tasks: A multi-task learning framework for foggy image,

    Y . Wan, J. Li, L. Lin, Q. Yuan, and H. Shen, “Collaboration of dehazing and object detection tasks: A multi-task learning framework for foggy image,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , 2025

    2025

  35. [44]

    Facenet: A unified embed- ding for face recognition and clustering,

    F. Schroff, D. Kalenichenko, and J. Philbin, “Facenet: A unified embed- ding for face recognition and clustering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2015, pp. 815– 823

    2015

  36. [45]

    Lcdnet: Deep loop closure detection and point cloud registration for lidar slam,

    D. Cattaneo, M. Vaghi, and A. Valada, “Lcdnet: Deep loop closure detection and point cloud registration for lidar slam,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2074–2093, 2022

    2022

  37. [46]

    Boreas: A multi-season autonomous driving dataset,

    K. Burnett, D. J. Yoon, Y . Wu, A. Z. Li, H. Zhang, S. Lu, J. Qian, W.- K. Tseng, A. Lambert, K. Y . Leung et al. , “Boreas: A multi-season autonomous driving dataset,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 42, no. 1-2, pp. 33–42, 2023

    2023

  38. [47]

    Semantickitti: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of lidar sequences,

    J. Behley, M. Garbade, A. Milioto, J. Quenzel, S. Behnke, C. Stachniss, and J. Gall, “Semantickitti: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of lidar sequences,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2019, pp. 9297–9307

    2019

  39. [48]

    L3-net: Towards learning based lidar localization for autonomous driving,

    W. Lu, Y . Zhou, G. Wan, S. Hou, and S. Song, “L3-net: Towards learning based lidar localization for autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2019, pp. 6389–6398

    2019

  40. [49]

    Lidar light scattering augmentation (lisa): Physics-based simulation of adverse weather conditions for 3d object detection,

    V . Kilic, D. Hegde, V . Sindagi, A. B. Cooper, M. A. Foster, and V . M. Patel, “Lidar light scattering augmentation (lisa): Physics-based simulation of adverse weather conditions for 3d object detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07004, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  42. [51]

    On the mathematical prop- erties of the structural similarity index,

    D. Brunet, E. R. Vrscay, and Z. Wang, “On the mathematical prop- erties of the structural similarity index,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1488–1499, 2011

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.