Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 34 references

WLTCL: Wide Field-of-View 3-D LiDAR Truck Compartment Automatic Localization System

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 a rotating 2-D LiDAR system with geometric line fusion and contour completion can locate the eight corner keypoints of fence truck compartments with mean relative errors of 1.88% for large trucks, 3.29% for medium…

desk verdict A competent applied-systems paper for automated truck loading: the contour fusion and completion idea is real, the large/medium truck results are credible, but the headline accuracy figures rest on undocumented annotation and test-set tuning. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18870 v1 pith:LQ6T5DCH submitted 2025-04-26 cs.CV cs.ROeess.IV

Guodong Sun , Mingjing Li , Dingjie Liu , Mingxuan Liu , Bo Wu , Yang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.ROeess.IV
keywords LiDARtruckcompartmentlocalizationautomaticloadingpointcloudsegmentation3-Dlinesegmentdetectioncontourcompletionkeywidefieldofview
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 a single rotating 2-D LiDAR, combined with geometric reasoning about the truck's shape, can automatically find the loadable space inside fence-style truck compartments well enough for an automated loading robot. The system scans the parked truck, cuts out the vehicle point cloud using parking-area constraints, then reconstructs the compartment's four top edges even when the rear plane is missing or the interior is cluttered with foreign objects. The eight corner points of the reconstructed contour define the stacking area, which means loading robots would no longer require the truck to be parked in an exact pose. On the public ZPVehicles dataset the authors report mean relative keypoint errors of 1.88% for large, 3.29% for medium, and 6.19% for small trucks, with the algorithm running on CPU in a few seconds per vehicle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the in-plane line fusion followed by cross-space line clustering and contour completion: 3-D line segments are first merged within their parent planes, then grouped by cosine similarity and distance to the longest edge $l_{\max}$, and finally grown or projected to complete a closed rectangular contour whose eight vertices are the compartment keypoints. This is supported by a rotating 2-D LiDAR setup with plane-based calibration and a reflective-board world coordinate system that both defines the global frame for the manipulator and crops the vehicle point cloud from the scene.

What would settle it

Scan a set of small fence trucks with progressively coarser rotating-platform angular resolutions (for example 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0 degrees) while keeping all other parameters fixed; if the ADD(5%) rate does not degrade sharply and the extreme errors appear precisely when region-growing merges the compartment side with the vehicle front, the claimed robustness to point cloud loss would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a geometric-feature-based key point localization algorithm for truck compartments is robust to point cloud loss and foreign object interference, provided the compartment is a rectangular box whose straight edges can be partially observed. The method first fuses 3-D line segments within their parent planes, clusters the resulting segments by direction and distance to the longest edge, and then completes the broken contour by growing and projecting lines until all four top edges of the compartment are reconstructed. The eight vertices of the completed contour are the output keypoints. On ZPVehicles fence trucks, this yields mean relative errors of 1.88%, 3.29%, and 6.19% for large, medium, and small trucks respectively, with ADD(5%) rates of 1.00, 0.92, and 0.62, and the ablation study shows the contour optimization strategy lifts the overall ADD(5%) rate from 0.23 to 0.86.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline assumes the compartment is a rectangular box with four long straight edges that survive in the point cloud after segmentation, so missing or broken edges can be rebuilt by growth and projection; small-truck clouds that over-segment break this assumption and produce the paper's largest errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Automated loading robots can use the eight keypoints as the stacking frame even when the truck parks at varied poses, because the reflective-board world coordinate system ties the LiDAR and manipulator into one frame.
  • Fence trucks with open rear ends and foreign objects inside, a common real-world case, are handled: on the public dataset only 2 of 106 vehicles exceed 10% localization error.
  • The full pipeline runs on a CPU in about 3.66 seconds on average for the public fence trucks, with near-linear growth in detection time as point count increases, so no GPU is required for deployment.
  • A single rotating 2-D LiDAR replaces multiple 3-D LiDARs, giving a field of view beyond 180 degrees in both horizontal and vertical directions at lower equipment cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct transfer test the authors did not run: applying the same fusion-and-completion pipeline to ISO containers or enclosed vans, where the top edges are clean and complete, should yield even higher ADD(5%) rates than fence trucks, since the open-rear failure mode disappears.
  • The small-truck results suggest a resolution cliff: once the point cloud becomes sparse enough that region-growing merges the compartment side with the vehicle front, errors jump sharply (maximum 67.24%); measuring ADD(5%) versus rotating-platform angular resolution would locate that cliff precisely.
  • Because the world frame is re-established from the same reflective boards each time, the system could extend to multi-bay loading docks by installing boards per bay and storing a per-bay calibration, making the one-time setup reusable.
  • The paper states the system is static: the vehicle must remain stationary during the 180-degree scan, so dynamic loading scenarios would require a temporal segmentation step that the current pipeline lacks.
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 WLTCL, a rotating 2D LiDAR system for automatically localizing the eight keypoints of fence-type truck compartments. The hardware mounts a 2D LiDAR on a servo-driven rotating platform to produce a wide-field-of-view 3D point cloud; the software establishes a world coordinate system from reflective boards, segments the vehicle point cloud in a parking-area region of interest, detects 3D line segments, fuses and clusters them, completes missing contour lines, and outputs keypoints that define the stacking area. Experiments are reported on self-collected data and on the public ZPVehicles dataset, with mean relative keypoint errors of 1.88% for large, 3.29% for medium, and 6.19% for small trucks, and comparisons against PointNet+OBB and PointMLP+OBB baselines. The paper also includes ablation studies for contour optimization, hyperparameters k and delta, and LiDAR scanning configuration, and it discusses limitations including sensitivity to sparse, uneven point clouds.

Significance. If the reported accuracy is unbiased, the system is a practically relevant low-cost solution for automatic loading in logistics: it does not require precise parking, handles cluttered scenes, and runs on CPU in a few seconds. The paper's strengths are the complete hardware-software integration, the use of a public dataset in addition to self-collected data, the ablation studies that isolate the contour optimization and key parameters, and an unusually candid discussion of failure modes for small trucks. However, the central quantitative claims currently rest on evaluation choices that are not fully documented: the ground-truth keypoint annotation protocol is absent, and the main hyperparameters are tuned and evaluated on the same subset. The small-truck mean error of 6.19% and maximum of 67.24% also qualify the abstract's claim of precise localization across sizes. The contribution is defensible but needs substantial revision in evaluation transparency before the accuracy claims can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV.A.2, Eq. (10)] The accuracy claims rest on ground-truth keypoints q_i for ZPVehicles and for the self-collected dataset, but the paper gives no annotation protocol, no keypoint definition for the missing rear corners, and no quality control or inter-annotator agreement. Because ZPVehicles point clouds lack front and rear plane information and the algorithm completes contour lines by rectangularity (Section III.C.3), the rear-corner ground truth must follow an external convention; if that convention coincides with the algorithm's completion rule, the ADD metric partly measures self-consistency rather than localization error. Without this documentation, the mean errors in Table IV and the ADD rates in Tables III, V, and VI cannot be independently audited.
  2. [IV.E.2, Fig. 16, Tables VII-VIII] The hyperparameters k and delta are tuned on the same ZPVehicles fence-truck subset on which the reported ADD rates in Tables IV and VI are computed, and the system configuration in Fig. 17 is also selected on the same data. This is in-sample model selection: the reported numbers are selected performance, not independent test performance. The paper should either use a held-out validation split and report test-set numbers, or explicitly frame the current numbers as selected performance and re-validate the accuracy claims on independent data.
  3. [Table IV, Abstract] The abstract's claim of precise automatic positioning for large, medium, and small trucks is weakened by the small-truck mean relative error of 6.19% and maximum of 67.24% in Table IV; the limitations section attributes this to over-segmentation on sparse, uneven point clouds. The claim should be qualified to state that accuracy degrades substantially for small trucks in the public dataset, and the maximum-error case should be explicitly acknowledged in the discussion of robustness.
  4. [Algorithm 1, Section III.C.2] Algorithm 1 line 11 computes Distance(Li, L1) and compares it to Th_b, referencing Eq. (15), but no Eq. (15) appears in the manuscript and the distance measure Di is not defined in Section III.C.2. This makes the line-clustering step impossible to reproduce or evaluate, and it is a load-bearing component of the keypoint localization algorithm.
  5. [Table V, Section IV.D] The comparison with PointNet+OBB and PointMLP+OBB compares ADD of the proposed compartment keypoints against ADD of oriented-bounding-box corners. These are not defined on the same surface: the OBB corners follow the outer hull, while the proposed keypoints are placed on the inner compartment surface. The comparison may therefore be systematically favorable to the proposed method; please clarify the correspondence between the two keypoint conventions, or re-evaluate the baselines using the same compartment-keypoint ground truth.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 13] The caption states that only 2 vehicles were outliers exceeding 10%, but Table IV reports a medium maximum of 25.22% and a small maximum of 67.24%; please specify that these are the two outliers and note that the small-truck mean exceeds the 5% threshold.
  2. [Table III] The entry 'Truck(Ours data)' contains an extraneous quote mark in the Average Relative Error column; in addition, the row shows 6.06% but the discussion in Section V refers to an average localization error of 6.06%, so please state explicitly that this is the mean relative keypoint error on the self-collected data and not an ADD rate.
  3. [IV.A.2] The text says the fence truck model consists of '106 large vehicle point clouds' and then groups results into large, medium, and small sizes; please clarify whether the 106 total is the number of fence trucks and what the per-size counts are.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The translation vector is introduced as Tt = [Tx Ty Tz] in Eq. (1) but later used as t in the text and in the notation table; please unify the notation.
  5. [General] No code or data is released; for the quantitative claims to be reproducible, consider releasing the ZPVehicles keypoint annotations, the self-collected dataset, and the implementation of the line fusion and completion steps.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The headline ZPVehicles accuracy is partially in-sample because k, delta, and the system configuration are selected on the same benchmark later used for the reported ADD/relative-error numbers; the per-instance keypoint computation itself is not fitted to ground truth.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV.E.2 (Hyperparameter), Tables VII-VIII and Fig. 16; final results in Section IV.D, Table IV; system configuration in Section IV.E.3, Fig. 17.]
    "with the hyperparameter δ fixed, the prediction accuracy of the algorithm gradually increases as k increases, reaching a local optimum at k = 33. Meanwhile, increasing δ leads to the model achieving global optimal accuracy at δ = 19. ... Therefore, to balance point cloud quality, scanning efficiency, and time cost, we chose to set the angular resolution of the rotating platform to 0.3◦ and the scanning frequency of the 2-D LiDAR to 25 Hz."

    The final reported metrics (Table IV: mean relative errors 1.88%/3.29%/6.19%, ADD(5%) 1.00/0.92/0.62) are computed on the ZPVehicles fence-truck set after k, delta, and the sensor configuration were tuned by maximizing accuracy on exactly that same ZPVehicles fence-truck set. The reported 'prediction accuracy' is therefore a model-selection result on the evaluation data, not an independent prediction. The circularity is bounded: the per-instance keypoint estimates are produced by the geometric Algorithm 1 and are not fitted to the ground-truth q_i, so this is evaluation leakage/selection rather than a derivation that reduces to its input by construction.

full rationale

The core keypoint pipeline (Section III.C) is an algorithmic geometry pipeline: it segments planes, merges and clusters 3-D line segments, completes rectangular contour lines, and reads off eight vertices. Nothing in that pipeline fits its per-instance output to the annotated q_i used in Eq. (10); the output is computed from the point cloud by line geometry. No uniqueness theorem or load-bearing self-citation is present, and the cited baselines and datasets are external. The demonstrated circular component is confined to evaluation: the global hyperparameters k and delta (region-growing neighbor count and angle threshold) and the sensor resolution/scan frequency are selected by sweeps on the same ZPVehicles fence-truck benchmark (Fig. 16, Tables VII-VIII, Fig. 17) and then reported as the final accuracy on that same benchmark (Table IV). This makes the headline numbers partly in-sample and optimistic, but it does not make the algorithm's output equal to its input by construction. The missing annotation protocol for ZPVehicles keypoints (Section IV.A.2) is a serious reproducibility concern and could, if the annotation convention matched the algorithm's rectangular-completion rule, make ADD partly self-consistency; however, the paper does not specify the protocol, so no concrete reduction can be exhibited and I do not count it as demonstrated circularity. Overall score 3 reflects the partial in-sample tuning while acknowledging that the central geometric derivation is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the rectangular-box model of fenced truck compartments, the reliability of the rotating-LiDAR calibration despite a known y-axis degeneracy, and the quality of manually annotated ground-truth keypoints. The main free parameters are segmentation and clustering thresholds, two of which (k and delta) are tuned on the evaluation set.

free parameters (7)
  • k (region-growing neighbor count) = 33
    Selected in Section IV.E.2 by maximizing ADD accuracy on the ZPVehicles evaluation set; reported results therefore include test-set tuning.
  • delta (region-growing angle threshold) = 19 degrees
    Selected on the same evaluation set (Table VIII); the headline ADD values use this chosen value.
  • Th_a and Th_b (line clustering thresholds) = Not specified
    Algorithm 1 lines 10-14 use these thresholds to group compartment contour lines, but their values are never given, leaving the algorithm underspecified.
  • Line fusion thresholds = 0.1 distance ratio, 4sk perpendicular distance, 6-degree latitude bin
    Hand-set in Section III.C.1; no sensitivity analysis is provided for these values.
  • ROI height range Zmin/Zmax = 0.3 m and 4.0 m
    Chosen as suitable for most vehicles in Section IV.A.3; affects segmentation input and final errors.
  • Rotating LiDAR extrinsic calibration (wx, wy, wz, tx, ty, tz) = -1.46 deg, 5.36 deg, -0.45 deg, 14.56 mm, -0.16 mm, 119.67 mm
    Fitted to 30 planar targets in Section IV.B; the y-axis components are degenerate per [23], and the paper does not quantify residual calibration error on keypoint accuracy.
  • Rotating platform angular resolution and LiDAR scan frequency = 0.3 deg and 25 Hz
    Chosen in Section IV.E.3 to balance point density and time cost; they affect the input point cloud density.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 2D LiDAR range-azimuth model and the single-axis rotation model OP = Q(Rw q + t) accurately describe the sensor geometry.
    Section III.A assumes perfect angle encoder readings and no measurement noise; the calibration in Section IV.B only partially corrects misalignment.
  • domain assumption The parking area is marked by four reflective boards, is planar and rectangular, and the truck parks inside it for each measurement.
    Section III.B; the world coordinate system and point cloud cropping depend on the boards and a fixed parking area; the system fails if these constraints are not met.
  • domain assumption The truck compartment is a rectangular box with straight, mutually perpendicular long edges, with side and bottom planes visible in the point cloud.
    Section III.C uses this geometric prior for line clustering and completion; Fig. 19 shows it fails for sparse point clouds of small vehicles.
  • domain assumption Region-growing plane segmentation with k and delta correctly separates compartment planes from the cab and clutter.
    Section IV.A.3 sets k=33, delta=19; the small-truck over-segmentation documented in Section V shows this is not always valid.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth keypoints in ZPVehicles and the self-collected data are correctly annotated.
    Section IV.A.2 states annotation was performed but provides no protocol, annotator information, or inter-annotator agreement; the ADD metric depends on these labels.
  • domain assumption The plane-based calibration of [21] yields accurate extrinsic parameters despite the known degeneracy along the y-axis.
    Section IV.B acknowledges the degeneracy but uses the calibration without quantifying its effect on keypoint accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WLTCL: Wide Field-of-View 3-D LiDAR Truck Compartment Automatic Localization System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LQ6T5DCH

@misc{pith2026250418870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WLTCL: Wide Field-of-View 3-D LiDAR Truck Compartment Automatic Localization System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LQ6T5DCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18870}
}
read the original abstract

As an essential component of logistics automation, the automated loading system is becoming a critical technology for enhancing operational efficiency and safety. Precise automatic positioning of the truck compartment, which serves as the loading area, is the primary step in automated loading. However, existing methods have difficulty adapting to truck compartments of various sizes, do not establish a unified coordinate system for LiDAR and mobile manipulators, and often exhibit reliability issues in cluttered environments. To address these limitations, our study focuses on achieving precise automatic positioning of key points in large, medium, and small fence-style truck compartments in cluttered scenarios. We propose an innovative wide field-of-view 3-D LiDAR vehicle compartment automatic localization system. For vehicles of various sizes, this system leverages the LiDAR to generate high-density point clouds within an extensive field-of-view range. By incorporating parking area constraints, our vehicle point cloud segmentation method more effectively segments vehicle point clouds within the scene. Our compartment key point positioning algorithm utilizes the geometric features of the compartments to accurately locate the corner points, providing stackable spatial regions. Extensive experiments on our collected data and public datasets demonstrate that this system offers reliable positioning accuracy and reduced computational resource consumption, leading to its application and promotion in relevant fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18870 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Localization system execution steps. (a) The vehicle enters the parking area. (b) Wide-field-of-view LiDAR scans the scene point cloud. (c) Establish world coordinate system. (d) Vehicle point cloud segmentation and compartment key point localization. bagged agricultural materials have chemical corrosiveness that can be harmful to human health [2]. Compared with manual palletizing, industrial robots have the advanta… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System overview. First, during the startup phase, the system needs to load the parameter configuration of the software and hardware modules. Second, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Establish world coordinate system. (a) Installation location. Four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of public dataset vehicles. The red box area shows that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The result of contour line completion. The blue lines are the segments [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Position of the target planes. The yellow boxes indicate 30 target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Scene point cloud acquired by LiDAR. The LiDAR is fixed 3.3 m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Establishing world coordinate system and segmentation. (a) Parking area localization. (b) Vehicle point cloud segmentation. Once the device is installed, it performs a one-time localization of the parking area. Yellow lines are parking areas, and white are round refle…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of calibrated and uncalibrated planes. (a) Front view of calibration board. (b) Top view of calibration board. (c) Uncalibrated walls. (d) Calibrated walls. calibrated 30 target planes, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visualization results of our data and public datasets. (a) Our detection results. (b) Large fence truck detection results. (c) Medium fence truck [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Box and overlap plot of 106 key point localization results set for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Contour line optimization. (a) Our Datasets Detection Results. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Hyperparameter experiment. (a) Effect of hyperparameter k on experimental results. (b) Effect of hyperparameter δ on experimental results. Due to the vehicle point cloud provided by ZPVehicles lacking information behind the vehicle compartment, the detected line segme…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: System parameter experiment. (a) Effect of rotating platform resolution on data acquisition. (b) Effect of 2-D LiDAR scan frequency on data acquisition. Fine angular resolution and low scanning frequency will capture more points on the vehicle’s surface but will incre…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The relationship between the number of vehicle point clouds and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Abnormal situation analysis. (a) Segmentation results of public dataset. (b) Segmentation results of our dataset. Different colors represent different segmentation categories. The point cloud from the public dataset is unevenly distributed and severely sparse, leading…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Parallel loading and unloading: smart technology towards intelligent logistics,

    D. Shen, J. Hu, T. Zhai, T. Wang, and Z. Zhang, “Parallel loading and unloading: smart technology towards intelligent logistics,” in IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics , 2019, pp. 847–851

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Design and simulation of a handling robot for bagged agricultural materials,

    L. Han, C. Ruijuan, and M. Enrong, “Design and simulation of a handling robot for bagged agricultural materials,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 49, no. 16, pp. 171–176, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Research on positioning and dimension measurement of truck compartment based on semantic segmentation in automatic loading system,

    F. Ma, B. Zhang, P. Ji, Y . Sun, J. Li, X. Li, W. Yan, F. Wang, and G. Mu, “Research on positioning and dimension measurement of truck compartment based on semantic segmentation in automatic loading system,” in Proceedings of the 2023 6th International Conference on Signal Processing and Machine Learning , 2023, pp. 89–96

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Automatic detection of the truck position using stereoscopy,

    J. Mrovlje and D. Vran ˇci´c, “Automatic detection of the truck position using stereoscopy,” in IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, 2012, pp. 755–759

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Au- tonomous identification and positioning of trucks during collaborative forage harvesting,

    W. Zhang, L. Gong, S. Chen, W. Wang, Z. Miao, and C. Liu, “Au- tonomous identification and positioning of trucks during collaborative forage harvesting,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 1166, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Fast positioning method of truck compartment based on plane segmentation,

    W. Zou, D. Shen, P. Cao, C. Lin, and J. Zhu, “Fast positioning method of truck compartment based on plane segmentation,” IEEE Journal of Radio Frequency Identification, vol. 6, pp. 774–778, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Straight line detection algorithm of truck point cloud based on statistical line chart,

    M. Wei, J.-G. Lu, S. Luo, Q. Zhang, and L. Zhang, “Straight line detection algorithm of truck point cloud based on statistical line chart,” in Chinese Control and Decision Conference , 2022, pp. 1206–1211

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A robust linear feature-based procedure for automated registration of point clouds,

    M. Poreba and F. Goulette, “A robust linear feature-based procedure for automated registration of point clouds,” Sensors, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1435–1457, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,

    M. A. Fischler and R. C. Bolles, “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 381–395, 1981

    1981

  2. [10]

    Ransac algorithm and elements of graph theory for automatic plane detection in 3d point clouds,

    M. Poreba and F. Goulette, “Ransac algorithm and elements of graph theory for automatic plane detection in 3d point clouds,” in Symposium de PTFiT (Polish Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing) , vol. 24, 2012, pp. 301–310

    2012

  3. [11]

    Vision-based localization using an edge map extracted from 3d laser range data,

    P. Borges, R. Zlot, M. Bosse, S. Nuske, and A. Tews, “Vision-based localization using an edge map extracted from 3d laser range data,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2010, pp. 4902–4909

    2010

  4. [12]

    3d deformation monitoring method for temporary structures based on multi-thread lidar point cloud,

    R. Luo, Z. Zhou, X. Chu, W. Ma, and J. Meng, “3d deformation monitoring method for temporary structures based on multi-thread lidar point cloud,” Measurement, vol. 200, p. 111545, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Line-based extrinsic calibration of range and image sensors,

    P. Moghadam, M. Bosse, and R. Zlot, “Line-based extrinsic calibration of range and image sensors,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2013, pp. 3685–3691

    2013

  6. [14]

    Surface reconstruction from unorganized points,

    H. Hoppe, T. DeRose, T. Duchamp, J. McDonald, and W. Stuetzle, “Surface reconstruction from unorganized points,” in Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, 1992, pp. 71–78

    1992

  7. [15]

    Accurate line reconstruction for point and line-based stereo visual odometry,

    X. Luo, Z. Tan, and Y . Ding, “Accurate line reconstruction for point and line-based stereo visual odometry,” IEEE Access , vol. 7, pp. 185 108– 185 120, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Superline3d: Self-supervised line segmentation and description for lidar point cloud,

    X. Zhao, S. Yang, T. Huang, J. Chen, T. Ma, M. Li, and Y . Liu, “Superline3d: Self-supervised line segmentation and description for lidar point cloud,” in European Conference on Computer Vision , 2022, pp. 263–279

    2022

  9. [17]

    K-plane-based classification of airborne lidar data for accurate building roof measurement,

    D. Kong, L. Xu, X. Li, and S. Li, “K-plane-based classification of airborne lidar data for accurate building roof measurement,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 63, no. 5, pp. 1200–1214, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    Effective and efficient line segment detection for visual measurement guided by level lines,

    X. Lin, Y . Zhou, Y . Liu, and C. Zhu, “Effective and efficient line segment detection for visual measurement guided by level lines,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    A fast multiplane segmentation algorithm for sparse 3-d lidar point clouds by line segment grouping,

    X. Du, Y . Lu, and Q. Chen, “A fast multiplane segmentation algorithm for sparse 3-d lidar point clouds by line segment grouping,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 72, pp. 1–15, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Fast 3d line segment detection from unorganized point cloud,

    X. Lu, Y . Liu, and K. Li, “Fast 3d line segment detection from unorganized point cloud,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.02532 , 2019

    1901 arXiv

  13. [21]

    The levenberg-marquardt algorithm: implementation and theory,

    J. J. Mor ´e, “The levenberg-marquardt algorithm: implementation and theory,” in Numerical analysis: proceedings of the biennial Conference held at Dundee, June 28–July 1, 1977 , 2006, pp. 105–116

    1977

  14. [22]

    Zpvehicles: a dataset of large vehicle 3d point cloud data,

    Z. Ye, Z. Wang, X. Chen, T. Zhou, C. Yu, J. Guo, and J. Li, “Zpvehicles: a dataset of large vehicle 3d point cloud data,” in IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for Automotive , 2023, pp. 234–239

    2023

  15. [23]

    Full-dof calibration of a rotating 2-d lidar with a simple plane measurement,

    J. Kang and N. L. Doh, “Full-dof calibration of a rotating 2-d lidar with a simple plane measurement,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1245–1263, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

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

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

  17. [25]

    Rethinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework,

    X. Ma, C. Qin, H. You, H. Ran, and Y . Fu, “Rethinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07123 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Survey and systematization of 3d object detection models and methods,

    M. Drobnitzky, J. Friederich, B. Egger, and P. Zschech, “Survey and systematization of 3d object detection models and methods,” The Visual Computer, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 1867–1913, 2024

    1913

  19. [27]

    Research on lidar point cloud segmentation and collision detection algorithm,

    Z. Wang, B. Yu, J. Chen, C. Liu, K. Zhan, X. Sui, Y . Xue, and J. Li, “Research on lidar point cloud segmentation and collision detection algorithm,” in 2019 6th International Conference on Information Science and Control Engineering (ICISCE) , 2019, pp. 475–479

    2019

  20. [28]

    Sub-obb based object recognition and localization algorithm using range images,

    D.-C. Hoang, L.-C. Chen, and T.-H. Nguyen, “Sub-obb based object recognition and localization algorithm using range images,” Measure- ment Science and Technology , vol. 28, no. 2, p. 025401, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    A novel surface descriptor for automated 3-d object recognition and localization,

    L.-C. Chen and T.-H. Nguyen, “A novel surface descriptor for automated 3-d object recognition and localization,” Sensors, vol. 19, no. 4, p. 764, 2019

    2019

  22. [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. IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–4

    2011

  23. [31]

    Point transformer v3: Simpler faster stronger,

    X. Wu, L. Jiang, P.-S. Wang, Z. Liu, X. Liu, Y . Qiao, W. Ouyang, T. He, and H. Zhao, “Point transformer v3: Simpler faster stronger,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 4840–4851

    2024

  24. [32]

    Adapointr: Diverse point cloud completion with adaptive geometry-aware transformers. arxiv 2023,

    X. Yu, Y . Rao, Z. Wang, J. Lu, and J. Zhou, “Adapointr: Diverse point cloud completion with adaptive geometry-aware transformers. arxiv 2023,” arXiv preprint cs.CV/2301.04545 , 2023. 14

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Pointcformer: a relation-based progressive feature extraction network for point cloud completion,

    Y . Zhong, W. Quan, D.-m. Yan, J. Jiang, and Y . Wei, “Pointcformer: a relation-based progressive feature extraction network for point cloud completion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08421 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Fatigue crack localisation based on empirical mode decomposition and pre-selected entropy,

    S. Cui, N. Wu, and P. Maghoul, “Fatigue crack localisation based on empirical mode decomposition and pre-selected entropy,”Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation, pp. 1–28, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

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