Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Optimizing Indoor Farm Monitoring Efficiency Using UAV: Yield Estimation in a GNSS-Denied Cherry Tomato Greenhouse

T0 review · 3 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 This paper claims that a 1.4 kg quadrotor navigating by LiDAR-inertial odometry in a greenhouse without satellite signals can count ripened cherry tomatoes with 94.4% accuracy and estimate their weight with 87.5% accuracy during a…

desk verdict The UAV platform and counting result are real, but the weight-estimation claim is not reproducible: Eq. (11) doesn't pass through its own calibration points. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00995 v1 pith:4ABL5UT7 submitted 2025-05-02 cs.RO cs.CV

Taewook Park , Jinwoo Lee , Hyondong Oh , Won-Jae Yun , Kyu-Wha Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords UAVyieldestimationgreenhousemonitoringGNSS-deniednavigationLiDAR-inertialodometry3Dmulti-objecttrackingcherrytomatoRGB-Dperception
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 is trying to establish that a small aerial robot can carry out pre-harvest yield estimation inside a commercial greenhouse where satellite positioning is unavailable, a job normally given to ground robots that need rails, lifts, and wide aisles. It reports a 1.4 kg quadrotor that flies down a 13.2-meter cherry-tomato row in about 10.5 seconds, using LiDAR-inertial odometry (laser-plus-inertial motion estimation) to hold its position and a 3D multi-object tracker to turn RGB-D images into tomato counts and sizes. In the harvesting-row experiment, the system counted 94 ripened fruits against a true count of 89 (94.4% counting accuracy) and estimated the average fruit weight within 12.5% of the harvested mean (87.5% weight accuracy). The authors also show that a tilted camera view and faster manual flight degrade both metrics, and that green, heavily occluded fruit is tracked at only 42.5% counting accuracy, which they use to motivate future viewpoint planning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a cube-based 3D multi-object tracking pipeline. A YOLOv10 detector gives 2D boxes; for each box, the median depth inside the projected region fixes $Z$, and the pinhole equations convert the box width and height into metric width $W$, height $H$, and length $L$, where $L = (W+H)/2$ exploits the near-sphericity of cherry tomatoes. GLIM, a LiDAR-inertial odometry estimator, supplies the 6D camera pose that transforms these cubes into a global coordinate frame. Tracks are matched to new detections when the Euclidean distance is at most 0.04 m; matched tracks update their cube state as a convex combination with weight 0.7; a track is accepted after three associations. Ripened tomatoes are those with volume above 12 cm³, and their height feeds Eq. (11), a cubic height-to-weight polynomial, to produce the yield estimate.

What would settle it

Collect the per-fruit height and weight for all 89 harvested tomatoes, fit Eq. (11) using only a randomly chosen subset (for example, three fruits), and compute the average weight error on the remaining fruits; if the held-out error exceeds the reported 12.5%, the weight-estimation claim does not generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that one short forward-view flight of a lightweight quadrotor, with no GNSS and no farm infrastructure modifications, is enough data to estimate cherry-tomato yield. Each detected tomato is projected into the depth image to get a median distance, converted into a metric cube via the pinhole model, and placed in a global frame using the GLIM pose; cubes are then associated into tracks using a 0.04 m Euclidean threshold, updated as convex combinations, and emitted only after three associations. Ripened-fruit tracks with volume over 12 cm³ are counted, and track height is converted to weight by a cubic polynomial (Eq. 11). In the validating experiment, this pipeline produced 94 tracks versus 89 harvested fruits, and the average predicted tomato weight was 21.53 g against a true average of 19.14 g. The paper reports these numbers as 94.4% counting accuracy and 87.5% weight-estimation accuracy for a 13.2 m lane inspected in 10.5 seconds.

Load-bearing premise

The reported weight accuracy depends on a cubic height-to-weight curve fitted to just three tomatoes from the same lane, and three measured points cannot uniquely determine a cubic, so if that curve does not represent the other 86 fruits the 87.5% accuracy is an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Greenhouse yield monitoring can move off the ground: a single 13.2 m row is scanned in about 10.5 s without rails, lifts, or wheel modifications, which is the efficiency advantage claimed over UGV platforms.
  • The same RGB-D-plus-pose tracking pipeline can be adapted to other indoor crops with roughly spherical fruit, as long as the size-to-weight relation is re-calibrated for the new crop.
  • Because the yield computation is done offline from stored sensor streams, flight time is decoupled from compute time, so heavier tracking models could be applied without lengthening the flight.
  • The tilted-view and unripened-fruit experiments bound the method: counting accuracy falls to 77.6% with a tilted camera and to 42.5% for occluded green fruit, so viewpoint choice, not just detector quality, drives accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cubic weight mapping in Eq. (11) is fitted to only three harvested tomatoes, yet a cubic has four coefficients, so those three points do not determine the curve; until the mapping is validated on independent fruit, the 87.5% weight accuracy should be treated as a proof-of-concept bound rather than a settled metric.
  • A volume- or density-based weight model calibrated on a larger sample across rows would likely reduce weight error and remove the need to re-fit per lane.
  • The single forward-view flight leaves open how double-counting scales with lane length; a full-row survey with per-fruit ground-truth matching would test whether the 94.4% count holds beyond one 13.2 m segment.
  • The 42.5% tracking accuracy on green fruit suggests that active viewpoint selection, planning where the UAV looks next, is the natural next lever, and a next-best-view planner along the flight path would be a concrete extension of this system.
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 presents a lightweight 1.4 kg quadcopter for indoor, GNSS-denied greenhouse monitoring. The UAV fuses a Livox MID-360 LiDAR, an Intel RealSense D405 RGB-D camera, and an IMU, using GLIM LiDAR-inertial odometry for pose estimation. Cherry tomatoes are detected with YOLOv10, represented as 3D cubes from depth images, and associated across time by a 3D multi-object tracker. The authors report a 94.4% counting accuracy and an 87.5% weight-estimation accuracy on a 13.2 m harvesting lane flown in 10.5 s, validated by post-flight harvesting of 89 tomatoes weighing 1704.4 g. A second growing-row dataset is used for a qualitative tracking analysis of unripened tomatoes, where only a 42.5% positive-track rate is observed. The paper claims that the system demonstrates the potential of UAVs for efficient robotic yield estimation in commercial greenhouses.

Significance. If the reported numbers are reproducible, the paper makes a useful systems contribution: it integrates off-the-shelf perception and odometry components into a small UAV and validates yield estimates against real post-harvest ground truth on a commercial greenhouse lane. The authors are transparent about the manual control mode, the offline processing, and the exploratory nature of the unripened-tomato experiment. The platform details and the 10.5 s inspection time for a 13.2 m lane are concrete and practically relevant. However, the weight-estimation claim currently rests on an internally inconsistent calibration equation and an evaluation protocol that uses the same lane for fitting and validation, so the headline accuracy numbers should not be accepted without a corrected and properly validated analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-D, Eq. (11)] The printed cubic mapping does not reproduce the stated calibration points. Evaluating weight = 0.00178 h^3 + 0.00993 h^2 - 7.36 h + 192 at h = 35, 40, and 42 mm gives approximately 22.9 g, 27.4 g, and 32.3 g, respectively, rather than the reported 13.5 g, 18.1 g, and 23 g. Because the 87.5% weight accuracy in Table I is computed through this mapping, the central weight-estimation claim cannot currently be reproduced from the manuscript. Please correct the coefficients, the calibration data, or the description, and make the calibration data or script available so the reader can verify the mapping.
  2. [Section III-D and Section IV-B] The weight mapping is fitted to three harvested tomatoes from the validation lane and then evaluated on that same lane, and a cubic polynomial has four coefficients while only three data points are provided. Unless an additional constraint (for example, a zero-intercept condition, a physical density model, or independent data) is specified, the coefficients in Eq. (11) are not uniquely determined. In addition, the association and filtering thresholds (dist_max, update weights w_p and w_v, minimum association count, volume cutoff, maximum accepted depth, and coordinate constraints) are all described as empirically tuned on the same dataset. This evaluation protocol cannot support a generalizable accuracy claim. Please provide a held-out test lane, or at minimum a cross-validation scheme, and report the sensitivity of the results to the tuned thresholds.
  3. [Table I and Section IV-B] The headline claim of 94.4% counting accuracy and 87.5% weight accuracy is based on a single forward-view run. The tilted-view run on the same lane produces 77.6% counting accuracy and a 36.1% weight error, which the authors attribute to higher flight velocity and limited depth range, but these factors are not quantitatively isolated. The conclusion and abstract should either restrict the accuracy claim to the forward-view configuration or support it with repeated trials across varied speeds and camera poses. As written, the abstract's phrasing 'achieves 94.4% counting accuracy and 87.5% weight estimation accuracy' overstates the evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'two dataset' should be 'two datasets'.
  2. [Throughout] The manuscript uses inconsistent spacing in 'UA V' and 'UAV'; please choose one convention and apply it consistently.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'Pink allows shows the UAV's flight path'; this should likely read 'Pink arrows show the UAV's flight path'.
  4. [Table I] The table mixes the ground-truth row with flight configurations without clear separation; please clarify that the 'True' row is the post-harvest ground truth and define how the percentage errors are computed (for example, absolute relative error on count and on average weight).
  5. [Section IV-B] The statement that the maximum accepted depth of 1 m 'exceeding the D405 specification' should be clarified, since exceeding a sensor's specified range typically means relying on noisier measurements rather than a hard failure threshold.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Weight-estimation 'prediction' is an in-sample fit: Eq. (11) is calibrated from the same harvested lane used as the validation ground truth.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-D, Eq. (11) and Section IV-B, Table I]
    "To find the mapping, three random harvested cherry tomatoes were selected, with heights of 35 mm, 40 mm, and 42 mm, and corresponding weights of 13.5 g, 18.1 g, and 23 g, respectively. Approximating these measurements with a cubic polynomial gives: weight = 0.00178h3 + 0.00993h2 − 7.36h + 192 ... All ripened cherry tomatoes were harvested for validation, with a total weight of 1704.4 grams and a count of 89."

    The three calibration fruits are harvested from the same 89-fruit validation lane whose total weight (1704.4 g) and average weight (19.14 g) are later reported as the ground truth in Table I. Therefore Eq. (11) is constructed from the ground-truth weights of the population it is then used to 'predict'; the 12.5% weight error and the resulting 87.5% accuracy are in-sample calibration results, not out-of-sample predictions. The circularity is compounded by the fact that a cubic has four coefficients while only three points are given, so the mapping is not uniquely determined, and the printed polynomial does not return the stated calibration weights. The reported weight accuracy therefore reduces to a calibration check on the same lane rather than an independent validation.

full rationale

The counting pipeline is not circular: the YOLOv10 detections, 3D cube approximations, association threshold (dist_max = 0.04 m), and minimum-association count form an independent perceptual chain, and the 94.4% counting accuracy is an external comparison against the harvested count of 89. No self-citation chain or definitional identity was found. The circularity is confined to the weight-estimation component. Eq. (11) is fitted to three harvested tomatoes from the same lane whose total harvested weight is then used as the ground truth for the average-weight error in Table I. Hence the weight 'prediction' is logically downstream of the validation answer: the same lane's true weights are used to build the estimator and to score it. Additionally, the printed cubic does not reproduce its own calibration points (evaluating at h = 35, 40, 42 mm gives roughly 22.9, 27.4, and 32.3 g, not 13.5, 18.1, and 23 g), so the reported 87.5% weight accuracy is not reproducible from the manuscript. This makes the weight claim partially circular and partially unsupported, while the counting claim remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical objects. The main burden is a set of hand-tuned tracking thresholds and a size-weight curve; these are fitted to or tuned on the same 13.2 m validation lane, so the reported accuracy figures are not independent of the calibration data.

free parameters (8)
  • dist_max = 0.04 m
    Maximum Euclidean distance for associating a 3D detection to a track (Eq. 8); set empirically.
  • update weights wp, wv = 0.7
    Convex combination weights for position and volume updates (Eqs. 9-10); both set to 0.7 by tuning.
  • minimum association count = 3
    A track is accepted only after 3 associated detections; value empirically tuned for target visibility duration.
  • volume cutoff = 12 cm^3
    Tracks smaller than 12 cm^3 are discarded as unripe or false positives during yield estimation.
  • max accepted depth = 1 m
    Depth values beyond 1 m are rejected; the authors state this exceeds the RealSense D405 specification and is set by iterative tuning.
  • height threshold in Fig. 5 = not quantified
    A minimum height line is used to reject false positive tracks such as IDs 105, 106, 107, 112, and 115; the threshold value is not stated.
  • coordinate constraints = predefined x/y/z bounds
    Tracks outside the plant region are excluded before yield estimation (Fig. 5); the bounds are chosen by the authors.
  • weight mapping coefficients = 0.00178, 0.00993, -7.36, 192
    Cubic polynomial fitted to three harvested tomatoes (Eq. 11) and used to convert track height to weight.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption GLIM LiDAR-inertial odometry provides 6D poses accurate enough for global fusion of tomato cubes and for stable flight control.
    Used in Sections III-B and III-C; no independent localization error statistics are reported.
  • domain assumption Each cherry tomato can be approximated as a cube whose length along the camera axis is the average of its measured width and height.
    Entered in Eq. 7; this shape model directly sets the volume estimates used for the 12 cm^3 ripe filter.
  • domain assumption The median depth inside the projected bounding box is a representative distance to the fruit center.
    Eq. 2; occlusions or depth edge noise can bias the median, as the authors acknowledge when discussing double counting.
  • domain assumption A fixed Euclidean distance threshold is sufficient to associate repeated observations of the same fruit.
    Eq. 8 forms the core of the tracker; the paper attributes double counting to failures of this association in Section IV-B.
  • ad hoc to paper The cubic in Eq. 11 describes the height-weight relationship for all ripe tomatoes in the lane.
    Fit to three fruits; not derived from density or shape physics and not validated on a separate set.
  • domain assumption The YOLOv10 detector trained on 2,830 labeled images behaves similarly on this greenhouse.
    No domain adaptation or per-farm calibration is described; detector false alarms are acknowledged in Section IV-B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Indoor Farm Monitoring Efficiency Using UAV: Yield Estimation in a GNSS-Denied Cherry Tomato Greenhouse." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ABL5UT7

@misc{pith2026250500995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Indoor Farm Monitoring Efficiency Using UAV: Yield Estimation in a GNSS-Denied Cherry Tomato Greenhouse},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ABL5UT7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00995}
}
read the original abstract

As the agricultural workforce declines and labor costs rise, robotic yield estimation has become increasingly important. While unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) are commonly used for indoor farm monitoring, their deployment in greenhouses is often constrained by infrastructure limitations, sensor placement challenges, and operational inefficiencies. To address these issues, we develop a lightweight unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) equipped with an RGB-D camera, a 3D LiDAR, and an IMU sensor. The UAV employs a LiDAR-inertial odometry algorithm for precise navigation in GNSS-denied environments and utilizes a 3D multi-object tracking algorithm to estimate the count and weight of cherry tomatoes. We evaluate the system using two dataset: one from a harvesting row and another from a growing row. In the harvesting-row dataset, the proposed system achieves 94.4\% counting accuracy and 87.5\% weight estimation accuracy within a 13.2-meter flight completed in 10.5 seconds. For the growing-row dataset, which consists of occluded unripened fruits, we qualitatively analyze tracking performance and highlight future research directions for improving perception in greenhouse with strong occlusions. Our findings demonstrate the potential of UAVs for efficient robotic yield estimation in commercial greenhouses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00995 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UAV-based monitoring of GNSS-denied greenhouse environment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Images to help understanding the indoor farm environment. (a) Validation lane for yield estimation. Blue line indicates a boundary between a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Configurations of the proposed UAV. With a flight speed of 2 m/s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the proposed 3D multi-object tracking framework. The system takes depth images, 2D bounding boxes from color images, and 6D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results on tracking ripened and unripened cherry tomatoes. All visible tracks are reprojected onto the images with their corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Images of unripened cherry tomatoes from multiple viewpoints. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fruit yield prediction and estimation in orchards: A state- of-the-art comprehensive review for both direct and indirect methods,

    L. He, W. Fang, G. Zhao, Z. Wu, L. Fu, R. Li, Y . Majeed, and J. Dhupia, “Fruit yield prediction and estimation in orchards: A state- of-the-art comprehensive review for both direct and indirect methods,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 195, p. 106812, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Crop yield prediction using machine learning: A systematic literature review,

    T. Van Klompenburg, A. Kassahun, and C. Catal, “Crop yield prediction using machine learning: A systematic literature review,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 177, p. 105709, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    An autonomous strawberry-harvesting robot: Design, development, integration, and field evaluation,

    Y . Xiong, Y . Ge, L. Grimstad, and P. J. From, “An autonomous strawberry-harvesting robot: Design, development, integration, and field evaluation,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 202– 224, 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    Autonomous flights inside narrow tunnels,

    L. Wang, Y . Ning, H. Chen, P. Liu, Y . Xu, H. Xu, X. Lyu, and S. Shen, “Autonomous flights inside narrow tunnels,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    A robust UA V system for operations in a constrained environment,

    M. Petrl ´ık, T. B ´aˇca, D. He ˇrt, M. Vrba, T. Krajn ´ık, and M. Saska, “A robust UA V system for operations in a constrained environment,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2169–2176, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    In- field grape cluster size assessment for vine yield estimation using a mobile robot and a consumer level RGB-D camera,

    P. Kurtser, O. Ringdahl, N. Rotstein, R. Berenstein, and Y . Edan, “In- field grape cluster size assessment for vine yield estimation using a mobile robot and a consumer level RGB-D camera,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2031–2038, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Design, development, and performance evaluation of a robot for yield estimation of kiwifruit,

    J. Massah, K. Asefpour Vakilian, M. Shabanian, and S. M. Shari- atmadari, “Design, development, and performance evaluation of a robot for yield estimation of kiwifruit,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 185, p. 106132, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    System design and control of an apple harvesting robot,

    K. Zhang, K. Lammers, P. Chu, Z. Li, and R. Lu, “System design and control of an apple harvesting robot,” Mechatronics, vol. 79, p. 102644, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Wheat yield and protein estimation with handheld and UA V- based reflectance measurements,

    O. S. Walsh, J. Marshall, C. Jackson, E. Nambi, S. Shafian, D. M. Jayawardena, R. Lamichhane, E. Owusu Ansah, and J. R. McClintick- Chess, “Wheat yield and protein estimation with handheld and UA V- based reflectance measurements,” Agrosystems, Geosciences & Envi- ronment, vol...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Development of methods to improve soybean yield estimation and predict plant maturity with an unmanned aerial vehicle based platform,

    N. Yu, L. Li, N. Schmitz, L. F. Tian, J. A. Greenberg, and B. W. Diers, “Development of methods to improve soybean yield estimation and predict plant maturity with an unmanned aerial vehicle based platform,” Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 187, pp. 91–101, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    WHYe: A UA V multispectral and in-field RGB imaging-based framework for field scale wheat yield estimation,

    N. Ali, A. Mohammed, A. Bais, and J. S. Sangha, “WHYe: A UA V multispectral and in-field RGB imaging-based framework for field scale wheat yield estimation,” in IEEE International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology, 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  4. [12]

    Development of a sweet pepper harvesting robot,

    B. Arad, J. Balendonck, R. Barth, O. Ben-Shahar, Y . Edan, T. Hell- str¨om, J. Hemming, P. Kurtser, O. Ringdahl, T. Tielen, and B. van Tuijl, “Development of a sweet pepper harvesting robot,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1027–1039, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Image segmentation for fruit detection and yield estimation in apple orchards,

    S. Bargoti and J. P. Underwood, “Image segmentation for fruit detection and yield estimation in apple orchards,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 1039–1060, 2017

    2017

  6. [15]

    The use of dynamic sensing strategies to im- prove detection for a pepper harvesting robot,

    P. Kurtser and Y . Edan, “The use of dynamic sensing strategies to im- prove detection for a pepper harvesting robot,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2018, pp. 8286–8293

    2018

  7. [16]

    View planning for grape harvesting based on active vision strategy under occlusion,

    T. Yi, D. Zhang, L. Luo, and J. Luo, “View planning for grape harvesting based on active vision strategy under occlusion,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. PP, pp. 1–8, 03 2024

    2024

  8. [17]

    NBV-SC: Next best view planning based on shape completion for fruit mapping and reconstruction,

    R. Menon, T. Zaenker, N. Dengler, and M. Bennewitz, “NBV-SC: Next best view planning based on shape completion for fruit mapping and reconstruction,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2023, pp. 4197–4203

    2023

  9. [18]

    Receding horizon

    A. Bircher, M. Kamel, K. Alexis, H. Oleynikova, and R. Siegwart, “Receding horizon ”next-best-view” planner for 3d exploration,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2016, pp. 1462–1468

    2016

  10. [19]

    Semantics-aware next-best-view planning for efficient search and detection of task-relevant plant parts,

    A. K. Burusa, J. Scholten, X. Wang, D. Rapado-Rinc ´on, E. J. van Henten, and G. Kootstra, “Semantics-aware next-best-view planning for efficient search and detection of task-relevant plant parts,” Biosys- tems Engineering, vol. 248, pp. 1–14, 2024

    2024

  11. [20]

    Viewpoint planning for automated fruit harvesting using deep learning,

    H. U. Rehman and J. Miura, “Viewpoint planning for automated fruit harvesting using deep learning,” in IEEE International Symposium on System Integration, 2021, pp. 409–414

    2021

  12. [21]

    GLIM: 3D range- inertial localization and mapping with GPU-accelerated scan matching factors,

    K. Koide, M. Yokozuka, S. Oishi, and A. Banno, “GLIM: 3D range- inertial localization and mapping with GPU-accelerated scan matching factors,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 179, p. 104750, 2024

    2024

  13. [22]

    Development and evaluation of automated localisation and reconstruction of all fruits on tomato plants in a greenhouse based on multi-view perception and 3D multi-object tracking,

    D. Rapado-Rinc ´on, E. J. van Henten, and G. Kootstra, “Development and evaluation of automated localisation and reconstruction of all fruits on tomato plants in a greenhouse based on multi-view perception and 3D multi-object tracking,” Biosystems Engineering, vol. 231, pp. 78...

    2023

  14. [23]

    MOT-DETR: 3d single shot detection and tracking with transformers to build 3d representations for agro-food robots,

    D. Rapado-Rincon, H. Nap, K. Smolenova, E. J. van Henten, and G. Kootstra, “MOT-DETR: 3d single shot detection and tracking with transformers to build 3d representations for agro-food robots,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , vol. 225, p. 109275, 2024

    2024

  15. [24]

    4D metric-semantic mapping for persistent orchard monitoring: Method and dataset,

    J. Lei, A. Prabhu, X. Liu, F. Cladera, M. Mortazavi, R. Ehsani, P. Chaudhari, and V . Kumar, “4D metric-semantic mapping for persistent orchard monitoring: Method and dataset,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19786, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Fruit detection and 3D location using instance segmentation neural networks and structure-from-motion photogrammetry,

    J. Gen ´e-Mola, R. Sanz-Cortiella, J. R. Rosell-Polo, J.-R. Morros, J. Ruiz-Hidalgo, V . Vilaplana, and E. Gregorio, “Fruit detection and 3D location using instance segmentation neural networks and structure-from-motion photogrammetry,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture...

    2020

  17. [26]

    Fruit quantity and ripeness estimation using a robotic vision system,

    M. Halstead, C. McCool, S. Denman, T. Perez, and C. Fookes, “Fruit quantity and ripeness estimation using a robotic vision system,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 2995–3002, 2018

    2018

  18. [27]

    Fruit detection and counting in apple orchards based on improved yolov7 and multi-object tracking methods,

    J. Hu, C. Fan, Z. Wang, J. Ruan, and S. Wu, “Fruit detection and counting in apple orchards based on improved yolov7 and multi-object tracking methods,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 13, p. 5903, 2023

    2023

  19. [28]

    ORB-Livox: A real-time dynamic system for fruit detection and localization,

    T. Liu, H. Kang, and C. Chen, “ORB-Livox: A real-time dynamic system for fruit detection and localization,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 209, p. 107834, 2023

    2023

  20. [29]

    Poly-MOTt: A polyhedral framework for 3D multi-object tracking,

    X. Li, T. Xie, D. Liu, J. Gao, K. Dai, Z. Jiang, L. Zhao, and K. Wang, “Poly-MOTt: A polyhedral framework for 3D multi-object tracking,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2023, pp. 9391–9398

    2023

  21. [30]

    Fast-poly: A fast polyhedral framework for 3D multi-object tracking,

    X. Li, D. Liu, Y . Wu, X. Wu, L. Zhao, and J. Gao, “Fast-poly: A fast polyhedral framework for 3D multi-object tracking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13443, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Fairmot: On the fairness of detection and re-identification in multiple object tracking,

    Y . Zhang, C. Wang, X. Wang, W. Zeng, and W. Liu, “Fairmot: On the fairness of detection and re-identification in multiple object tracking,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 129, pp. 3069–3087, 2021

    2021

  23. [32]

    Fruit sizing using ai: A review of methods and challenges,

    J. C. Miranda, J. Gen ´e-Mola, M. Zude-Sasse, N. Tsoulias, A. Es- col`a, J. Arn ´o, J. R. Rosell-Polo, R. Sanz-Cortiella, J. A. Mart ´ınez- Casasnovas, and E. Gregorio, “Fruit sizing using ai: A review of methods and challenges,” Postharvest Biology and Technology , vol. 206, ...

    2023

  24. [33]

    A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,

    M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, X. Xu, et al. , “A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,” in kdd, vol. 96, no. 34, 1996, pp. 226–231

    1996

Pith tools

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