Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Category-Level 6D Object Pose Estimation in Agricultural Settings Using a Lattice-Deformation Framework and Diffusion-Augmented Synthetic Data

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that category-level 6D pose estimation of deformable agricultural objects can be solved from a single RGB image, without instance-specific CAD models or depth.

desk verdict A promising RGB-only banana pose system, but the evaluation is too thin and the shape-coverage premise is unverified. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24636 v1 pith:COXBCSKH submitted 2025-05-30 cs.CV

Marios Glytsos , Panagiotis P. Filntisis , George Retsinas , Petros Maragos This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 6Dobjectposeestimationcategory-levellatticedeformationB-splineinterpolationsyntheticdatagenerationStableDiffusionagriculturalroboticsRGB-only
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 claims that category-level 6D pose estimation of deformable agricultural objects can be solved from a single RGB image, without instance-specific CAD models or depth. It introduces PLANTPose, which predicts both the object's pose and a 24-parameter B-spline lattice deformation of one base mesh, so a single banana mesh adapts to unseen banana shapes. Training uses synthetic scenes rendered in Blender, then re-textured by Stable Diffusion inpainting with ControlNet depth conditioning to mimic ripeness. On a 100-image benchmark of six scanned bananas, the paper reports a Chamfer distance of 59.8 mm and mean rotation error of 32.6 degrees, against 90.1 mm and 52.4 degrees for MegaPose. If valid, this makes RGB-only pose estimation practical for robotic harvesting of produce with high shape variability.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cubic B-spline lattice deformation defined on the object's bounding box. Eight corner control points, each moving in 3D, produce $24$ parameters; cubic B-spline basis functions $W_0(t), W_1(t), W_2(t), W_3(t)$ interpolate these corner offsets smoothly ($C^2$-continuous) across the box, so any mesh vertex moves by a weighted sum of the offsets. The load-bearing mechanism is the disentanglement of deformation from pose: after each synthetic deformation, the Umeyama algorithm computes the optimal similarity transform between the original and deformed mesh, and the lattice points are corrected so the deformation carries no global rotation or translation. The network is trained with three losses: an MSE on the 6D rotation representation, an MSE on the lattice offsets, and a 2D projection loss that projects the warped, posed mesh into the image and compares with ground-truth keypoints, which anchors the translation estimate.

What would settle it

Take a much larger set of scanned bananas with varied shapes (for example, 50 individuals spanning ripeness stages from green to rotten), and measure whether the best lattice deformation of the single base mesh can fit each scan within a small Chamfer threshold; a substantial fraction that cannot be fitted would refute the deformation-coverage premise. Independently, re-register the Stable Diffusion-inpainted synthetic training images against the base mesh; if the average pose shift introduced by inpainting exceeds the reported rotation and translation error margins, the training labels are too noisy to sustain the accuracy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PLANTPose establishes that deforming one category-level base mesh rather than choosing among instance models is enough to track unseen bananas from RGB. The network takes a cropped color image, regresses a 6D rotation, a translation, and a 24-dimensional vector of lattice corner offsets, and warps the base mesh accordingly. The paper attributes the accuracy to two design choices: the Umeyama correction that removes the global rotation and translation accidentally introduced by lattice deformation, and the Stable Diffusion refinement of synthetic renders, which keeps pose labels intact while adding realistic ripeness textures. Ablations show that removing either stage raises Chamfer distance by roughly 12 mm, and removing both raises it to 89.7 mm, close to the MegaPose baseline, which suggests the two components carry most of the improvement.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that randomly perturbing one banana base mesh under an empirically capped lattice range generates shapes covering the real test-set bananas, and that Stable Diffusion inpainting alters appearance while preserving the object's true pose and geometry; if either part fails, the network trains on wrong shapes or wrong labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot harvester could estimate both the 6D pose and the current shape of an unseen fruit from one RGB camera, using a single template mesh per species and no depth sensor.
  • Because the deformation output is an explicit 24-parameter mesh warp, the same prediction can feed grasp planning with the estimated 3D shape, not just a rigid box.
  • The use of Stable Diffusion to re-texture rendered images after the fact removes the need to hand-craft texture variations on 3D models, which could simplify synthetic data pipelines for other deformable categories.
  • The reported error reductions in both Chamfer distance and rotation are attributed jointly to the Umeyama correction and the diffusion refinement; the framework's value depends on both, not on pose regression alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the deformation coverage scales with the empirical bound, the same 24-parameter scheme could extend to other soft or articulated objects (peppers, cucumbers, packaged goods) with only a new base mesh and retraining, though the paper does not test this.
  • A natural next experiment would vary the lattice resolution (e.g., $3\times3\times3$ or $4\times4\times4$ control points) to see where shape fidelity saturates relative to pose accuracy, since the paper fixes the lattice at $2\times2\times2$.
  • The paper's own stated caveat that Stable Diffusion may slightly alter the object's pose suggests a targeted ablation: re-register the inpainted training images against the base mesh, and measure whether pose-label noise, rather than texture realism, is the remaining bottleneck.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. PLANTPose is presented as a category-level 6D object pose estimation framework that operates on RGB input only. A single banana base mesh is deformed through a 2x2x2 cubic B-spline lattice, producing 24 deformation parameters that are predicted jointly with rotation and translation by a ViT-based network. Training data are generated with BlenderProc and then refined with Stable Diffusion inpainting under ControlNet depth conditioning. The method is evaluated on a private benchmark of 100 images of six bananas, against MegaPose, with reported improvements in Chamfer distance (59.8 vs 90.1 mm), mean rotation error (32.6 vs 52.4 degrees), and translation error (42.5 vs 59.9 mm). Ablations show gains from the Umeyama correction and from the Stable Diffusion refinement.

Significance. If the results are reliable, the paper would make a useful empirical contribution: it combines a compact lattice-deformation representation with diffusion-based texture augmentation for RGB-only, category-level pose estimation of deformable produce, and it evaluates on a genuinely challenging intra-class variation benchmark. The method is simple and its ablations are informative. The promise of releasing code and synthetic data is also valuable. However, the currently reported evidence is not sufficient to support the headline claims: the benchmark is very small, the ground-truth alignment protocol is unvalidated, the deformation model's coverage of real banana shapes is not demonstrated, and the Stable Diffusion step is conceded to potentially alter pose without any quantification. These issues concern the validity of the numerical comparison rather than mere presentation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Table I] The central quantitative claim rests on a private benchmark of 100 images of six bananas, with no error bars, confidence intervals, or per-banana breakdown. The reported margins are large, but with n=100 and no variance estimate the word 'significantly' is not justified. Please report per-banana results and a paired bootstrap or significance test over images, and state whether the six bananas are all present in roughly equal numbers.
  2. [Section IV, Benchmark Dataset and Metrics] Ground-truth pose is derived from LiDAR scans, manual annotation, and ICP alignment of each scanned mesh to the base banana. No accuracy estimate is given for the manual annotation or the ICP alignment. Because every reported error is computed against this ground truth, including the deformation error after removing rotation and translation, the absolute numbers in Tables I and II are only as trustworthy as that alignment. Please report ICP residuals, annotation repeatability, and describe how correspondence-free Chamfer distances are computed between the scanned and predicted meshes.
  3. [Section III-B] The deformation model's coverage of real banana shapes is not validated. The perturbation range is described only as an 'empirically set constrained range' with no numerical value, and the paper does not show that the 24-parameter B-spline lattice, within that range, can approximate the six scanned real bananas. If the real shapes fall outside the training distribution, the Chamfer distance in Table I measures representation failure as much as pose accuracy. Please fit the lattice to the real scans and report the residual Chamfer distance both within and outside the training bounds, and state the actual bound used.
  4. [Section III-B and Limitations] The Stable Diffusion inpainting step is asserted to preserve pose through ControlNet depth conditioning, but the Limitations section concedes that Stable Diffusion 'may slightly alter the object's 6D pose.' No quantitative check is provided. Since the training labels are carried over from the pre-inpainting render, any pose or geometry shift introduced by inpainting corrupts those labels and biases the learned pose and deformation mapping. Please measure the shift, for example by comparing depth maps or re-running the renderer's pose estimation on the inpainted images, and report the resulting pose-error statistics.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A] The text says the deformation is controlled by '8x3 parameters' and later the network predicts a '24D offset vector'; the equivalence should be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section III-B] There is a typo: 'amgibuity' should be 'ambiguity', and 'we constraint' should be 'we constrain'.
  3. [Section IV] The 'Deform. Error' metric is never precisely defined; please specify how the deformation error is computed from the predicted and ground-truth lattice offsets after pose alignment.
  4. [Related Work / Conclusion] The claim of being 'the first to estimate both the 6D pose and per-instance deformations' is a strong novelty statement and should be either supported with a more thorough literature search or softened.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: PLANTPose is an empirical learning result validated on real scanned bananas against the external MegaPose baseline; the cited prior work by the same authors is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a ViT network trained on synthetic lattice-deformed bananas plus Stable Diffusion-refined images predicts 6D pose and deformation parameters, and that this outperforms MegaPose on a real 100-image benchmark. The claimed result is not derived from the method's own inputs: the lattice deformation equations (Sec. III-A) define the synthetic label generation, the deformation head is supervised by those labels (Eq. 4), and the benchmark uses independently 3D-scanned bananas with ICP alignment and Chamfer distance against an external RGB-only baseline (Sec. IV). No fitted constant or benchmark-derived parameter is renamed as a prediction; the 'empirically set constrained range' (Sec. III-B) is a data-augmentation bound, not a test-set fit. The self-citations ([22], [23]) are related-work references to the same group's mushroom datasets and pose methods and are not used to justify PLANTPose's architecture or results. The acknowledged limitation that Stable Diffusion 'may slightly alter the object's 6D pose' is a validity threat and a missing quantification, but it is an empirical assumption about label noise, not a circular step: the synthetic labels are generated before diffusion, and the real benchmark is independent of that pipeline. The comparison to MegaPose and the absence of error bars are correctness/robustness concerns, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the claims made.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method is empirical: it rests on hand-set deformation bounds, tuned loss weights, curated diffusion prompts, and a distributional assumption that synthetic lattice deformations cover real banana variation. No code or data is provided to check these choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Deformation magnitude upper bound
    Sections III-A and III-B: lattice control-point perturbations are clipped to an "empirical fixed upper bound" and "empirically set constrained range"; no value is given. This choice determines how much shape variation the model sees during training and is hand-set.
  • Loss weights lambda_r, lambda_d, lambda_p
    Equation (4) uses weighting coefficients for rotation, deformation, and 2D projection losses, but their values are not reported. They are tuned and affect the pose-deformation trade-off.
  • Stable Diffusion prompt set and inpainting settings
    Section III-B curates prompts for unripe, ripe, and rotten appearances, but the exact prompts, denoising strength, and ControlNet conditioning parameters are not specified. These control texture realism and training-label fidelity.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 2x2x2 cubic B-spline lattice with 24D corner offsets can express enough of the real banana shape space (curvature, thickness, length) to make pose labels meaningful.
    Section III-A: all training deformations are generated by perturbing only these eight corner offsets; real bananas outside this span cannot be represented, which would bias pose estimation.
  • domain assumption Stable Diffusion inpainting with ControlNet depth conditioning preserves the rendered object's geometry and pose accurately enough that the synthetic ground-truth pose remains valid.
    Section III-B relies on unchanged annotations after SD refinement; the authors later concede in the Limitations that the pose can be slightly altered.
  • domain assumption Manual annotation of the 100 real banana images, using iPhone LiDAR scans aligned to the base mesh via ICP, is accurate enough to serve as ground truth for error metrics.
    Section IV reports no annotation protocol, inter-annotator agreement, or ICP alignment error, yet all error metrics depend on this ground truth.
  • standard math The Umeyama similarity alignment removes the global rotation and translation introduced by random lattice perturbations, so the deformation parameter delta is pose-independent.
    Section III-B, Equation (3): this relies on a standard least-squares alignment algorithm, but its correctness here depends on the assumption that the deformation has a well-defined global component that can be factored out.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Category-Level 6D Object Pose Estimation in Agricultural Settings Using a Lattice-Deformation Framework and Diffusion-Augmented Synthetic Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/COXBCSKH

@misc{pith2026250524636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Category-Level 6D Object Pose Estimation in Agricultural Settings Using a Lattice-Deformation Framework and Diffusion-Augmented Synthetic Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/COXBCSKH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24636}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate 6D object pose estimation is essential for robotic grasping and manipulation, particularly in agriculture, where fruits and vegetables exhibit high intra-class variability in shape, size, and texture. The vast majority of existing methods rely on instance-specific CAD models or require depth sensors to resolve geometric ambiguities, making them impractical for real-world agricultural applications. In this work, we introduce PLANTPose, a novel framework for category-level 6D pose estimation that operates purely on RGB input. PLANTPose predicts both the 6D pose and deformation parameters relative to a base mesh, allowing a single category-level CAD model to adapt to unseen instances. This enables accurate pose estimation across varying shapes without relying on instance-specific data. To enhance realism and improve generalization, we also leverage Stable Diffusion to refine synthetic training images with realistic texturing, mimicking variations due to ripeness and environmental factors and bridging the domain gap between synthetic data and the real world. Our evaluations on a challenging benchmark that includes bananas of various shapes, sizes, and ripeness status demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in handling large intraclass variations while maintaining accurate 6D pose predictions, significantly outperforming the state-of-the-art RGB-based approach MegaPose.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24636 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fruits exhibit significant intra-class variability in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the PLANTPose framework. Given a base mesh, we generate deformed object instances using lattice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative results on the banana test benchmark com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative ablation results from different model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Selective harvesting robotics: current research, trends, and future directions,

    G. Kootstra, X. Wang, P. M. Blok, J. Hemming, and E. Van Henten, “Selective harvesting robotics: current research, trends, and future directions,”Current Robotics Reports, vol. 2, pp. 95–104, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Algorithm design and integration for a robotic apple harvesting system,

    K. Zhang, K. Lammers, P. Chu, N. Dickinson, Z. Li, and R. Lu, “Algorithm design and integration for a robotic apple harvesting system,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 9217–9224

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Megapose: 6d pose estimation of novel objects via render & compare,

    Y . Labb´e, L. Manuelli, A. Mousavian, S. Tyree, S. Birchfield, J. Trem- blay, J. Carpentier, M. Aubry, D. Fox, and J. Sivic, “Megapose: 6d pose estimation of novel objects via render & compare,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.06870, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    FoundationPose: Unified 6d pose estimation and tracking of novel objects,

    W. Bowen, Y . Wei, K. Jan, and B. Stan, “FoundationPose: Unified 6d pose estimation and tracking of novel objects,” inCVPR, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Posecnn: A convolutional neural network for 6d object pose estimation in cluttered scenes,

    Y . Xiang, T. Schmidt, V . Narayanan, and D. Fox, “Posecnn: A convolutional neural network for 6d object pose estimation in cluttered scenes,” inProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Cosypose: Consistent multi-view multi-object 6d pose estimation,

    Y . Labbe, J. Carpentier, M. Aubry, and J. Sivic, “Cosypose: Consistent multi-view multi-object 6d pose estimation,” inProceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Gigapose: Fast and robust novel object pose estimation via one correspondence,

    V . N. Nguyen, T. Groueix, M. Salzmann, and V . Lepetit, “Gigapose: Fast and robust novel object pose estimation via one correspondence,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 9903–9913

    2024

  8. [8]

    Normalized object coordinate space for category-level 6d object pose and size estimation,

    H. Wang, S. Sridhar, J. Huang, J. Valentin, S. Song, and L. J. Guibas, “Normalized object coordinate space for category-level 6d object pose and size estimation,” inThe IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    SOCS: Semantically-aware Object Co- ordinate Space for Category-Level 6D Object Pose Estimation under Large Shape Variations ,

    B. Wan, Y . Shi, and K. Xu, “ SOCS: Semantically-aware Object Co- ordinate Space for Category-Level 6D Object Pose Estimation under Large Shape Variations ,” inIEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023, pp. 14 019–14 028

    2023

  2. [10]

    BOP: Benchmark for 6D object pose estimation,

    T. Hoda ˇn, F. Michel, E. Brachmann, W. Kehl, A. Glent Buch, D. Kraft, B. Drost, J. Vidal, S. Ihrke, X. Zabulis, C. Sahin, F. Manhardt, F. Tombari, T.-K. Kim, J. Matas, and C. Rother, “BOP: Benchmark for 6D object pose estimation,”European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository,

    A. X. Chang, T. A. Funkhouser, L. J. Guibas, P. Hanrahan, Q.- X. Huang, Z. Li, S. Savarese, M. Savva, S. Song, H. Su, J. Xiao, L. Yi, and F. Yu, “Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository,” CoRR, vol. abs/1512.03012, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Google scanned objects: A high-quality dataset of 3d scanned household items,

    L. Downs, A. Francis, N. Koenig, B. Kinman, R. Hickman, K. Rey- mann, T. B. McHugh, and V . Vanhoucke, “Google scanned objects: A high-quality dataset of 3d scanned household items,” inInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2022, pp. 2553– 2560

    2022

  5. [13]

    Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects,

    M. Deitke, D. Schwenk, J. Salvador, L. Weihs, O. Michel, E. Vander- Bilt, L. Schmidt, K. Ehsani, A. Kembhavi, and A. Farhadi, “Objaverse: A universe of annotated 3d objects,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, pp. ...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Catgrasp: Learning category-level task-relevant grasping in clutter from simulation,

    B. Wen, W. Lian, K. Bekris, and S. Schaal, “Catgrasp: Learning category-level task-relevant grasping in clutter from simulation,”ICRA 2022, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Shape prior deformation for categorical 6d object pose and size estimation,

    M. Tian, M. H. Ang Jr, and G. H. Lee, “Shape prior deformation for categorical 6d object pose and size estimation,” inProceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), August 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Ssp- pose: Symmetry-aware shape prior deformation for direct category- level object pose estimation,

    R. Zhang, Y . Di, F. Manhardt, N. Navab, F. Tombari, and X. Ji, “Ssp- pose: Symmetry-aware shape prior deformation for direct category- level object pose estimation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/RSJ In- ternational Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (Accepted) (IROS), 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Shapo: Implicit representations for multi-object shape appearance and pose optimization,

    M. Z. Irshad, S. Zakharov, R. Ambrus, T. Kollar, Z. Kira, and A. Gaidon, “Shapo: Implicit representations for multi-object shape appearance and pose optimization,” inEuropean Conference on Com- puter Vision (ECCV), 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Disp6d: Disentangled implicit shape and pose learning for scalable 6d pose estimation,

    Y . Wen, X. Li, H. Pan, L. Yang, Z. Wang, T. Komura, and W. Wang, “Disp6d: Disentangled implicit shape and pose learning for scalable 6d pose estimation,” inEuropean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. P. Srinivasan, M. Tancik, J. T. Barron, R. Ramamoor- thi, and R. Ng, “Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” inECCV, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Nerf-pose: A first-reconstruct-then-regress approach for weakly- supervised 6d object pose estimation,

    F. Li, H. Yu, I. Shugurov, B. Busam, S. Yang, and S. Ilic, “Nerf-pose: A first-reconstruct-then-regress approach for weakly- supervised 6d object pose estimation,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.04802

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Blenderproc2: A procedural pipeline for photorealistic rendering,

    M. Denninger, D. Winkelbauer, M. Sundermeyer, W. Boerdijk, M. Knauer, K. H. Strobl, M. Humt, and R. Triebel, “Blenderproc2: A procedural pipeline for photorealistic rendering,”Journal of Open Source Software, vol. 8, no. 82, p. 4901, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    A realistic synthetic mushroom scenes dataset,

    D. Anagnostopoulou, G. Retsinas, N. Efthymiou, P. Filntisis, and P. Maragos, “A realistic synthetic mushroom scenes dataset,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 6282–6289

    2023

  15. [23]

    Mushroom segmentation and 3d pose estimation from point clouds using fully convolutional geometric features and implicit pose encoding,

    G. Retsinas, N. Efthymiou, and P. Maragos, “Mushroom segmentation and 3d pose estimation from point clouds using fully convolutional geometric features and implicit pose encoding,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 6264–6271

    2023

  16. [24]

    Tomato harvesting robotic system based on deep-tomatos: Deep learning network using transformation loss for 6d pose estimation of maturity classified tomatoes with side-stem,

    J. Kim, H. Pyo, I. Jang, J. Kang, B. Ju, and K. Ko, “Tomato harvesting robotic system based on deep-tomatos: Deep learning network using transformation loss for 6d pose estimation of maturity classified tomatoes with side-stem,”Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 20...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Single-shot 6dof pose and 3d size estimation for robotic strawberry harvesting,

    L. Li and H. Kasaei, “Single-shot 6dof pose and 3d size estimation for robotic strawberry harvesting,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2024, pp. 4988– 4993

    2024

  18. [26]

    Enhanced 6d pose estimation for robotic fruit picking,

    M. Costanzo, M. De Simone, S. Federico, C. Natale, and S. Pirozzi, “Enhanced 6d pose estimation for robotic fruit picking,” in2023 9th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT). IEEE, 2023, pp. 901–906

    2023

  19. [27]

    Experimental comparison of two 6d pose estimation algorithms in robotic fruit-picking tasks,

    A. B. Alterani, M. Costanzo, M. De Simone, S. Federico, and C. Natale, “Experimental comparison of two 6d pose estimation algorithms in robotic fruit-picking tasks,”Robotics, vol. 13, no. 9,

  20. [28]

    C. D. Toth, J. O’Rourke, and J. E. Goodman,Handbook of discrete and computational geometry. CRC press, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Least-squares estimation of transformation parameters between two point patterns,

    S. Umeyama, “Least-squares estimation of transformation parameters between two point patterns,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 376–380, 1991

    1991

  22. [30]

    Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,

    L. Zhang, A. Rao, and M. Agrawala, “Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 3836–3847

    2023

  23. [31]

    Ultralytics yolo11,

    G. Jocher and J. Qiu, “Ultralytics yolo11,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    2024

  24. [32]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit, and N. Houlsby, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,”ICLR, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Single image 3d object detection and pose estimation for grasping,

    M. Zhu, K. G. Derpanis, Y . Yang, S. Brahmbhatt, M. M. Zhang, C. J. Phillips, M. Lecce, and K. Daniilidis, “Single image 3d object detection and pose estimation for grasping,”2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 3936–3943, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimiza- tion,

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

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    epnp: An accurate o(n) solution to the pnp problem,

    V . Lepetit, F. Moreno-Noguer, and P. Fua, “epnp: An accurate o(n) solution to the pnp problem,”International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 81, no. 2, p. 155, 2009

    2009

  28. [36]

    Gpv-pose: Category-level object pose estimation via geometry-guided point-wise voting,

    Y . Di, R. Zhang, Z. Lou, F. Manhardt, X. Ji, N. Navab, and F. Tombari, “Gpv-pose: Category-level object pose estimation via geometry-guided point-wise voting,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2022, pp. 6781–6791

    2022

  29. [37]

    Dualposenet: Category- level 6d object pose and size estimation using dual pose network with refined learning of pose consistency,

    J. Lin, Z. Wei, Z. Li, S. Xu, K. Jia, and Y . Li, “Dualposenet: Category- level 6d object pose and size estimation using dual pose network with refined learning of pose consistency,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 3560–3569

    2021

  30. [2024]

    Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2218-6581/13/9/127

    [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2218-6581/13/9/127

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.