Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Point Cloud Quality Assessment Using the Perceptual Clustering Weighted Graph (PCW-Graph) and Attention Fusion Network

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A no-reference quality assessment method for point clouds, built on a Perceptual Clustering Weighted Graph and a Graph Attention Fusion network, reports PLCC of 0.93 or higher and SRCC of 0.91 or higher on three benchmarks and beats the…

desk verdict Plausible graph-attention PCQA pipeline whose reported SOTA results are undone by an internally inconsistent evaluation protocol. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04081 v1 pith:HYXVX4IN submitted 2025-06-04 cs.CV

Abdelouahed Laazoufi , Mohammed El Hassouni , Hocine Cherifi This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords PointCloudsSegmentationNo-ReferencePCQAComplexnetworksPerceptualClusteringWeightedGraphAttentionFusionQualityassessmentfeatures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that a no-reference point cloud quality metric can match human perceptual judgments without needing the original model. It proposes the Perceptual Clustering Weighted Graph (PCW-Graph): points are grouped by color, curvature, and saliency; clusters become graph nodes; edges are weighted by a mix of perceptual similarity and geometric distance; and a Graph Attention Fusion network adaptively weighs the features and regresses a quality score. On the WPC, SJTU-PCQA, and ICIP2020 benchmarks the reported Pearson correlation is at least 0.93 and Spearman at least 0.91, higher than the compared no-reference metrics and close to full-reference ones, with RMSE reduced by up to 15%. If correct, this gives applications such as compression, rendering, and 3D streaming a blind quality estimator that works where no reference model is available.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Perceptual Clustering Weighted Graph (PCW-Graph), built by K-means clustering of a distorted point cloud using LAB color, curvature, and saliency features; each cluster becomes a node, edges connect clusters within a neighborhood radius, and edge weights combine an RBF perceptual similarity term with inverse geometric distance. The Graph Attention Fusion (GAF) network processes separate adjacency matrices for color, curvature, and saliency through multi-head attention, concatenates and fuses them, and then a Graph Attention Network (GAT) layer regresses the final quality score. This cluster-level abstraction is what lets the method weigh structural and perceptual relationships while keeping computational cost below several point-level full-reference metrics.

What would settle it

Compute SRCC and PLCC under a strictly content-disjoint split (train only on distortions of some reference clouds, test only on distortions of held-out reference clouds) and compare per-content and per-distortion values to Tables 7 and 8; if the held-out-reference correlations fall well below the reported 0.9118 (SJTU-PCQA), 0.8688 (WPC), or 0.9999 (ICIP2020), reference leakage inflated the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the perceptual quality of a distorted point cloud can be predicted blindly by first compressing it into a small set of perceptually coherent clusters, then encoding the inter-cluster relationships in a weighted graph, then letting a graph attention fusion network choose which features matter. In the paper's experiments on SJTU-PCQA, WPC, and ICIP2020, this pipeline achieves PLCC ≥ 0.93 and SRCC ≥ 0.91 on every dataset, placing it ahead of the compared NR baselines, including MM-PCQA and GMS-3DQA, and on ICIP2020 it reports near-perfect SRCC of 0.9999. The ablation study attributes the gain to the fusion step: using all three features without the fusion network yields PLCC 0.7980 on SJTU-PCQA, versus 0.9338 with it.

Load-bearing premise

The reported correlations depend on an 80/10/10 train/validation/test split in which no reference point cloud appears in both training and test; if the per-content and per-distortion tables used samples whose reference clouds were also in training, all headline numbers would be inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A blind quality score for point clouds can be produced from the distorted cloud alone, so compression pipelines and streaming services could rank or filter 3D content without storing a reference model.
  • The reported cross-database result (WPC→SJTU PLCC 0.7928, SRCC 0.8008) suggests the learned graph features transfer across datasets and distortion types rather than memorizing a single benchmark.
  • The ablation result (full features without GAF: PLCC 0.7980; with GAF: 0.9338 on SJTU-PCQA) is a direct corollary that the fusion module, not any single feature, carries most of the performance gain.
  • Because the graph is built from perceptual clusters rather than raw points, the method's complexity scales with the number of clusters, not the point count, which is what allows it to run faster than several point-based full-reference metrics on the same hardware.
  • The reported best configuration (3 layers, tanh activation, batch size 32) gives a concrete recipe for reproducing the claimed correlations on all three datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The per-content and per-distortion SRCC tables (Tables 7 and 8) do not state whether their samples come from reference point clouds that were in the training split; if any test sample's reference was seen in training, the reported averages are inflated, and a content-disjoint re-run would settle the size of the effect.
  • Editorial inference: Because ICIP2020 has only six reference clouds, the reported SRCC of 0.9999 is dominated by a few content rows; per-reference confidence intervals would show how stable the number actually is.
  • Editorial inference: The saliency feature alone nearly matches the full model on ICIP2020 (SRCC 0.9215 vs 0.9999), which suggests a simpler saliency-only or saliency-weighted variant might be worth testing as a lower-cost version of the method.
  • Editorial inference: The abstract's 'RMSE reduced by up to 15%' does not name the baseline; the paper should state the reference metric for that reduction before the claim is used in head-to-head comparisons.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a no-reference point cloud quality assessment (NR-PCQA) method, PCW-Graph, which clusters point clouds by color, curvature, and saliency features, builds a weighted graph whose nodes are clusters, and feeds the graph into a Graph Attention Fusion network to regress a quality score. The method is evaluated on SJTU-PCQA, WPC, and ICIP2020, and the authors claim it achieves PLCC ≥ 0.93 and SRCC ≥ 0.91 and reduces RMSE by up to 15%, outperforming alternative NR-PCQA methods. The paper also includes ablation studies, a cross-database evaluation, and a comparison with 24 quality metrics.

Significance. If the empirical claims were valid, the paper would offer a useful interpretable graph-based NR-PCQA pipeline and a broad comparison on three public benchmarks. The authors deserve credit for including an ablation study, a cross-database experiment, and comparisons with many FR, RR, and NR methods. However, the central SOTA claim is not supported by the paper's own tables, and the evaluation protocol described in Section 3.7 is inconsistent with the per-content and per-distortion results in Tables 7 and 8. Because the main contribution is an empirical performance claim, these issues are load-bearing. No code, pretrained models, or exact hyperparameters are provided, which further limits verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.7, Tables 7 and 8] The stated content-disjoint 80/10/10 split cannot produce the per-content SRCC results reported in Table 7. SJTU-PCQA has 9 publicly available reference clouds and 378 used samples, so a 10% test set with no reference overlap contains at most one reference cloud (42 samples). Under that split, per-content SRCC for all 9 SJTU contents cannot be computed, and per-distortion SRCC rows would rest on samples from at most one reference cloud (6 samples per distortion), which is far too few for reliable correlation estimates. The same issue affects the 20 content rows in Table 8 for WPC. Therefore, either Tables 7 and 8 were computed on training/validation samples, or the split is not actually content-disjoint. In both cases, the headline Table 5 numbers are called into question. The paper does not report test sample IDs or code, so the reader cannot rule out leakage.
  2. [Table 5 and Section 4.4] The claim that the method 'consistently outperforms all other quality assessment techniques on all three datasets' is contradicted by the ICIP2020 column of Table 5. GMS-3DQA achieves PLCC 0.9981 and RMSE 0.0686, while Ours achieves PLCC 0.9926 and RMSE 0.0690. Thus the proposed method does not outperform GMS-3DQA on PLCC or RMSE for ICIP2020. The SOTA claim must be revised to specify the exact criteria and datasets on which the method is actually best, and the SRCC value of 0.9999 for ICIP2020 (with 90 samples) warrants additional scrutiny given the split issues.
  3. [Abstract and Table 5] The abstract's claim of RMSE reduction 'up to 15%' is unsupported by the reported results. In Table 5, the largest RMSE reduction over a comparable NR method is about 3.8% on WPC (Ours 11.8853 vs MM-PCQA 12.3506), and on ICIP2020 the RMSE increases relative to GMS-3DQA (0.0690 vs 0.0686). A 15% reduction does not appear anywhere in the table if the comparison is restricted to the NR methods listed there. The authors should either identify the exact baseline producing a 15% improvement or remove the claim.
  4. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (6)-(9)] The graph weight definition is internally inconsistent. Equation (6) defines W_ij = Sim(C_i, C_j) · De(C_i, C_j), while the text after Eq. (9) states that the weight combines similarity scores with 'inverse distance scaling.' The equations multiply by De, not by 1/De. In addition, Eq. (8) labels De as the Euclidean distance between spatial centroids, but Eq. (7) defines µ_i as the average of perceptual feature vectors, which include color, curvature, and saliency. Since Sim in Eq. (9) is itself a function of De, the claimed 'dual metric' is actually a product of a distance and a decaying function of that same distance. This inconsistency affects the core graph-construction contribution and must be resolved by rewriting the definitions and the accompanying text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.6, Eq. (16)] Equation (16) uses notation 'LM ℓ=1' and 'n a=1' that is not standard and is likely a typesetting error; the equation should be rewritten with explicit summations or concatenation operators.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Section 5] The paper acknowledges sensitivity to the number of clusters k in the conclusion, but it never reports the values of k, neighborhood radius r, saliency scales σ1 and σ2, or the cluster feature dimension used in the experiments. These hyperparameters are necessary for reproducibility, especially because no code is provided.
  3. [Tables 7 and 8] Several entries in Tables 7 and 8 are 'NaN' (e.g., CN distortion for M1-M5 in Table 7), but the tables are described as using absolute SRCC values; the reason for the missing values should be stated in the caption or text.
  4. [Section 4.6] The cross-database evaluation trains on the full WPC dataset and validates on the full SJTU-PCQA dataset, which is a different protocol from the 80/10/10 split used in Table 5; the text should clarify how these results relate to the main evaluation and whether they use all SJTU samples.
  5. [Section 4.7 and Figure 6] The computational efficiency comparison in Figure 6 includes only hand-crafted model-based methods (PCQM, PCMRR, GraphSIM, PointSSIM, 3D-NSS) and omits deep-learning NR methods such as GMS-3DQA and MM-PCQA; the claim of 'lower average time cost' should be scoped accordingly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One definitionally redundant 'perceptual' edge weight in the PCW-Graph; the MOS regression itself is not circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3, Eqs. (6)-(9)]
    "The weight matrix W quantifies interaction strengths using a dual metric that combines geometric distance and perceptual feature similarity. Wij = Sim(Ci,Cj) · De(Ci,Cj) if Cj ∈ Nr(Ci) otherwise 0 (6)... Perceptual similarity is then computed using a radial basis function (RBF) kernel that converts geometric distances into similarity scores: Sim(Ci,Cj) = exp(−De(Ci,Cj) 2α2) (9). This dual-metric approach ensures strong weights between clusters that are both perceptually similar and geometrically proximate."

    Eq. (9) defines Sim as an RBF of De, and Eq. (6) multiplies Sim by De. Consequently W(Ci,Cj)=De(Ci,Cj)·exp(−De(Ci,Cj)^2/(2α^2)) is a single deterministic function of one distance, not a combination of two independent cues. Whether De is interpreted as spatial centroid distance (as Eq. 8 states) or as a perceptual-feature centroid distance (as Eq. 7 suggests), Sim is just a monotone rescaling of the same De used as the other factor. The 'perceptual similarity' term is therefore equivalent by construction to the chosen distance, so the claim that the edge weights combine geometric and perceptual similarity is definitionally redundant. The later quality-score regression is independent, but this graph-construction sub-claim collapses to a relabeling of one distance.

full rationale

The central quality prediction is a supervised regression on human MOS (Eq. 17), so the headline SOTA numbers are empirical results, not first-principles derivations that could formally reduce to their inputs; they could be valid if the evaluation is clean. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears: the authors' earlier mesh-quality papers are cited only as related work, and the GAT mechanism is attributed to external work [82,83]. The only concrete circularity is in Section 3.3, where 'perceptual similarity' Sim is defined as an RBF of the same distance De used as the other factor in Eq. 6, making the claimed dual metric a function of one distance by construction. Separately, the evaluation protocol is internally inconsistent: Section 3.7 states an 80/10/10 content-disjoint split, but Tables 7 and 8 report per-content SRCC for every content (9 SJTU contents and 20 WPC contents), which cannot be computed from a content-disjoint 10% test set. That is a benchmark-validity and possible leakage concern, not a circular-derivation concern, and could be resolved by reporting exact test sample IDs and the split procedure. Score 2 reflects the minor definitional redundancy in the graph weighting; the MOS regression itself is not circular.

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

The method rests on standard mathematical tools and dataset assumptions common in PCQA. No new entities are introduced. The main burden is the ad hoc weight formula and the unstated cluster count and radius, none of which are derived or justified.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of clusters k for K-means = not stated
    The cluster count determines graph size and is never reported; it is presumably chosen by the authors without a stated criterion.
  • Neighborhood radius r = not stated
    The radius for edge connection and for the bandwidth alpha = 0.15r is not reported; it controls graph sparsity and similarity decay.
  • RBF bandwidth alpha = 0.15r
    Set through 'experimental validation' on the evaluation datasets, so it is a fitted constant rather than a derived quantity.
  • Saliency scales sigma1, sigma2 = not stated
    The Gaussian smoothing scales in Eq. 4 are never specified; they directly affect the saliency feature values.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Eigen-decomposition of the covariance matrix in Eq. 2 yields a valid curvature estimate.
    Invoked without proof; this is a standard local curvature estimator for point clouds.
  • domain assumption The hand-crafted features (LAB color, curvature, saliency) are sufficient perceptual descriptors for point cloud quality.
    The entire method relies on this; no analysis of feature adequacy or comparison with learned features is provided.
  • domain assumption Human MOS values in SJTU-PCQA, WPC, and ICIP2020 are reliable ground truth.
    Taken from the datasets; the paper does not assess inter-rater reliability or anchor consistency.
  • ad hoc to paper The weight matrix W = Sim * De in Eq. 6 (or its inverse-distance variant in the text) is a valid inter-cluster interaction strength.
    The formula is introduced for this paper and is not derived from perception or optimization; the two versions in the paper are inconsistent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Point Cloud Quality Assessment Using the Perceptual Clustering Weighted Graph (PCW-Graph) and Attention Fusion Network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYXVX4IN

@misc{pith2026250604081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Point Cloud Quality Assessment Using the Perceptual Clustering Weighted Graph (PCW-Graph) and Attention Fusion Network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYXVX4IN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04081}
}
read the original abstract

No-Reference Point Cloud Quality Assessment (NR-PCQA) is critical for evaluating 3D content in real-world applications where reference models are unavailable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04081 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The general framework of the proposed method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Weighted graph construction workflow: (a) Original point cloud, (b) Cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Displays the reference data from the ICIP2020 and SJTU-PCQA databases. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Shows the reference data from the WPC database.. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scatter plot between the objective scores and subjective MOS for the SJTU [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Average computation time compared to SRCC results on the SJTU-PCQA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mohammadi, P., Ebrahimi-Moghadam, A., & Shirani, S. (2014). Subjec- tive and objective quality assessment of image: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.7799. 29

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    C., Sheikh, H

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R., & Simoncelli, E. P. (2004). Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing, 13, 600-612

    2004

  3. [3]

    (2017, Septem- ber)

    Tian, D., Ochimizu, H., Feng, C., Cohen, R., & Vetro, A. (2017, Septem- ber). Geometric distortion metrics for point cloud compression. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) (pp. 3460- 3464). IEEE

    2017

  4. [4]

    (2020, May)

    Meynet, G., Nehm´ e, Y., Digne, J., & Lavou´ e, G. (2020, May). PCQM: A full-reference quality metric for colored 3D point clouds. In 2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (pp. 1-6). IEEE

    2020

  5. [5]

    Yang, Q., Ma, Z., Xu, Y., Li, Z., & Sun, J. (2020). Inferring point cloud quality via graph similarity. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 44, 3015-3029

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    & Liu, Y

    Chen, T., Long, C., Su, H., Chen, L., Chi, J., Pan, Z., ... & Liu, Y. (2021). Layered projection-based quality assessment of 3D point clouds. IEEE Access, 9, 88108-88120

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Viola, I., & Cesar, P. (2020). A reduced reference metric for visual qual- ity evaluation of point cloud contents. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 27, 1660-1664

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    (2015, Novem- ber)

    Abouelaziz, I., Omari, M., El Hassouni, M., & Cherifi, H. (2015, Novem- ber). Reduced reference 3D mesh quality assessment based on statistical models. In 2015 11th International Conference on Signal-Image Technol- ogy & Internet-Based Systems (SITIS) (pp. 170-177). IEEE

    work page 2015

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Liu, Q., Yuan, H., Su, H., Liu, H., Wang, Y., Yang, H., & Hou, J. (2021). PQA-Net: Deep no reference point cloud quality assessment via multi-view projection. IEEE transactions on circuits and systems for video technology, 31, 4645-4660

    2021

  2. [10]

    K., & Bovik, A

    Mittal, A., Moorthy, A. K., & Bovik, A. C. (2012). No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Transactions on image processing, 21, 4695-4708. 30

    2012

  3. [11]

    Zhang, L., Zhang, L., & Bovik, A. C. (2015). A feature-enriched com- pletely blind image quality evaluator. IEEE Transactions on Image Pro- cessing, 24, 2579-2591

    2015

  4. [12]

    Liu, Y., Yang, Q., Xu, Y., & Yang, L. (2023). Point cloud quality as- sessment: Dataset construction and learning-based no-reference metric. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, 19, 1-26

    2023

  5. [13]

    Zhang, Z., Sun, W., Min, X., Wang, T., Lu, W., & Zhai, G. (2022). No- reference quality assessment for 3d colored point cloud and mesh models. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 32, 7618-7631

    2022

  6. [14]

    Abouelaziz, I., El Hassouni, M., & Cherifi, H. (2016). No-reference 3d mesh quality assessment based on dihedral angles model and support vector regression. In Image and Signal Processing: 7th International Conference, ICISP 2016, Trois-Rivi` eres, QC, Canada, May 30-June 1, 2...

    2016

  7. [15]

    J., & Cherifi, H

    Abouelaziz, I., Chetouani, A., El Hassouni, M., Latecki, L. J., & Cherifi, H. (2020). No-reference mesh visual quality assessment via ensemble of convolutional neural networks and compact multi-linear pooling. Pattern Recognition, 100, 107174

    2020

  8. [16]

    (2019, July)

    Lin, Y., Yu, M., Chen, K., Jiang, G., Peng, Z., & Chen, F. (2019, July). Blind mesh quality assessment method based on concave, convex and structural features analyses. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW) (pp. 282-287). IEEE

    2019

  9. [17]

    (2016, November)

    Abouelaziz, I., El Hassouni, M., & Cherifi, H. (2016, November). A curvature based method for blind mesh visual quality assessment using a general regression neural network. In 2016 12th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems (SITIS) (pp. ...

    2016

  10. [18]

    (2017, September)

    Abouelaziz, I., El Hassouni, M., & Cherifi, H. (2017, September). A convolutional neural network framework for blind mesh visual quality assessment. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) (pp. 755-759). IEEE. 31

    2017

  11. [19]

    J., & Cher- ifi, H

    Abouelaziz, I., Chetouani, A., El Hassouni, M., Latecki, L. J., & Cher- ifi, H. (2020). 3D visual saliency and convolutional neural network for blind mesh quality assessment. Neural Computing and Applications, 32, 16589-16603

    2020

  12. [20]

    (2021, July)

    Chetouani, A., Quach, M., Valenzise, G., & Dufaux, F. (2021, July). Deep learning-based quality assessment of 3d point clouds without ref- erence. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW) (pp. 1-6). IEEE

    2021

  13. [21]

    Yang, Q., Liu, Y., Chen, S., Xu, Y., & Sun, J. (2022). No-reference point cloud quality assessment via domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 21179-21188)

    2022

  14. [22]

    & Zhai, G

    Fan, Y., Zhang, Z., Sun, W., Min, X., Liu, N., Zhou, Q., ... & Zhai, G. (2022, September). A no-reference quality assessment metric for point cloud based on captured video sequences. In 2022 IEEE 24th Interna- tional Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP) (pp. 1-5). IEEE

    2022

  15. [23]

    Liu, Y., Fan, B., Xiang, S., & Pan, C. (2019). Relation-shape convo- lutional neural network for point cloud analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 8895-8904)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Yang, Q., Chen, H., Ma, Z., Xu, Y., Tang, R., & Sun, J. (2020). Predict- ing the perceptual quality of point cloud: A 3d-to-2d projection-based exploration. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 23, 3877-3891

    2020

  17. [25]

    Liu, Q., Yuan, H., Hamzaoui, R., Su, H., Hou, J., & Yang, H. (2021). Reduced reference perceptual quality model with application to rate control for video-based point cloud compression. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 30, 6623-6636

    2021

  18. [26]

    P., da Silva Cruz, L

    Perry, S., Cong, H. P., da Silva Cruz, L. A., Prazeres, J., Pereira, M., Pinheiro, A., ... & Ebrahimi, T. (2020, October). Quality evaluation of static point clouds encoded using mpeg codecs. In 2020 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) (pp. 3428-3432). IEEE. 32

    2020

  19. [27]

    Yang, C., Zhang, L., Lu, H., Ruan, X., & Yang, M. H. (2013). Saliency detection via graph-based manifold ranking. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 3166-3173)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Sakiyama, A., Tanaka, Y., Tanaka, T., & Ortega, A. (2019). Eigendecomposition-free sampling set selection for graph signals. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 67, 2679-2692

    2019

  21. [29]

    Zeng, J., Cheung, G., Ng, M., Pang, J., & Yang, C. (2019). 3D point cloud denoising using graph Laplacian regularization of a low dimen- sional manifold model. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 29, 3474-3489

    2019

  22. [30]

    Mourchid, Y., El Hassouni, M., & Cherifi, H. (2019). A general frame- work for complex network-based image segmentation. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78, 20191-20216

    2019

  23. [31]

    C., Riad, R., Jennane, R., & Bruno, O

    Ribas, L. C., Riad, R., Jennane, R., & Bruno, O. M. (2022). A complex network based approach for knee Osteoarthritis detection: Data from the Osteoarthritis initiative. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 71, 103133

    2022

  24. [32]

    (2022, October)

    El Hassouni, M., & Cherifi, H. (2022, October). Learning Graph Fea- tures for Colored Mesh Visual Quality Assessment. In 2022 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) (pp. 3381-3385). IEEE

    2022

  25. [33]

    Mekuria, R., Li, Z., Tulvan, C., & Chou, P. (2016). Evaluation criteria for point cloud compression. ISO/IEC MPEG, 16332

    2016

  26. [34]

    (2017, December)

    Mekuria, R., Laserre, S., & Tulvan, C. (2017, December). Performance assessment of point cloud compression. In 2017 IEEE Visual Communi- cations and Image Processing (VCIP) (pp. 1-4). IEEE

    2017

  27. [35]

    (2018, July)

    Alexiou, E., & Ebrahimi, T. (2018, July). Point cloud quality assess- ment metric based on angular similarity. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME) (pp. 1-6). IEEE

    2018

  28. [36]

    (2019, June)

    Meynet, G., Digne, J., & Lavou´ e, G. (2019, June). PC-MSDM: A quality metric for 3D point clouds. In 2019 Eleventh International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (pp. 1-3). IEEE. 33

    2019

  29. [37]

    (2020, May)

    Javaheri, A., Brites, C., Pereira, F., & Ascenso, J. (2020, May). A gener- alized Hausdorff distance based quality metric for point cloud geometry. In 2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Ex- perience (QoMEX) (pp. 1-6). IEEE

    2020

  30. [38]

    (2020, May)

    Viola, I., Subramanyam, S., & Cesar, P. (2020, May). A color-based objective quality metric for point cloud contents. In 2020 Twelfth In- ternational Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (pp. 1-6). IEEE

    2020

  31. [39]

    (2020, July)

    Alexiou, E., & Ebrahimi, T. (2020, July). Towards a point cloud struc- tural similarity metric. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Mul- timedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW) (pp. 1-6). IEEE

    2020

  32. [40]

    G., & Farias, M

    Diniz, R., Freitas, P. G., & Farias, M. C. (2020, May). Towards a point cloud quality assessment model using local binary patterns. In 2020 Twelfth International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience (QoMEX) (pp. 1-6). IEEE

    2020

  33. [41]

    G., & Farias, M

    Diniz, R., Freitas, P. G., & Farias, M. C. (2020, October). Multi-distance point cloud quality assessment. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) (pp. 3443-3447). IEEE

    2020

  34. [42]

    G., & Farias, M

    Diniz, R., Freitas, P. G., & Farias, M. C. (2020, September). Local luminance patterns for point cloud quality assessment. In 2020 IEEE 22nd International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP) (pp. 1-6). IEEE

    2020

  35. [43]

    Yang, Q., Zhang, Y., Chen, S., Xu, Y., Sun, J., & Ma, Z. (2022). MPED: Quantifying point cloud distortion based on multiscale potential energy discrepancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intel- ligence, 45, 6037-6054

    2022

  36. [44]

    Su, H., Liu, Q., Yuan, H., Cheng, Q., & Hamzaoui, R. (2023). Support vector regression-based reduced-reference perceptual quality model for compressed point clouds. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia

    2023

  37. [45]

    Zhou, W., Yang, Q., Chen, W., Jiang, Q., Zhai, G., & Lin, W. (2024). Blind Quality Assessment of Dense 3D Point Clouds with Structure Guided Resampling. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications. 34

    2024

  38. [46]

    Shan, Z., Yang, Q., Ye, R., Zhang, Y., Xu, Y., Xu, X., & Liu, S. (2023). Gpa-net: No-reference point cloud quality assessment with multi-task graph convolutional network. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics

    2023

  39. [47]

    (2023, October)

    Wang, S., Wang, X., Gao, H., & Xiong, J. (2023, October). Non- Local Geometry and Color Gradient Aggregation Graph Model for No- Reference Point Cloud Quality Assessment. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 6803-6810)

    2023

  40. [48]

    (2023, June)

    Tliba, M., Chetouani, A., Valenzise, G., & Dufaux, F. (2023, June). Efficient Deep-Based Graph Metric for Point Cloud Quality Assessment. In International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP 2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Wang, L., Huang, Y., Hou, Y., Zhang, S., & Shan, J. (2019). Graph attention convolution for point cloud semantic segmentation. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 10296-10305)

    2019

  42. [50]

    H., Huang, S

    Lin, Z. H., Huang, S. Y., & Wang, Y. C. F. (2020). Convolution in the cloud: Learning deformable kernels in 3d graph convolution networks for point cloud analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 1800-1809)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Zhou, H., Feng, Y., Fang, M., Wei, M., Qin, J., & Lu, T. (2021). Adaptive graph convolution for point cloud analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision (pp. 4965- 4974)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Su, H., Liu, Q., Liu, Y., Yuan, H., Yang, H., Pan, Z., & Wang, Z. (2023). Bitstream-based perceptual quality assessment of compressed 3d point clouds. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 32, 1815-1828

    2023

  45. [53]

    Liu, Q., Su, H., Chen, T., Yuan, H., & Hamzaoui, R. (2022). No- reference bitstream-layer model for perceptual quality assessment of V-PCC encoded point clouds. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 25, 4533-4546. 35

    2022

  46. [54]

    P., & Bovik, A

    Wang, Z., Simoncelli, E. P., & Bovik, A. C. (2003, November). Multi- scale structural similarity for image quality assessment. In The Thrity- Seventh Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, 2003 (Vol. 2, pp. 1398-1402). Ieee

    2003

  47. [55]

    Wang, Z., & Li, Q. (2010). Information content weighting for perceptual image quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on image processing, 20, 1185-1198

    2010

  48. [56]

    R., & Bovik, A

    Sheikh, H. R., & Bovik, A. C. (2006). Image information and visual quality. IEEE Transactions on image processing, 15, 430-444

    2006

  49. [57]

    (2021, August)

    Hua, L., Jiang, G., Yu, M., & He, Z. (2021, August). BQE-CVP: Blind quality evaluator for colored point cloud based on visual perception. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Broadband Multimedia Systems and Broadcasting (BMSB) (pp. 1-6). IEEE

    2021

  50. [58]

    G., Diniz, R., & Farias, M

    Freitas, X. G., Diniz, R., & Farias, M. C. (2023). Point cloud quality assessment: unifying projection, geometry, and texture similarity. The Visual Computer, 39(5), 1907-1914

    2023

  51. [59]

    Zhou, W., Yue, G., Zhang, R., Qin, Y., & Liu, H. (2023). Reduced- reference quality assessment of point clouds via content-oriented saliency projection. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 30, 354-358

    2023

  52. [60]

    X., Jiang, G

    Tao, W. X., Jiang, G. Y., Jiang, Z. D., & Yu, M. (2021, October). Point cloud projection and multi-scale feature fusion network based blind qual- ity assessment for colored point clouds. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 5266-5272)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Tu, R., Jiang, G., Yu, M., Luo, T., Peng, Z., & Chen, F. (2022). V-PCC projection based blind point cloud quality assessment for compression distortion. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence, 7, 462-473

    2022

  54. [62]

    (2023, October)

    Xie, W., Wang, K., Ju, Y., & Wang, M. (2023, October). pmbqa: Projection-based blind point cloud quality assessment via multimodal learning. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 3250-3258). 36

    2023

  55. [63]

    & Lin, W

    Zhang, Z., Sun, W., Wu, H., Zhou, Y., Li, C., Chen, Z., ... & Lin, W. (2024). Gms-3dqa: Projection-based grid mini-patch sampling for 3d model quality assessment. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Comput- ing, Communications and Applications, 20, 1-19

    2024

  56. [64]

    Zhang, Z., Sun, W., Min, X., Zhou, Q., He, J., Wang, Q., & Zhai, G. (2022). Mm-pcqa: Multi-modal learning for no-reference point cloud quality assessment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.00244

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    P., Le Callet, P., & Lavou´ e, G

    Nehm´ e, Y., Dupont, F., Farrugia, J. P., Le Callet, P., & Lavou´ e, G. (2020). Visual quality of 3d meshes with diffuse colors in virtual reality: Subjective and objective evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27, 2202-2219

    2020

  58. [66]

    (2010, December)

    Ma, T., Wu, Z., Feng, L., Luo, P., & Long, X. (2010, December). Point cloud segmentation through spectral clustering. In The 2nd Interna- tional Conference on Information Science and Engineering (pp. 1-4). IEEE

    2010

  59. [67]

    Comaniciu, D., & Meer, P. (2002). Mean shift: A robust approach to- ward feature space analysis. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 24, 603-619

    2002

  60. [68]

    Yang, J., Kang, Z., Cheng, S., Yang, Z., & Akwensi, P. H. (2020). An individual tree segmentation method based on watershed algorithm and three-dimensional spatial distribution analysis from airborne Li- DAR point clouds. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observ...

    2020

  61. [69]

    (2020, September)

    Deng, D. (2020, September). DBSCAN clustering algorithm based on density. In 2020 7th international forum on electrical engineering and automation (IFEEA) (pp. 949-953). IEEE

    2020

  62. [70]

    Guo, Z., Liu, H., Shi, H., Li, F., Guo, X., & Cheng, B. (2023). KD-tree- based euclidean clustering for tomographic SAR point cloud extraction and segmentation. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 20, 1-5

    2023

  63. [71]

    Davidson, I. (2002). Understanding K-means non-hierarchical clustering. Computer Science Department of State University of New York (SUNY), Albany. 37

    2002

  64. [72]

    Faber, V. (1994). Clustering and the continuous k-means algorithm. Los Alamos Science, 22(138144.21), 67

    1994

  65. [73]

    Maulik, U., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2000). Genetic algorithm-based clus- tering technique. Pattern recognition, 33, 1455-1465

    2000

  66. [74]

    Wang, J., Zhang, X., & Zhou, H. (2006). A genetic k-means algorithm for spatial clustering. Computer Engineering, 3, 188-190

    2006

  67. [75]

    M., Rubner, Y., & Tomasi, C

    Puzicha, J., Buhmann, J. M., Rubner, Y., & Tomasi, C. (1999, Septem- ber). Empirical evaluation of dissimilarity measures for color and tex- ture. In Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (Vol. 2, pp. 1165-1172). IEEE

    1999

  68. [76]

    Joyce, J. M. (2011). Kullback-leibler divergence. In International ency- clopedia of statistical science (pp. 720-722). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    2011

  69. [77]

    R., Singh, S

    Dubey, S. R., Singh, S. K., & Chaudhuri, B. B. (2022). Activation func- tions in deep learning: A comprehensive survey and benchmark. Neuro- computing, 503, 92-108

    2022

  70. [78]

    Thakur, S. (2021). Graph attention networks for point cloud processing

    2021

  71. [79]

    Liu, Q., Su, H., Duanmu, Z., Liu, W., & Wang, Z. (2022). Perceptual quality assessment of colored 3D point clouds. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29, 3642-3655

    2022

  72. [80]

    J., Baroncini, F

    Antkowiak, J., Baina, T. J., Baroncini, F. V., Chateau, N., FranceT- elecom, F., Pessoa, A. C. F., ... & Philips, F. (2000). Final report from the video quality experts group on the validation of objective models of video quality assessment march 2000. Final report from the vi...

    2000

  73. [81]

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., ... & Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  74. [82]

    Veliˇ ckovi´ c, P., Cucurull, G., Casanova, A., Romero, A., Lio, P., & Bengio, Y. (2017). Graph attention networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903. 38

    2017 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Z., & Tsourdos, A

    Chen, C., Fragonara, L. Z., & Tsourdos, A. (2021). GAPointNet: Graph attention based point neural network for exploiting local feature of point cloud. Neurocomputing, 438, 122-132. 39

    2021

Pith tools

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