Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 38 references

UAV Object Detection and Positioning in a Mining Industrial Metaverse with Custom Geo-Referenced Data

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An integrated UAV, LiDAR, and deep-learning pipeline can place detected mining objects at geo-referenced 3D positions with 81.4% mAP and 3.69 m localization error.

desk verdict Useful integration paper with valuable dataset; object-positioning claim lacks ground truth and detection split may leak—send to review with major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13505 v1 pith:AEGR3Q3Z submitted 2025-06-16 eess.IV cs.AIcs.ETcs.RO

Vasiliki Balaska , Ioannis Tsampikos Papapetros , Katerina Maria Oikonomou , Loukas Bampis , Antonios Gasteratos This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.ETcs.RO
keywords UAVremotesensingobjectdetectionYOLOv8LiDARpointcloudvisuallocalizationCOLMAPdigitaltwinminingmetaverse
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that an integrated pipeline—UAV LiDAR scanning, a YOLOv8 object detector, and COLMAP-based visual localization—can produce geo-referenced three-dimensional positions of mining equipment and personnel within an open-pit mine, suitable for feeding an industrial digital twin. On a custom dataset of 5,592 aerial images, detection reaches 81.4% mAP@0.5 and 63.2% mAP@0.5:0.95, and GNSS-free visual positioning achieves a mean translation error of 3.69 m. The authors argue that the system bridges drone perception, 3D reconstruction, and Metaverse visualization for mining monitoring. The value, if true, is a field-validated workflow that replaces static surveying with automated, spatially indexed aerial intelligence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the geo-referenced 3D point cloud and the projective association between 2D detections and that cloud. The camera-to-ENU rotation chain (NED Euler angles, NED-to-ENU conversion, camera-to-NED alignment) plus the pinhole projection through intrinsic matrix $K$ determines where each detection lands on the terrain. The second mechanism is the COLMAP visual localization pipeline: geo-referenced database images build a sparse 3D model, SIFT features and PnP place query images in that model, and a fallback SfM reconstruction with similarity transform keeps the trajectory consistent when direct registration fails. Together these mechanisms convert a 2D detection into a UTM-anchored 3D position.

What would settle it

A field test in which surveyed objects (such as GPS-tagged trucks or visible ground markers) are flown over, detected, projected, and their computed UTM coordinates compared to the surveyed coordinates; if the mean error of the projected object locations substantially exceeds the 3.69 m camera-pose error or the tolerance needed for asset tracking, the central claim of spatially accurate object localization fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that object detections from aerial RGB images can be projected onto a LiDAR-derived point cloud in a unified UTM frame, yielding spatially accurate positions of mining assets without requiring ground-truth geolocation of each object. The system chains camera intrinsics and extrinsics from drone metadata, converts NED camera orientation to ENU, projects the point cloud into the image plane, and associates detections with 3D points by bounding-box proximity. Vision-based UAV localization is achieved by constructing a geo-referenced COLMAP model from GNSS-tagged database images and solving PnP for query frames, with a fallback SfM-plus-similarity-transform for frames that fail direct registration. The reported metrics—81.4% mAP@0.5, 63.2% mAP@0.5:0.95, 92% precision, 78.4% recall, and mean translation error of 3.69 m—are presented as evidence that the pipeline is accurate enough for mapping and situational awareness, though not for sub-meter safety-critical tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a detection projected onto the point cloud actually marks the object's true ground position, an assumption the paper states but never validates against measured ground-truth locations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mining operators could replace manual ground surveying with a drone pass that yields a digital twin annotated with machine and personnel locations.
  • The COLMAP-based localization gives a GNSS-denied fallback for open-pit mines, with 76.0% of query images localized within 5 m translation error and 100.0% within 5 degrees orientation error.
  • Detected objects exported as GeoJSON, PLY, and CSV annotations can be ingested directly by a Metaverse platform for remote monitoring and infrastructure tracking.
  • The weak detection of humans (F1 peaking below 0.55) implies that safety-critical personnel monitoring would require lower flight altitude, higher image resolution, or additional sensor modalities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to compare projected detection positions against a few surveyed ground control points; this would directly measure the geo-placement accuracy that the paper currently assumes rather than verifies.
  • If the 3.69 m localization error is mostly in the vertical or radial direction, enforcing a terrain-following constraint could plausibly push the system toward sub-meter accuracy, which the paper notes is needed for autonomous navigation.
  • The fallback SfM alignment step suggests the pipeline could be adapted to underground mines where GNSS is fully absent, provided enough visual features exist for registration.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an integrated UAV-based system for object detection and geo-referenced positioning in an open-pit mining environment, combining LiDAR point clouds, YOLOv8 object detection, COLMAP-based visual localization, and export to a digital twin platform. Data were collected at the TERNA MAG mine with a DJI Matrice 350 RTK carrying a Zenmuse L1 LiDAR and H20 RGB camera. The detection module reports 81.4% mAP@0.5 and 63.2% mAP@0.5:0.95 on a custom annotated dataset, and the localization module reports a mean translation error of 3.69 m on a held-out query sequence. The paper claims that detected objects are accurately mapped to 3D positions in a unified geospatial reference frame and integrated into an industrial metaverse.

Significance. If the claimed positioning accuracy were validated, the system would be a useful demonstration of an integrated geospatial pipeline for mining digital twins, with practical value for situational awareness and infrastructure monitoring. The paper has notable strengths: it uses real field data from an active mine, evaluates visual localization on a held-out query sequence from a different day, reports standard detection metrics, and provides a public code repository. These elements support reproducibility and make the system description credible. However, the central claim of accurate geo-referenced object positioning is currently supported only by qualitative assertion, not by quantitative evaluation, which substantially limits the significance of the contribution until that gap is addressed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV-A and Section III-C] The central claim of accurate geo-referenced object positioning is not quantitatively validated. Section IV-A asserts 'Each detection is accurately mapped to its corresponding location in the point cloud', but no error metric against ground truth is provided. Section III-C describes associating LiDAR points with detections 'by checking proximity to the projected bounding boxes', but it does not specify how the associated points are converted to a single 3D object coordinate (e.g., centroid, median, or nearest-point rule). Moreover, the projection in Section III-C uses the camera's onboard GNSS/IMU metadata, not the COLMAP pose, so the 3.69 m mean translation error reported in Section IV-B does not bound the object positioning error. The Limitation section (Section IV-C) does not acknowledge this missing validation. Please add a quantitative evaluation of object geolocalization error (e.g., against RTK-surveyed control points or manually labeled centroids), or revise the accuracy claim to reflect the unquantified uncertainty.
  2. [Section III-C] The test set is not independent due to augmentation being applied before the data split. The text states that preprocessing (tiling into a 2x2 grid, grayscale transformation on 15% of images, and 90-degree random rotation) produces a dataset of 5592 images, which is then partitioned into training (85%), validation (9%), and test (6%) sets. If augmented copies of the same original image appear in both the training and test partitions, the reported 81.4% mAP@0.5 and 63.2% mAP@0.5:0.95 are inflated by test-set leakage. Please perform the split on the original 804 images before augmentation, or provide evidence that no augmented instance of a training image appears in the test set.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-C] The YOLOv8 model is cited only to the original YOLO paper (Ref. [34]); please cite the Ultralytics YOLOv8 implementation or a dedicated YOLOv8 reference, as the original YOLO paper does not describe the architecture used here.
  2. [Section IV-A and Fig. 10] There is a typo in Fig. 10 caption: 'amaong' should be 'among'.
  3. [Section IV-B and Figs. 12-13] The CDF plots would be easier to interpret with labeled axes and units, and a caption explicitly stating what fraction is plotted; consider marking the 5 m and 5 degree thresholds mentioned in the text.
  4. [Throughout] The text consistently uses 'UA V' with a space; please change to 'UAV' for consistency.
  5. [Section III-B] The dataset description reports 804 images, but the per-class sample counts (bulldozer 229, car 327, driller 254, dump truck 675, excavator 384, grader 63, human 245, truck 214) sum to 2,391, indicating multiple objects per image; please clarify whether these are instance counts rather than image counts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: detection, localization, and projection are evaluated against held-out or independently captured data; self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. YOLOv8 detection metrics (mAP@0.5 = 81.4%, mAP@0.5:0.95 = 63.2%) are reported on a test split (324 images) that is disjoint from the training and validation splits described in Section III-C, so the detection evaluation is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. Vision-based UAV localization (Section IV-B) is tested on 125 query images captured on a different day against a COLMAP geo-referenced model built from 625 database images; the measured 3.69 m mean translation error is an external comparison against held-out query poses, not an output of the same fit. The projection of detections onto the 3D point cloud (Section III-C) uses standard pinhole geometry with intrinsics from metadata/calibration and extrinsics from onboard GNSS/IMU metadata; this is a defined geometric transformation, and the paper does not derive any quantitative accuracy claim for object geolocation from the projection itself. The only self-citations (e.g., [5], [6], [17], [22]-[24]) appear in related-work or motivation paragraphs and carry no load-bearing role in the method or evaluation; no uniqueness theorem or prior-work ansatz is invoked to force the chosen pipeline. Section IV-C explicitly lists deployment limitations, and the absence of a ground-truth accuracy measurement for the 3D positions of detected objects is a correctness or validation gap, not a circular reduction: no quantity is defined in terms of the result it is used to predict. Therefore the paper receives 0 on the circularity scale.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, or forces are introduced. The digital twin and Metaverse are software artifacts of the system, not postulated entities. Free parameters are limited to a confidence threshold fitted to the evaluation data; the core methods use standard calibrated camera geometry.

free parameters (1)
  • Global confidence threshold = 0.239
    Selected in Section IV-A as the value maximizing averaged F1 across classes on the evaluation set; reported F1 of 0.86 depends on this fitted choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The GNSS/RTK and IMU metadata used to geo-reference the COLMAP model and the LiDAR point cloud are sufficiently accurate to serve as global ground truth.
    Section III-B and III-C rely on metadata for geo-referencing; Section IV-B compares query poses against this reference without independent verification.
  • domain assumption Camera intrinsics extracted from image metadata and refined by calibration are accurate and stable across the flight.
    Section III-C uses the intrinsic matrix K in the pinhole model; errors here propagate directly into projected object positions.
  • ad hoc to paper Projecting 2D detections onto the LiDAR point cloud via proximity to bounding boxes yields the true 3D location of the object.
    Section III-C defines spatial association by checking proximity to projected bounding boxes; this heuristic is not validated against measured object positions.
  • standard math Standard pinhole camera model and rigid coordinate transformations (NED to ENU, camera to global) are correct.
    Section III-C constructs the projection using the pinhole model and fixed rotations; these are standard but assumed correct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UAV Object Detection and Positioning in a Mining Industrial Metaverse with Custom Geo-Referenced Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AEGR3Q3Z

@misc{pith2026250613505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UAV Object Detection and Positioning in a Mining Industrial Metaverse with Custom Geo-Referenced Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AEGR3Q3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13505}
}
read the original abstract

The mining sector increasingly adopts digital tools to improve operational efficiency, safety, and data-driven decision-making. One of the key challenges remains the reliable acquisition of high-resolution, geo-referenced spatial information to support core activities such as extraction planning and on-site monitoring. This work presents an integrated system architecture that combines UAV-based sensing, LiDAR terrain modeling, and deep learning-based object detection to generate spatially accurate information for open-pit mining environments. The proposed pipeline includes geo-referencing, 3D reconstruction, and object localization, enabling structured spatial outputs to be integrated into an industrial digital twin platform. Unlike traditional static surveying methods, the system offers higher coverage and automation potential, with modular components suitable for deployment in real-world industrial contexts. While the current implementation operates in post-flight batch mode, it lays the foundation for real-time extensions. The system contributes to the development of AI-enhanced remote sensing in mining by demonstrating a scalable and field-validated geospatial data workflow that supports situational awareness and infrastructure safety.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13505 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Data pipeline from UAV-based mine scanning to Metaverse visu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The equipment used to develop the proposed system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. TERNA MAG test site: A 3D representation of Bompaka’s open pit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (left image) The corresponding detected objects are visualised in the 2D image captured by the UAV.(right image) Projection of detected objects onto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Geo-referenced reconstruction and visual localisation pipeline: Geo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A live query image without GNSS data is associated with a specific [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Sequential query images are processed for position estimation. While [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overview of the proposed UAV vision positioning and object detection framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Training and validation curves for the YOLOv8l model. Top row: training loss components. Bottom row: validation metrics including precision, recall, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of translation localisation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) of orientation localisation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Application of uavs in the mining industry and towards an integrated uav-ai-mr technology for mine rehabilitation surveillance,

    P. Stothard and R. Shirani Faradonbeh, “Application of uavs in the mining industry and towards an integrated uav-ai-mr technology for mine rehabilitation surveillance,” Mining Technology, vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 65–88, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Technological advances and trends in the mining industry: a systematic review,

    R. O. Flores-Casta ˜neda, S. Olaya-Cotera, M. L ´opez-Porras, E. Tarme˜no- Juscamaita, and O. Iparraguirre-Villanueva, “Technological advances and trends in the mining industry: a systematic review,” Mineral Eco- nomics, pp. 1–16, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Digital twins and the mining industry,

    M. Ghahramanieisalou and J. Sattarvand, “Digital twins and the mining industry,” 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Artificial intelligence models for remote sensing applica- tions,

    D. S. Thangi, “Artificial intelligence models for remote sensing applica- tions,” in Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Sustainable Development. CRC Press, pp. 201–217

    work page

  5. [5]

    Semantic-based visual vocabulary for loop closure detection,

    I. T. Papapetros, K. M. Oikonomou, I. Kansizoglou, K. A. Tsintotas, and A. Gasteratos, “Semantic-based visual vocabulary for loop closure detection,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Imaging Systems and Techniques (IST), 2023, pp. 1–5

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    A hybrid rein- forcement learning approach with a spiking actor network for efficient robotic arm target reaching,

    K. M. Oikonomou, I. Kansizoglou, and A. Gasteratos, “A hybrid rein- forcement learning approach with a spiking actor network for efficient robotic arm target reaching,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 3007–3014, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    Parallel vision for intelligent transportation systems in metaverse: Challenges, solutions, and potential applications,

    H. Zhang, G. Luo, Y . Li, and F.-Y . Wang, “Parallel vision for intelligent transportation systems in metaverse: Challenges, solutions, and potential applications,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 3400–3413, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Exploring applications: Intelligent drones and robots in industrial settings,

    D. Bansal, N. Bhattacharya, and P. Shandilya, “Exploring applications: Intelligent drones and robots in industrial settings,” in Building Embod- ied AI Systems: The Agents, the Architecture Principles, Challenges, and Application Domains. Springer, 2025, pp. 159–180

    work page 2025

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    A framework for effective multi-hazard risk assessment in post-mining areas,

    D. M. Nalmpant-Sarikaki, A. I. Theocharis, N. C. Koukouzas, and I. E. Zevgolis, “A framework for effective multi-hazard risk assessment in post-mining areas,” Safety, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 18, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Industrial progress of robotic automation in mining applications: A survey,

    H. Du, L. Chan, J. Tong, R. Raad, F. Naghdy, Q. Guo, Y . Yu, M. R. Islam, F. Tubbal, M. Ros et al. , “Industrial progress of robotic automation in mining applications: A survey,” Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, pp. 1–20, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Uav- based remote sensing for the petroleum industry and environmental monitoring: State-of-the-art and perspectives,

    S. Asadzadeh, W. J. de Oliveira, and C. R. de Souza Filho, “Uav- based remote sensing for the petroleum industry and environmental monitoring: State-of-the-art and perspectives,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering , vol. 208, p. 109633, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Im- proving traversability estimation through autonomous robot experi- mentation,

    C. Sevastopoulos, K. M. Oikonomou, and S. Konstantopoulos, “Im- proving traversability estimation through autonomous robot experi- mentation,” in Computer Vision Systems , D. Tzovaras, D. Giakoumis, M. Vincze, and A. Argyros, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019,...

    2019

  5. [13]

    On the application of drones: a progress report in mining operations,

    K. O. Said, M. Onifade, J. M. Githiria, J. Abdulsalam, M. O. Bodunrin, B. Genc, O. Johnson, and J. M. Akande, “On the application of drones: a progress report in mining operations,” International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 235–267, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Applications of digital twins in uavs,

    N. Sarantinoudis, N. Vitzilaios, and G. Arampatzis, “Applications of digital twins in uavs,” in 2024 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 450–457

    2024

  7. [15]

    Digital twin in mining industry: a study on automa- tion commissioning efficiency and safety implementation of a stacker machine in an open-pit mine,

    N. Elbazi, H. El Hadraoui, O. Laayati, A. El Maghraoui, A. Chebak, and M. Mabrouki, “Digital twin in mining industry: a study on automa- tion commissioning efficiency and safety implementation of a stacker machine in an open-pit mine,” in 2023 5th Global Power, Energy and Comm...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Landing with confidence: the role of digital twin in uav precision landing,

    J. Uddin, M. F. Wadud, R. Ashrafi, M. G. R. Alam, and M. K. Rhaman, “Landing with confidence: the role of digital twin in uav precision landing,” in 2023 10th International Conference on Recent Advances in Air and Space Technologies (RAST) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  9. [17]

    Visual loop-closure detection via prominent feature tracking,

    I. T. Papapetros, V . Balaska, and A. Gasteratos, “Visual loop-closure detection via prominent feature tracking,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 104, no. 3, p. 54, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Conceptual application of digital twins to meet esg targets in the mining industry,

    R. Cranford, “Conceptual application of digital twins to meet esg targets in the mining industry,” Frontiers in Industrial Engineering , vol. 1, p. 1223989, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Rotator-yolov5: Improved yolov5 for vehicle and vessel detection in uav images,

    Y . Zhang, S. Du, and H. He, “Rotator-yolov5: Improved yolov5 for vehicle and vessel detection in uav images,” in2024 Fourth International Conference on Digital Data Processing (DDP) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 156– 161

    2024

  12. [20]

    Digital twin-enabled monitoring of mining haul trucks with expert system integration: A case study in an experimental open- pit mine,

    N. Elbazi, A. Tigami, O. Laayati, A. El Maghraoui, A. Chebak, and M. Mabrouki, “Digital twin-enabled monitoring of mining haul trucks with expert system integration: A case study in an experimental open- pit mine,” in 2023 5th Global Power, Energy and Communication Conference ...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Applications of digital twin across industries: A review,

    M. Singh, R. Srivastava, E. Fuenmayor, V . Kuts, Y . Qiao, N. Murray, and D. Devine, “Applications of digital twin across industries: A review,” Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 5727, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Light- weight approach for safe landing in populated areas,

    T. Mitroudas, V . Balaska, A. Psomoulis, and A. Gasteratos, “Light- weight approach for safe landing in populated areas,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 10 027–10 032

    2024

  15. [23]

    Multi-criteria decision making for autonomous UA V landing,

    ——, “Multi-criteria decision making for autonomous UA V landing,” in IEEE International Conference on Imaging Systems and Techniques, IST 2023, Copenhagen, Denmark, October 17-19, 2023. IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–

    2023

  16. [24]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/IST59124.2023.10355707

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/IST59124.2023.10355707

    2023

  17. [25]

    Enhanc- ing satellite semantic maps with ground-level imagery,

    V . Balaska, L. Bampis, I. Kansizoglou, and A. Gasteratos, “Enhanc- ing satellite semantic maps with ground-level imagery,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 139, p. 103760, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Application of unmanned aerial vehicles for surveying and mapping in mines: a review,

    L. Q. Nguyen, M. T. Dang, L. K. Bui, Q. B. Ngoc, and T. X. Tran, “Application of unmanned aerial vehicles for surveying and mapping in mines: a review,” in International Conference on Geo-Spatial Technolo- gies and Earth Resources . Springer, 2022, pp. 1–22

    2022

  19. [27]

    Transformer-based visual segmentation: A survey,

    X. Li, H. Ding, H. Yuan, W. Zhang, J. Pang, G. Cheng, K. Chen, Z. Liu, and C. C. Loy, “Transformer-based visual segmentation: A survey,”IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Diffusion models in low-level vision: A survey,

    C. He, Y . Shen, C. Fang, F. Xiao, L. Tang, Y . Zhang, W. Zuo, Z. Guo, and X. Li, “Diffusion models in low-level vision: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Transformation of the australian mining industry and future prospects,

    H. Jang and E. Topal, “Transformation of the australian mining industry and future prospects,” Mining Technology, vol. 129, no. 3, pp. 120–134, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    A comparison of sensors for underground void mapping by unmanned aerial vehicles,

    F. Azhari, S. Kiely, C. Sennersten, C. Lindley, M. Matuszak, and S. Hogwood, “A comparison of sensors for underground void mapping by unmanned aerial vehicles,” pp. 419–430, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Monitoring terrain deforma- tions caused by underground mining using uav data,

    G. J ´o´zk´ow, A. Walicka, and A. Borkowski, “Monitoring terrain deforma- tions caused by underground mining using uav data,” The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Informa- tion Sciences, vol. 43, pp. 737–744, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Drone-based ai and 3d reconstruction for digital twin augmentation,

    A. To, M. Liu, M. Hazeeq Bin Muhammad Hairul, J. G. Davis, J. S. Lee, H. Hesse, and H. D. Nguyen, “Drone-based ai and 3d reconstruction for digital twin augmentation,” in International conference on human- computer interaction. Springer, 2021, pp. 511–529

    2021

  25. [33]

    Review of virtual reality integration for safer & efficient mining operations,

    N. K. Akbulut, A. Anani, and S. O. Adewuyi, “Review of virtual reality integration for safer & efficient mining operations,” IEEE Access, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Metamining: Mining in the metaverse,

    K. Liu, L. Chen, L. Li, H. Ren, and F.-Y . Wang, “Metamining: Mining in the metaverse,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 3858–3867, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 779– 788

    2016

  28. [36]

    Structure-from-motion revisited,

    J. L. Sch ¨onberger and J.-M. Frahm, “Structure-from-motion revisited,” in Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,

    D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints,” International journal of computer vision , vol. 60, pp. 91–110, 2004

    2004

  30. [38]

    Benchmarking 6dof outdoor visual localization in changing conditions,

    T. Sattler, W. Maddern, C. Toft, A. Torii, L. Hammarstrand, E. Stenborg, D. Safari, M. Okutomi, M. Pollefeys, J. Sivic et al., “Benchmarking 6dof outdoor visual localization in changing conditions,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogniti...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.