Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Generalizing Unsupervised Lidar Odometry Model from Normal to Snowy Weather Conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An unsupervised lidar odometry model trained only on clear weather transfers to snowy scenes without retraining.

desk verdict Genuinely new PSM/PPWP combo for snow-robust LiDAR odometry, but the mask threshold is calibrated on the test domain, so the clean generalization claim needs qualification. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02011 v1 pith:PSDZR5EM submitted 2025-09-02 cs.RO

Beibei Zhou , Zhiyuan Zhang , Zhenbo Song , Jianhui Guo , Hui Kong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords LiDARodometrysnowgeneralizationunsupervisedlearningpointclouddenoisingspatialautocorrelationintensitythresholdmaskweightingreal-time
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 lidar odometry can be made weather-agnostic without any snow training data: train an unsupervised network on clear-weather KITTI sequences only, and it will keep working on snowy roads, because most snowflake returns are separable by a single intensity cutoff and the rest can be treated as ordinary sparse noise. The central move is to split denoising into a near-free intensity threshold mask that removes dense snowflake clusters, and two learned weighting modules—Patch Spatial Measure and Patch Point Weight Predictor—that down-weight whatever scattered noise remains. On the snowy WADS benchmark the model reports the lowest average translation drift (1.54%) among compared methods, and it also generalizes to the dynamic Ford scenes. If this holds, real-world resilience to adverse weather may be attainable with cheap upstream filtering plus geometric weighting, rather than large labeled snow datasets or weather-specific retraining.

What carries the argument

Patch Spatial Measure (PSM): after voxel-downsampling the frame, superpoints at the coarsest layer define local patches; within each patch, Global Moran's I in spherical coordinates (range, azimuth, elevation) yields a spatial autocorrelation score in [-1,1], MLP-normalized and repeated to every point, so dispersed sparse points and far snowflakes receive low scores. Patch Point Weight Predictor (PPWP): an intensity threshold mask zeroes every point below τ = 0.01 × max(I) to delete dense near-sensor snow clusters, and a Multi-modal Point-wise Weight Predictor (MPWP) fuses point features, patch-level global features, intensity and distance through self- and cross-attention to predict per-poi

What would settle it

Use the WADS ground-truth snow labels to sweep τ from 0.001 to 0.1 of max intensity and plot translation drift alongside snow precision/recall: if the error minimum is not at or near 0.01, or if no τ separates snow from scene, the generalization claim is threshold-bound rather than structural.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: an unsupervised lidar odometry network trained only on KITTI clear-weather sequences 00-06 transfers directly to the snowy WADS benchmark, recording 1.54% average translation drift versus 2.06% for the best traditional full-pipeline result, and also holds its own on the dynamic Ford sequences. The transfer works because the method splits snow handling into two stages: a cheap intensity threshold mask (τ = 0.01 × max intensity) removes dense near-sensor snowflake clusters, and two learned weighting modules—Patch Spatial Measure and Multi-modal Point-wise Weight Predictor—assign low weights to the sparse, dispersed points that remain. The final per-point weight is the

Load-bearing premise

The paper's story hinges on the hand-set threshold τ = 0.01 × max(intensity) cleanly separating snowflake returns from real scene returns; if snow in another scene reflects more strongly, or the frame's brightest point is itself weak, the mask removes the wrong points and the rest of the network has never been trained to see snow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, a model trained solely on clear weather can match or beat weather-specific and full back-end methods on snowy scenes with similar structure, without retraining or labeled snow data.
  • Snow removal can be made fast enough for real-time driving: the full pipeline runs at 17.2 ms per frame, and the threshold mask itself at 1.48 ms.
  • The remaining snow noise can be treated as ordinary sparse outlier noise, because the two learned weighting modules suppress it via spatial and point-wise weighting rather than requiring a dedicated snow detector.
  • Weighted point-to-plane SVD pose estimation, rather than deep pose regression, appears to be what carries generalization across datasets and weather conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same mask-plus-weighting recipe should transfer to other low-intensity sparse noise—rain, fog droplets, dust—as long as the noise separates by relative intensity; that is testable without retraining.
  • Beyond the paper: the threshold τ = 0.01 × max(I) is both the cheapest and the least certain part; a systematic sweep on WADS and on sensors with different intensity calibrations would reveal whether the reported gains come from the threshold value or from the learned weighting behind it.
  • Beyond the paper: the result implies that expensive adverse-weather training data may not be necessary for odometry if the sensor noise occupies a distinguishable intensity band; that shifts the bottleneck from data collection to sensor characterization.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents an unsupervised LiDAR odometry pipeline trained only on KITTI Odometry sequences 00-06 and evaluated on KITTI 07-10, Ford, and WADS. The method augments a hierarchical coarse-to-fine point-to-plane ICP framework with a Patch Spatial Measure (PSM) that scores local point dispersion via a Moran's I-style statistic, and a Patch Point Weight Predictor (PPWP) consisting of an intensity threshold mask M and a Multi-Modal Point-wise Weight Predictor (MPWP). The final point weight is the product W = SP ∘ M ∘ W_pp (Eq. 19). The authors report the lowest average translational drift among compared methods on KITTI (avg trel 1.04%) and on WADS (avg trel 1.54%), with a runtime of 17.2 ms per pair, and claim that the model generalizes directly from clear weather to snowy scenes without retraining.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would make a useful engineering contribution: an unsupervised odometry model that maintains accuracy in snow without snow-labeled training data, while running in real time. The comparisons and ablations on three datasets are extensive, and the runtime advantage over existing methods is credible. The central limitation is that the main snow-removal mechanism is an empirical intensity threshold chosen after inspecting the WADS test-domain intensity distribution, and the paper's headline claim of outperforming all methods on WADS is contradicted on the rotational error metric. These issues affect the strength of the generalization claim, but they are addressable with additional analysis, sensitivity studies, and more careful wording.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V-A, Eq. (10)] The threshold τ_a = Max(I)*0.01 is explicitly introduced as an 'empirical intensity threshold', and Fig. 5/Fig. 6 are obtained from WADS: 'Using WADS dataset as an example... snowflake points exhibit significantly low intensity values, primarily ranging from 0 to 2'. Since M is a hard, multiplicative gate in the final weight W = SP ∘ M ∘ W_pp (Eq. 19), the reported WADS accuracy is conditional on a threshold calibrated to the test distribution. No sensitivity analysis over τ_a is provided, and no second snowy dataset or different LiDAR intensity scale is used. The claim in Sec. I that the model 'can directly generalize from clear weather conditions to snowy scenarios' is therefore not established for unseen snow conditions or sensors. Please either restrict the claim to the tested setting, provide a sensitivity analysis showing the method is robust to τ_a, or validate on an independent s
  2. [Table IV and Sec. IV-E] The text states that on WADS 'our method outperforms all other methods in terms of the overall average error'. This is not supported by the rotational metric: Ours has avg rrel = 1.10 °/100m while Full A-LOAM has avg rrel = 0.68 °/100m. Ours also has lower trel than Full A-LOAM (1.54% vs 2.06%), so the advantage is only on translation. Because WADS is the central evidence for snow generalization, the claim should be explicitly qualified as 'lowest average translational error' rather than 'outperforms all other methods'.
  3. [Eqs. (6)-(7), Sec. III-B.1] The spatial autocorrelation formula sums over k and j without excluding j=k. The weight w_sa_kj = 1/((θ_k−θ_j)^2 + (ϕ_k−ϕ_j)^2) is undefined when k=j, and also undefined for any pair of points with identical azimuth and elevation. Since PSM scores are used multiplicatively in the final weight, the formula needs either an explicit j≠k restriction (and a convention for identical angular coordinates) or a different weighting scheme. Please clarify and, if these cases can occur after voxel downsampling, explain how they are handled in the implementation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (25)] The loss expression is garbled: the brace with 'min_q' inside the sum makes the mathematical meaning unclear, and the notation M^l is not defined (presumably the mask at each level). Please rewrite the loss function with standard notation and define all symbols.
  2. [Table IV] The average row for ICP-po2po reports rrel = 11.17, which appears to be a typo (likely 1.17). Please check the table formatting.
  3. [Sec. V-C(a)] The sentence 'A-LOAM, ICP-po2pl, and ICP-po2pl' repeats ICP-po2pl twice; it should read 'ICP-po2po and ICP-po2pl'.
  4. [Table V and Sec. IV-F] The text says adding M 'doesn't negatively affect the final results', but the average trel changes from 1.03% (PSM+MPWP) to 1.04% (PSM+MPWP+M). This is negligible, but the claim should be stated as 'essentially no change' rather than a strict non-degradation.
  5. [Sec. III-B.2(b)] After Eq. (19), the paper refers to an 'updated mask M_update' that has not been introduced. Please define it or remove the term.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

WADS-calibrated intensity threshold (Eq. 10) undercuts zero-shot snow generalization claim.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-B-2-a (Eq. 10), Section V-A (Fig. 5), final weight Eq. 19]
    "we analyzed the intensity value distribution of snowflake points across the entire scene under snowfall conditions ... Using WADS dataset as an example, 100 frames were randomly selected for analysis. The snowflake points exhibit significantly low intensity values, primarily ranging from 0 to 2. ... we set an empirical intensity threshold of τa = Max(I) ∗ 0.01 to initially filter out snowflake points in the scene."

    The mask M in Eq. (10) is defined by τa = 0.01*Max(I), but Sec. V-A shows this threshold was selected after inspecting WADS snow intensity statistics (0-2). The final point weight W = SP ∘ M ∘ W_pp (Eq. 19) directly uses this mask, and Table VI shows M reduces WADS average translation error from 1.64% (PSM+MPWP) to 1.54% (PSM+MPWP+M). Thus the reported WADS result, and the claim of 'directly generalizing from clear to snowy scenarios,' is partly produced by a parameter fitted to the test-domain's snow intensities. The learned PSM/MPWP modules still generalize on their own, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The paper's core odometry machinery (unsupervised training on KITTI 00-06, PSM, MPWP, pose estimator, losses) is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs: the learned modules are evaluated on KITTI and WADS with external baselines, and PSM+MPWP alone (without the mask) improves over the baseline on WADS. The main circularity concern is the intensity threshold mask M, treated as a fixed empirical preprocessing step but calibrated on WADS snow intensity distributions. Because the final weight is the product W = SP ∘ M ∘ W_pp, the WADS generalization result depends in part on this test-fitted parameter. This does not make the odometry accuracy an identity, but it means the 'zero-shot from clear to snow' narrative is not fully established for unseen snowy conditions or other sensors. No load-bearing self-citation chains, imported uniqueness theorems, or definitional equivalences were found; the self-citation to HPPLO-Net for the SVD solver is a concrete algorithmic component rather than a circular justification.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. PSM, MPWP, and the intensity mask are algorithmic constructions inside the model, evaluated only through in-paper ablations. The free parameters listed are the main hand-set or target-tuned quantities the central claim depends on.

free parameters (3)
  • Intensity threshold factor tau_a = 0.01 * max(I) = 0.01
    Empirical constant chosen after analyzing the WADS intensity distribution (Sec. V-A, Fig. 5). It is the primary snow-removal mechanism, so it is tuned to the target domain rather than learned on clear weather.
  • Patch size M (points per patch) = 64 (implied by N_l0=8192 and 4-level FPS pyramid)
    Number of points per superpoint patch is not explicitly stated; it is a structural hyperparameter affecting PSM and PPWP behavior.
  • Preprocessing thresholds: voxel size, ground height, range = 0.2 m, 0.5 m, 30 m
    Data preprocessing choices in Sec. IV-A that determine the l0 layer on which PSM operates.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Snowflake points have significantly lower intensity than scene points (Sec. I observation 2; Sec. V-A).
    The intensity threshold mask in Eq. (10) relies on this separability. The paper validates it on WADS, but it is a physical assumption about snow returns that may not hold in all snowfall conditions.
  • domain assumption Snow forms dense clusters near the sensor and dispersed points far away (Sec. I observation 3).
    PSM's logic that high dispersion implies noise depends on this spatial distribution assumption about snow.
  • domain assumption Voxel downsampling at 0.2 m preserves the dispersion structure of the point cloud (Sec. III-B1).
    PSM computes Moran's I on the downsampled l0 layer; if downsampling removes the dispersion signal, PSM fails.
  • ad hoc to paper Moran's I with inverse angular-distance weights measures the dispersion that matters for pose estimation (Eq. 6-7).
    The weight function in Eq. (7) is introduced without derivation or external benchmark; it is a modeling choice specific to this paper.
  • domain assumption Point-to-plane ICP loss and weighted SVD yield accurate pose when points are reweighted (Eq. 21-25).
    Standard in LiDAR odometry, originating from the authors' HPPLO-Net [22]; the weighting scheme assumes correct correspondences after denoising.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalizing Unsupervised Lidar Odometry Model from Normal to Snowy Weather Conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSDZR5EM

@misc{pith2026250902011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalizing Unsupervised Lidar Odometry Model from Normal to Snowy Weather Conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSDZR5EM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02011}
}
read the original abstract

Deep learning-based LiDAR odometry is crucial for autonomous driving and robotic navigation, yet its performance under adverse weather, especially snowfall, remains challenging. Existing models struggle to generalize across conditions due to sensitivity to snow-induced noise, limiting real-world use. In this work, we present an unsupervised LiDAR odometry model to close the gap between clear and snowy weather conditions. Our approach focuses on effective denoising to mitigate the impact of snowflake noise and outlier points on pose estimation, while also maintaining computational efficiency for real-time applications. To achieve this, we introduce a Patch Spatial Measure (PSM) module that evaluates the dispersion of points within each patch, enabling effective detection of sparse and discrete noise. We further propose a Patch Point Weight Predictor (PPWP) to assign adaptive point-wise weights, enhancing their discriminative capacity within local regions. To support real-time performance, we first apply an intensity threshold mask to quickly suppress dense snowflake clusters near the LiDAR, and then perform multi-modal feature fusion to refine the point-wise weight prediction, improving overall robustness under adverse weather. Our model is trained in clear weather conditions and rigorously tested across various scenarios, including snowy and dynamic. Extensive experimental results confirm the effectiveness of our method, demonstrating robust performance in both clear and snowy weather. This advancement enhances the model's generalizability and paves the way for more reliable autonomous systems capable of operating across a wider range of environmental conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02011 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of a point cloud under snowfall conditions: (A) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our framework: 1. Feature Extraction extract multi-scale features from the two frames [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Patch Spatial Measure (PSM) Module. voxel downsampling, reducing the original point cloud to Nl0 points as the input to the network, forming the highest resolution layer (l0). Next, we apply Farthest Point Sampling (FPS) [29] to iteratively reduce the point set from l0 to progressively lower resolution layers l1, l2, and l3, with each layer containing one-fourth the points of the previous. This hierarchical structur… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multi-modal Point-wise Weight Predictor. It takes the point feature, global feature, intensity, and distance as input, integrating them via a cross-attention fusion mechanism. The fused multi-modal feature is then used to predict point-wise weights via the Point Weight…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Intensity Distribution of Snowy Point Clouds. Using WADS dataset as an example, 100 frames were randomly selected for analysis. The snowflake points exhibit significantly low intensity values, primarily ranging from 0 to 2. （a）The original point cloud （b）The label of s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of Snow Filtering Results using Intensity Threshold. (a) The original unprocessed point cloud. (b) Ground￾truth labels indicating snowflake points. (c) The intensity value visualization of the original point cloud, where color-coding ranges from red (high…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of each module on clear and snowy weather. (a) Superpoint segmentation results, different colors represent different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of the trajectories and the average rotation error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of the trajectories and the average rotation error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of the trajectories and the average rotation error [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, C. Stiller, and R. Urtasun, “Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1231–1237, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    Loam: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time,

    J. Zhang and S. Singh, “Loam: Lidar odometry and mapping in real- time,” in Robotics: Science and systems , 2014, pp. 1–9

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Deepdriving: Learning affordance for direct perception in autonomous driving,

    C. Chen, A. Seff, A. Kornhauser, and J. Xiao, “Deepdriving: Learning affordance for direct perception in autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , 2015, pp. 2722–2730

    2015

  4. [4]

    The impact of adverse weather conditions on autonomous vehicles: How rain, snow, fog, and hail affect the performance of a self-driving car,

    S. Zang, M. Ding, D. Smith, P. Tyler, T. Rakotoarivelo, and M. A. Kaafar, “The impact of adverse weather conditions on autonomous vehicles: How rain, snow, fog, and hail affect the performance of a self-driving car,” IEEE vehicular technology magazine , vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 103–111, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Statistical outlier detection method for airborne lidar data,

    A. Carrilho, M. Galo, and R. Santos, “Statistical outlier detection method for airborne lidar data,” The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences , pp. 87–92, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    De-noising of lidar point clouds corrupted by snowfall,

    N. Charron, S. Phillips, and S. L. Waslander, “De-noising of lidar point clouds corrupted by snowfall,” in Conference on Computer and Robot Vision. IEEE, 2018, pp. 254–261

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Dsor: A scalable statistical filter for removing falling snow from lidar point clouds in severe winter weather,

    A. Kurup and J. Bos, “Dsor: A scalable statistical filter for removing falling snow from lidar point clouds in severe winter weather,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07078, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Dior: A hardware- assisted weather denoising solution for lidar point clouds,

    R. Roriz, A. Campos, S. Pinto, and T. Gomes, “Dior: A hardware- assisted weather denoising solution for lidar point clouds,” IEEE Sensors Journal, pp. 1621–1628, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Cnn-based lidar point cloud de-noising in adverse weather,

    R. Heinzler, F. Piewak, P. Schindler, and W. Stork, “Cnn-based lidar point cloud de-noising in adverse weather,” IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, pp. 2514–2521, 2020

    2020

  2. [10]

    4denoisenet: Adverse weather denoising from adjacent point clouds,

    A. Sepp ¨anen, R. Ojala, and K. Tammi, “4denoisenet: Adverse weather denoising from adjacent point clouds,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, pp. 456–463, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Lisnownet: Real- time snow removal for lidar point clouds,

    M.-Y . Yu, R. Vasudevan, and M. Johnson-Roberson, “Lisnownet: Real- time snow removal for lidar point clouds,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2022, pp. 6820–6826

    2022

  4. [12]

    Cnn for imu assisted odometry estimation using velodyne lidar,

    M. Velas, M. Spanel, M. Hradis, and A. Herout, “Cnn for imu assisted odometry estimation using velodyne lidar,” in IEEE International Con- ference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions , 2018, pp. 71– 77

    2018

  5. [13]

    Lo- net: Deep real-time lidar odometry,

    Q. Li, S. Chen, C. Wang, X. Li, C. Wen, M. Cheng, and J. Li, “Lo- net: Deep real-time lidar odometry,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2019, pp. 8473–8482. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 12

    2019

  6. [14]

    Deeppco: End-to-end point cloud odom- etry through deep parallel neural network,

    W. Wang, M. R. U. Saputra, P. Zhao, P. Gusmao, B. Yang, C. Chen, A. Markham, and N. Trigoni, “Deeppco: End-to-end point cloud odom- etry through deep parallel neural network,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2019, pp. 3248–3254

    2019

  7. [15]

    Translo: A window-based masked point transformer framework for large-scale lidar odometry,

    N. Charron, S. Phillips, and S. L. Waslander, “Translo: A window-based masked point transformer framework for large-scale lidar odometry,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Pwclo-net: Deep lidar odometry in 3d point clouds using hierarchical embedding mask optimization,

    G. Wang, X. Wu, Z. Liu, and H. Wang, “Pwclo-net: Deep lidar odometry in 3d point clouds using hierarchical embedding mask optimization,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 15 910–15 919

    2021

  9. [17]

    Efficient 3d deep lidar odometry,

    G. Wang, X. Wu, S. Jiang, Z. Liu, and H. Wang, “Efficient 3d deep lidar odometry,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Delo: Deep evidential lidar odometry using partial optimal transport,

    S. A. Ali, D. Aouada, G. Reis, and D. Stricker, “Delo: Deep evidential lidar odometry using partial optimal transport,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) Workshops, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Unsupervised geometry-aware deep lidar odometry,

    Y . Cho, G. Kim, and A. Kim, “Unsupervised geometry-aware deep lidar odometry,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automati, 2020, pp. 2145–2152

    2020

  12. [20]

    Linear least-squares optimization for point-to-plane icp surface registration,

    K. L. Low, “Linear least-squares optimization for point-to-plane icp surface registration,” Chapel Hill, 2004

    2004

  13. [21]

    Selfvoxelo: Self-supervised lidar odometry with voxel-based deep neural networks,

    Y . Xu, Z. Huang, K.-Y . Lin, X. Zhu, J. Shi, H. Bao, G. Zhang, and H. Li, “Selfvoxelo: Self-supervised lidar odometry with voxel-based deep neural networks,” in Conference on Robot Learning , 2021, pp. 115–125

    2021

  14. [22]

    Hpplo-net: Unsupervised lidar odometry using a hierarchical point-to-plane solver,

    B. Zhou, Y . Tu, Z. Jin, C. Xu, and H. Kong, “Hpplo-net: Unsupervised lidar odometry using a hierarchical point-to-plane solver,” IEEE Trans- actions on Intelligent Vehicles , pp. 2727–2739, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    A 3d lidar odometry for ugvs using coarse-to-fine deep scene flow estimation,

    C. Li, F. Yan, S. Wang, and Y . Zhuang, “A 3d lidar odometry for ugvs using coarse-to-fine deep scene flow estimation,” Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control , pp. 274–286, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Fast and accurate desnowing algorithm for lidar point clouds,

    J.-I. Park, J. Park, and K.-S. Kim, “Fast and accurate desnowing algorithm for lidar point clouds,” IEEE Access , pp. 160 202–160 212, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    A scalable and accurate de-snowing algorithm for lidar point clouds in winter,

    W. Wang, X. You, L. Chen, J. Tian, F. Tang, and L. Zhang, “A scalable and accurate de-snowing algorithm for lidar point clouds in winter,” Remote Sensing, p. 1468, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

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

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

  19. [27]

    Pointcleannet: Learning to denoise and remove outliers from dense point clouds,

    M.-J. Rakotosaona, V . La Barbera, P. Guerrero, N. J. Mitra, and M. Ovsjanikov, “Pointcleannet: Learning to denoise and remove outliers from dense point clouds,” in Computer Graphics Forum, 2020, pp. 185– 203

    2020

  20. [28]

    Slide: Self-supervised lidar de-snowing through reconstruction difficulty,

    G. Bae, B. Kim, S. Ahn, J. Min, and I. Shim, “Slide: Self-supervised lidar de-snowing through reconstruction difficulty,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision , 2022, pp. 283–300

    2022

  21. [29]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,

    C. R. Qi, L. Yi, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Pointconv: Deep convolutional networks on 3d point clouds,

    W. Wu, Z. Qi, and L. Fuxin, “Pointconv: Deep convolutional networks on 3d point clouds,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2019, pp. 9621–9630

    2019

  23. [31]

    Detect- ing the anomalies in lidar pointcloud,

    C. Zhang, J. Han, Y . Zou, K. Dong, Y . Li, J. Ding, and X. Han, “Detect- ing the anomalies in lidar pointcloud,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.00187, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena,

    P. A. Moran, “Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena,” Biometrika, pp. 17–23, 1950

    1950

  25. [33]

    Beyond moran’s i: testing for spatial dependence based on the spatial autoregressive model,

    H. Li, C. A. Calder, and N. Cressie, “Beyond moran’s i: testing for spatial dependence based on the spatial autoregressive model,” Geographical analysis, pp. 357–375, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Pointpwc-net: Cost volume on point clouds for (self-) supervised scene flow estimation,

    W. Wu, Z. Y . Wang, Z. Li, W. Liu, and L. Fuxin, “Pointpwc-net: Cost volume on point clouds for (self-) supervised scene flow estimation,” in Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision , 2020, pp. 88–107

    2020

  27. [35]

    Are we ready for autonomous driv- ing? the kitti vision benchmark suite,

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, and R. Urtasun, “Are we ready for autonomous driv- ing? the kitti vision benchmark suite,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2012, pp. 3354–3361

    2012

  28. [36]

    Advanced implementation of loam,

    T. Qin, S. Cao, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “Advanced implementation of loam,” in https://github.com/HKUST-Aerial-Robotics/A-LOAM, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    Pyicp slam

    J. Giseop Kim, “Pyicp slam.” in https://github.com/JustWon/ PyICP-SLAM, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    V oxelized gicp for fast and accurate 3d point cloud registration,

    K. Koide, M. Yokozuka, S. Oishi, and A. Banno, “V oxelized gicp for fast and accurate 3d point cloud registration,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2021, pp. 11 054–11 059

    2021

  31. [39]

    Collar line segments for fast odometry estimation from velodyne point clouds,

    M. Velas, M. Spanel, and A. Herout, “Collar line segments for fast odometry estimation from velodyne point clouds,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2016, pp. 4486–4495

    2016

  32. [40]

    Delo: Deep evidential lidar odometry using partial optimal transport,

    S. A. Ali, D. Aouada, G. Reis, and D. Stricker, “Delo: Deep evidential lidar odometry using partial optimal transport,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 4517–4526

    2023

  33. [41]

    Self-supervised learning of lidar odometry for robotic applications,

    J. Nubert, S. Khattak, and M. Hutter, “Self-supervised learning of lidar odometry for robotic applications,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation , 2021, pp. 9601–9607

    2021

  34. [42]

    Robust self- supervised lidar odometry via representative structure discovery and 3d inherent error modeling,

    Y . Xu, J. Lin, J. Shi, G. Zhang, X. Wang, and H. Li, “Robust self- supervised lidar odometry via representative structure discovery and 3d inherent error modeling,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , pp. 1651–1658, 2022. Beibei Zhou received her Ph.D. degree at the PCA La...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.