arxiv: 2605.09845 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 💻 cs.LG

Recognition: no theorem link

Sub-Footprint Effect Correction in FW-LiDAR Point Clouds via Intra-Footprint Target Unmixing

Zhen Xiao , Yanfeng Gu , Xian Li

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG

keywords full-waveform LiDARpoint cloud correctionsub-footprint unmixinglaser beam distributionintensity restorationtarget separationphysics-based inversion

0 comments

The pith

A physics-based unmixing framework corrects intensity distortions in full-waveform LiDAR by decomposing each footprint into sub-target contributions.

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

The paper develops a method to address intensity uncertainty in FW-LiDAR data that arises when multiple targets mix inside a single laser footprint. It first builds a spatiotemporal laser-beam distribution model to describe the physical forward mixing of returns from different sub-targets. Ancillary waveform parameters and surface geometry then serve as constraints to formulate an inverse problem that separates the fractional contribution of each sub-target. Corrected intensities are recovered by inverting the observed mixtures through a combination of parametric and model-driven techniques. Experiments on controlled and real-world datasets show improved semantic separability for heterogeneous targets and greater intensity consistency for homogeneous ones.

Core claim

What carries the argument

The spatiotemporal laser-beam distribution model that characterizes within-footprint forward mixing of multi-target returns and enables the inverse unmixing problem.

If this is right

Intensity values become more reliable for downstream tasks such as material classification and change detection.
Heterogeneous targets within the same footprint can be distinguished with higher semantic accuracy.
Intensities recorded over homogeneous surfaces become more consistent across different footprints.
The approach supplies a physics-grounded correction that prior single-pixel LiDAR methods lacked.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The corrected intensities could feed directly into existing point-cloud segmentation pipelines to reduce label noise near material boundaries.
The same beam-distribution model might be reused for other waveform-based sensors such as bathymetric LiDAR where water-surface mixing occurs.
If ancillary geometry is unavailable, a reduced version of the unmixing could still be tested by relying only on waveform shape parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The spatiotemporal laser-beam distribution model accurately represents how returns from multiple sub-targets mix inside one footprint and that waveform parameters plus surface geometry are available and sufficient to solve the unmixing.

What would settle it

Applying the unmixing procedure to a footprint known to contain only a single homogeneous target and obtaining either non-zero contributions from other targets or a corrected intensity that deviates from the observed value would falsify the correction.

read the original abstract

Sub-footprint target mixing within a laser footprint significantly increases LiDAR intensity uncertainty, especially in complex environments where heterogeneous materials inside one footprint cause nonlinear distortions that impair intensity-based applications. However, the forward mixing inherent to the single-pixel detection mode of LiDAR systems blurs sub-footprint contributions, making sub-footprint effects difficult to address effectively in existing studies. To address this issue, we introduce a novel, physics-based framework that explicitly resolves sub-footprint intensity correction in full-waveform LiDAR (FW-LiDAR) point clouds. The key innovation is to make the otherwise implicit intra-footprint mixing process explicit: we first develop a spatiotemporal laser-beam distribution model to physically characterize within-footprint forward mixing of multi-target returns. Building on this formulation, we incorporate ancillary information including waveform parameters and surface geometry as constraints to pose a well-defined inverse unmixing problem and decompose each footprint into fractional contributions from multiple sub-targets. We then recover sub-footprint-corrected intensities by inverting the observed mixtures through a unified combination of parametric and model-driven approaches. To the best of our knowledge, few prior studies explicitly establish sub-footprint inversion and correction within a single laser footprint, and our framework offers a principled, physics-grounded solution. Experiments on both controlled and real-world LiDAR datasets demonstrate that the proposed method significantly enhances semantic separability across heterogeneous targets and intensity consistency across homogeneous targets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper lays out an explicit physics-based unmixing scheme for sub-footprint intensity mixing in FW-LiDAR, but the forward beam model receives no direct validation against measured multi-target waveforms.

read the letter

The core contribution is a framework that first builds a spatiotemporal laser-beam distribution model to describe how multiple targets inside one footprint mix their returns, then uses waveform parameters and surface geometry as constraints to invert for fractional sub-target intensities and corrected values. That explicit treatment of intra-footprint mixing is presented as new relative to prior implicit approaches. The experiments on controlled and real-world datasets are said to improve semantic separability in mixed scenes and intensity consistency in uniform ones, which would matter for downstream intensity-based products if the gains are real. Credit is due for framing the problem clearly and for trying to keep the inversion physics-grounded rather than purely data-driven. The main weakness is exactly the one the stress-test note flags. The method stands or falls on whether the forward model accurately predicts observed mixtures for known sub-footprint geometries; without side-by-side comparisons of simulated versus raw multi-target waveforms, any recovered intensities could carry systematic bias from unmodeled effects like diffraction or surface reflectance variation. The abstract and available description do not show that check, so the performance claims rest on thinner evidence than the practical importance of the problem would require. This work is aimed at remote-sensing practitioners who process full-waveform LiDAR intensity for classification or material mapping in heterogeneous terrain. A reader already working on waveform decomposition or intensity calibration could extract useful modeling ideas, but would need the full equations and validation figures to judge reliability. I would send it to peer review rather than desk-reject, with the explicit request that the authors add independent forward-model tests before any stronger claims are made.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a physics-based framework to correct sub-footprint target mixing in full-waveform LiDAR (FW-LiDAR) point clouds. It develops a spatiotemporal laser-beam distribution model to explicitly characterize intra-footprint forward mixing of multi-target returns, incorporates ancillary waveform parameters and surface geometry as constraints to formulate an inverse unmixing problem, decomposes each footprint into fractional sub-target contributions, and recovers corrected intensities via a combination of parametric and model-driven inversion. Experiments on controlled and real-world datasets are reported to show significant gains in semantic separability for heterogeneous targets and intensity consistency for homogeneous targets.

Significance. If the forward model is shown to accurately predict observed mixtures and the unmixing proves robust, the work could meaningfully reduce intensity uncertainty in complex environments, benefiting downstream intensity-based applications such as material classification and semantic segmentation. The explicit treatment of sub-footprint inversion within a single footprint is a clear conceptual advance over prior implicit approaches.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] The central claim rests on the spatiotemporal laser-beam distribution model correctly predicting intensity mixtures for arbitrary sub-footprint geometries and target combinations. No independent forward-validation against measured multi-target waveforms from controlled geometries is described, leaving open the possibility that unmodeled effects (diffraction, BRDF variation, pulse shape) systematically bias the recovered intensities even when the optimization converges.
[Abstract] The abstract states that ancillary waveform parameters and surface geometry are 'sufficient to pose a well-defined inverse unmixing problem,' yet provides no analysis of the conditioning of this inverse problem, the number of free parameters introduced, or sensitivity to errors in the ancillary data. This information is required to evaluate whether the recovered sub-target intensities are uniquely determined or merely fitted.

minor comments (2)

Quantitative metrics (e.g., separability indices, intensity variance reduction, or error statistics) supporting the 'significantly enhances' claim are not mentioned in the abstract and should be added to the results section for reproducibility.
The abstract refers to 'a unified combination of parametric and model-driven approaches' without naming the specific parametric form or optimization objective; this notation should be clarified early in the methods.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications and indicating the specific revisions we will implement to strengthen the validation and analysis.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] The central claim rests on the spatiotemporal laser-beam distribution model correctly predicting intensity mixtures for arbitrary sub-footprint geometries and target combinations. No independent forward-validation against measured multi-target waveforms from controlled geometries is described, leaving open the possibility that unmodeled effects (diffraction, BRDF variation, pulse shape) systematically bias the recovered intensities even when the optimization converges.

Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript does not present a dedicated, standalone forward-validation experiment that directly compares the spatiotemporal model's predicted mixed waveforms against independently measured multi-target returns for a range of controlled geometries. Our controlled-dataset experiments demonstrate end-to-end unmixing performance on real measured waveforms, which indirectly supports the forward model, yet we agree this does not constitute explicit forward-model verification. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection in the Experiments section that isolates forward-model validation: we will report quantitative agreement (e.g., waveform RMSE and peak-intensity error) between model-generated mixtures and measured waveforms from controlled multi-target setups, together with a brief discussion of how diffraction, BRDF variation, and pulse-shape effects are either incorporated or shown to have limited impact under the operating conditions of the datasets. This addition will directly address the concern about potential systematic bias. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] The abstract states that ancillary waveform parameters and surface geometry are 'sufficient to pose a well-defined inverse unmixing problem,' yet provides no analysis of the conditioning of this inverse problem, the number of free parameters introduced, or sensitivity to errors in the ancillary data. This information is required to evaluate whether the recovered sub-target intensities are uniquely determined or merely fitted.

Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks an explicit numerical analysis of the inverse problem's conditioning, the count of free parameters, and sensitivity to ancillary-data errors. The formulation uses ancillary constraints to reduce the degrees of freedom, but this is stated rather than quantified. In the revision we will expand the Methods section with a dedicated paragraph (or short subsection) that (i) states the number of free parameters per footprint (fractional contributions plus any auxiliary variables), (ii) provides an estimate of the condition number of the linear system arising from the spatiotemporal model, and (iii) reports a sensitivity study in which ancillary parameters are perturbed within realistic measurement noise bounds and the resulting variation in recovered sub-target intensities is quantified. These additions will demonstrate that the problem is well-posed and that the recovered intensities are not merely fitted but are constrained to unique solutions under the supplied ancillary information. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: physics-based forward model and inverse unmixing are independently formulated

full rationale

The paper constructs a spatiotemporal laser-beam distribution model from physical principles to characterize intra-footprint mixing, then formulates an inverse unmixing problem constrained by ancillary waveform parameters and surface geometry. Sub-footprint intensities are recovered by inverting the observed mixtures. No equations or steps reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-citations, or renamed empirical patterns; the central claim rests on the explicit forward model and its inversion rather than tautological reparameterization. Experiments on controlled and real-world datasets provide external validation, confirming the derivation chain is self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Ledger inferred from abstract description only. Central elements are a forward mixing model and an inverse unmixing formulation; no specific free parameters, invented entities, or additional axioms are named.

axioms (1)

domain assumption A spatiotemporal laser-beam distribution model can physically characterize within-footprint forward mixing of multi-target returns.
This model is the foundation for making the mixing process explicit and for posing the inverse problem.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5553 in / 1193 out tokens · 37671 ms · 2026-05-12T04:39:32.144103+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

An Improved Simple Morphological Filter for the Terrain Classifica tion of Airborne LiDAR Data,

T. J. Pingel, K. C. Clarke, and W. A. McBride, “An Improved Simple Morphological Filter for the Terrain Classifica tion of Airborne LiDAR Data,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., vol. 77, pp. 21–30, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

nrban Land Cover Classification nsing Airborne LiDAR Data: A Review,

W. Y. Yan, A. Shaker, and N. El -Ashmawy, “nrban Land Cover Classification nsing Airborne LiDAR Data: A Review,” Remote Sens. Environ., vol. 158, pp. 295–310, 2015

work page 2015
[3]

A Spatial Alignment Method for nAV LiDAR Strip Adjustment in Nonurban Scenes,

Y. Gu, Z. Xiao and X. Li, “A Spatial Alignment Method for nAV LiDAR Strip Adjustment in Nonurban Scenes,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 61, pp. 1-13, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Multimodal Deep - Learning for Object Recognition Combining Camera and LiDAR Data,

G. Melotti, C. Premebida, and N. Gonçalves, “Multimodal Deep - Learning for Object Recognition Combining Camera and LiDAR Data,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC), pp. 177–182, 2020

work page 2020
[5]

Introduction to LiDAR Remote Sensing,

C. Wang, X. Yang, X. Xi, S. Nie, and P. Dong, “Introduction to LiDAR Remote Sensing,” CRC Press, 2024

work page 2024
[6]

Mapping 3D Visibility in an nrban Street Environment from Mobile LiDAR Point Clouds,

Y. Zhao, B. Wu, J. Wu, S. Shu, H. Liang, M. Liu, V. Badenko, A. Fedotov, S. Yao, and B. Yu, “Mapping 3D Visibility in an nrban Street Environment from Mobile LiDAR Point Clouds,” GISci. Remote Sens., vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 797–812, 2020. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Fig. 7 Relative contributions of different factors to intensity. (a). Leaf. (b). PVC. (c). Aluminu...

work page 2020
[7]

Estimation of above-Ground Biomass of Large Tropical Trees with Terrestrial LiDAR,

J. Gonzá lez de Tanago , A. Lau, H. Bartholomeus, M. Herold, V. Avitabile, P. Raumonen, C. Martius, R. C. Goodman, M. Disney, and S. Manuri, “Estimation of above-Ground Biomass of Large Tropical Trees with Terrestrial LiDAR,” Methods Ecol. Evol., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 223–234, 2018

work page 2018
[8]

Potential of Airborne LiDAR Data for Terrain Parameters Extraction,

M. Sharma, et al ., “Potential of Airborne LiDAR Data for Terrain Parameters Extraction,” Quat. Int., vol. 575, pp. 317–327, 2021

work page 2021
[9]

nnsupervised Intrinsic Image Decomposition with LiDAR Intensity,

S. Sato, Y. Yao, T. Yoshida, et al., “nnsupervised Intrinsic Image Decomposition with LiDAR Intensity,” in Proc. IEEE/CVF Conf. Comput. Vis. Pattern Recognit. (CVPR), pp. 13466–13475, 2023

work page 2023
[10]

Physically Based Data Fusion between Airborne LiDAR and Hyperspectral Data: Geometric and Radiometric Synergies,

M. Brell, L. Guanter, and K. Segl, “Physically Based Data Fusion between Airborne LiDAR and Hyperspectral Data: Geometric and Radiometric Synergies,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp. (IGARSS), pp. 8865–8868, 2018

work page 2018
[11]

A Review of LiDAR Radiometric Processing: From Ad Hoc Intensity Correction to Rigorous Radiometric Calibration,

A. G. Kashani, et al ., “A Review of LiDAR Radiometric Processing: From Ad Hoc Intensity Correction to Rigorous Radiometric Calibration,” Sensors, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 28099–28128, 2015

work page 2015
[12]

Traffic Sign Classification Method nsing Corrected Intensity and up-Sampled Point Cloud,

R. Yu and X. Li, “Traffic Sign Classification Method nsing Corrected Intensity and up-Sampled Point Cloud,” IEEE Sens. J., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 11796–11808, 2024

work page 2024
[13]

Correction of Incidence Angle and Distance Effects on TLS Intensity Data Based on Refer ence Targets,

K. Tan and X. Cheng, “Correction of Incidence Angle and Distance Effects on TLS Intensity Data Based on Refer ence Targets,” Remote Sens., vol. 8, no. 3, art. 251, 2016

work page 2016
[14]

An Exploration, Analysis, and Correction of the Distance Effect on Terrestrial Hyperspectral LiDAR Data,

J. Bai, et al., “An Exploration, Analysis, and Correction of the Distance Effect on Terrestrial Hyperspectral LiDAR Data,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., vol. 198, pp. 60–83, 2023

work page 2023
[15]

Correction of Intensity Incidence Angle Effect in Terrestrial Laser Scanning,

A. Krooks, S. Kaasalainen, T. Hakala, and O. Nevalainen, “Correction of Intensity Incidence Angle Effect in Terrestrial Laser Scanning,” ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. , vol. II-5/W2, pp. 145–150, 2013

work page 2013
[16]

3D Leaf Water Content Mapping Using Terrestrial Laser Scanner Backscatter Intensity with Radiometric Correction,

X. Zhu, et al., “3D Leaf Water Content Mapping Using Terrestrial Laser Scanner Backscatter Intensity with Radiometric Correction,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., vol. 110, pp. 14–23, 2015

work page 2015
[17]

Radiometric Calibration for Incidence Angle, Range and Sub -Footprint Ef fects on Hyperspectral LiDAR Backscatter Intensity,

C. Zhang, S. Gao, W. Li, et al., “Radiometric Calibration for Incidence Angle, Range and Sub -Footprint Ef fects on Hyperspectral LiDAR Backscatter Intensity,” Remote Sens., vol. 12, no. 17, art. 2855, 2020

work page 2020
[18]

Range and AGC Normalization in Airborne Discrete -Return LiDAR Intensity Data for Forest Canopies,

I. Korpela, H. O. Ørka, J. Hyyppä, V. Heikkinen, and T. Tokola, “Range and AGC Normalization in Airborne Discrete -Return LiDAR Intensity Data for Forest Canopies,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 369–379, 2010

work page 2010
[19]

Improving Classification Accuracy of Airborne LiDAR Intensity Data by Geometric Calibration and Radiometric Correction,

W. Y. Yan , A. Shaker, A. Habib, and A. P. Kersting, “Improving Classification Accuracy of Airborne LiDAR Intensity Data by Geometric Calibration and Radiometric Correction,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., vol. 67, pp. 35–44, 2012

work page 2012
[20]

Normalization of LiDAR Intensity Data Based on Range and Surface Incidence Angle,

B. Jutzi and H. Gross, “Normalization of LiDAR Intensity Data Based on Range and Surface Incidence Angle,” Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., vol. 38, pp. 213–218, 2009

work page 2009
[21]

A Novel Algorithm for Leaf Incidence Angle Effect Correction of Hyperspectral LiDAR,

J. Bai, S. Gao, Z. Niu, C. Zhang, K. Bi, G. Sun, and Y. Huang, “A Novel Algorithm for Leaf Incidence Angle Effect Correction of Hyperspectral LiDAR,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 60, pp. 1–9, 2022

work page 2022
[22]

LiDAR Intensity Calibratio n for Road Marking Extraction,

J. Jeong and A. Kim, “LiDAR Intensity Calibratio n for Road Marking Extraction,” in Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Ubiquitous Robots (UR) , pp. 455– 460, 2018

work page 2018
[23]

Road Marking Degradation Analysis nsing 3D Point Cloud Data Acquired with a Low-Cost Mobile Mapping System,

M. Soilá n, et al., “Road Marking Degradation Analysis nsing 3D Point Cloud Data Acquired with a Low-Cost Mobile Mapping System,” Autom. Constr., vol. 141, art. 104446, 2022

work page 2022
[24]

Correction of Laser Scanning Intensity Data: Data and Model -Driven Approaches,

B. Höfle and N. Pfeifer, “Correction of Laser Scanning Intensity Data: Data and Model -Driven Approaches,” ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens., vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 415–433, 2007

work page 2007
[25]

Radiometric Calibration of LiDAR Intensity with Commercially Available Reference Targets,

S. Kaasalainen, H. Hyyppä , A. Kukko, P. Litkey, E. Ahokas, J. Hyyppä , H. Lehner, A. Jaakkola, J. Suomalainen, A. Akujä rvi, M. Kaasalainen, and n. Pyysalo, “Radiometric Calibration of LiDAR Intensity with Commercially Available Reference Targets, ” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 588–598, 2009

work page 2009
[26]

A High-Resolution and Efficient Waveform Decomposition Method for Small -Footprint LiDAR,

Z. Xiao, Y. Gu, and X. Li, “A High-Resolution and Efficient Waveform Decomposition Method for Small -Footprint LiDAR,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 62, pp. 1–13, 2024

work page 2024
[27]

Application of Landweber with Optimization for Small Footprint Waveform LiDAR Decomposition,

Z. Xiao, Y. Gu, X. Li, and X. Zhang, “Application of Landweber with Optimization for Small Footprint Waveform LiDAR Decomposition,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp. (IGARSS), pp. 6408–6411, 2024

work page 2024
[28]

Full -Waveform Hyperspectral LiDAR Data Decomposition via Ranking Central Locations of Natural Target Echoes (Rclonte) at Different Wavelengths,

J. Bai, et al ., “Full -Waveform Hyperspectral LiDAR Data Decomposition via Ranking Central Locations of Natural Target Echoes (Rclonte) at Different Wavelengths,” Remote Sens. Environ. , vol. 310, art. 114227, 2024

work page 2024
[29]

Full-Waveform Small -Footprint LiDAR Multi -target Echo Waveform Lightweight Dete ction by Spatio -temporal Coupling Model,

Z. Xiao , et al ., “Full-Waveform Small -Footprint LiDAR Multi -target Echo Waveform Lightweight Dete ction by Spatio -temporal Coupling Model,” Journal of Radars, vol. 14, no. 03, pp. 548-561, 2025

work page 2025
[30]

Characterizing Radiometric Attributes of Point Cloud Using a Normalized Reflective Factor Derived from Small Footprint LiDAR Waveform,

Y. Qin, W. Yao, T. T. Vu, S. Li, Z. Niu, and Y. Ban, “Characterizing Radiometric Attributes of Point Cloud Using a Normalized Reflective Factor Derived from Small Footprint LiDAR Waveform,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 740–749, 2015

work page 2015
[31]

Wavelength Selection of Hyperspectral LiDAR Based on Feature Weighting for Estimation of Leaf Nitrogen Content in Rice,

L. Du, S. Shi, W. Gong, J. Yang, J. Sun, and F. Mao, “Wavelength Selection of Hyperspectral LiDAR Based on Feature Weighting for Estimation of Leaf Nitrogen Content in Rice,” Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., vol. XLI-B1, pp. 9–13, 2016

work page 2016
[32]

Sparse nnmixing of Hyperspectral Images with Noise Reduction nsing Spatial Filtering,

S. Zhang, J. Zheng, P. Lai, et al., “Sparse nnmixing of Hyperspectral Images with Noise Reduction nsing Spatial Filtering,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., early access, 2024

work page 2024
[33]

Overlapping Patch -Based Joint- Sparse Regression for Hyperspectral Image nnmixing,

S. Shu, T. Z. Huang, J. Huang, et al., “Overlapping Patch -Based Joint- Sparse Regression for Hyperspectral Image nnmixing,” J. Comput. Appl. Math., vol. 472, art. 116787, 2026

work page 2026
[34]

Sparse Hyperspectral Unmixing with Preference -Based Evolutionary Multiobjective Multitasking Optimization,

H. Li, D. Li, M. Gong, J. Li, A. Qin, L. Xing, and F. Xie, “Sparse Hyperspectral Unmixing with Preference -Based Evolutionary Multiobjective Multitasking Optimization,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Top. Comput. Intell., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1922–1937, 2024

work page 1922
[35]

Mediterranean Forest Traits Retrieval from Hybrid Inversion: A Multi-Sensor and Radiative Transfer Modelling Comparison,

K. Adeline, X. Briottet, J.-B. Féret, et al., “Mediterranean Forest Traits Retrieval from Hybrid Inversion: A Multi-Sensor and Radiative Transfer Modelling Comparison,” in Proc. Living Planet Symp. (LPS), 2025

work page 2025
[36]

Radiative Transfe r Model Inversion and Application to Coastal Observation,

T. Bajjouk, A. Minghelli, M. Chami, and T. Petit, “Radiative Transfe r Model Inversion and Application to Coastal Observation,” in Inversion and Data Assimilation in Remote Sensing: Estimation of Geophysical Parameters, Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-ISTE, ch. 6, pp. 169–200, 2024

work page 2024
[37]

Improving Qualit y of Laser Scanning Data Acquisition through Calibrated Amplitude and Pulse Deviation Measurement,

M. Pfennigbauer and A. nllrich, “Improving Qualit y of Laser Scanning Data Acquisition through Calibrated Amplitude and Pulse Deviation Measurement,” Proc. SPIE, Laser Radar Technology and Applications XV, vol. 7684, art. 76841F, 2010

work page 2010
[38]

Gold–A novel deconvolution algorithm with optimization for waveform LiDAR processing ,

Zhou T, et al ., “Gold–A novel deconvolution algorithm with optimization for waveform LiDAR processing ,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. 129, pp. 131-150, 2017. Zhen Xiao received the B.E. degree in electronics and information engineering from the Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China, in 2020, where he is currently pursu...

work page 2017