Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 25 references

ElectricSight: 3D Hazard Monitoring for Power Lines Using Low-Cost Sensors

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 ElectricSight claims that a fixed single camera plus a periodically refreshed UAV point cloud can measure 3D distances between power lines and moving hazards with about 1.08 m mean error and 92% early-warning accuracy.

desk verdict A practical new combination of offline LiDAR priors and monocular geometry for power-line hazard monitoring, but the evaluation is narrow and the depth model has a documented failure mode along the camera axis. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06573 v1 pith:54GYSQ2D submitted 2025-05-10 cs.CV

Xingchen Li , LiDian Wang , Yu Sheng , ZhiPeng Tang , Haojie Ren , Guoliang You , YiFan Duan , Jianmin Ji
show 1 more author
Yanyong Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DdistancemeasurementmonoculardepthestimationpointcloudregistrationpowerlinemonitoringgeometricconstrainthazarddetectioncraneboomapexUAVLiDARprior
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 tries to show that accurate 3D distance measurement between power lines and hazards like cranes does not require expensive 3D sensors on every tower. The proposed system, ElectricSight, combines a fixed single camera with an environmental point cloud map collected periodically by a drone, and uses geometric constraints to recover depth. In tests on one 200-meter transmission corridor, the reported average distance error is about 1.08 meters and the early-warning accuracy is 92%, well above two image-only baselines. If the result holds, utilities can monitor clearance cheaply at scale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the depth constraint point $S_d$, obtained as the intersection of the camera ray through the detected apex pixel with the plane $D$ determined by two ground keypoints, read from the point-cloud-to-pixel correspondence table, and the RANSAC-estimated ground normal $\vec{n}_G$. This replaces classic vanishing-point and flat-ground assumptions with a prior anchored in the real environment. The final measured quantity is the minimum distance between the power-line point cloud and the ray $Q'$ that passes through $S_d$, so the method estimates a ray-to-curve distance rather than a full 3D position.

What would settle it

Take a crane at several distances and deliberately tilt its boom toward and away from the camera, with surveyed LiDAR ground truth for the true shortest distance; if the mean error on this set is close to the reported bad-case 4.832 m rather than the 1.081 m average, the ray-through-apex depth constraint is the reason and the central accuracy claim fails to generalize.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a dynamic hazard's depth can be recovered without estimating its full 3D shape: detect the hazard's apex in the image, back-project the camera ray through that pixel into the point-cloud coordinate system, intersect the ray with a ground plane reconstructed from the offline point cloud, and then compute the shortest distance between the resulting ray and the segmented power-line point cloud. The paper reports that this ray-and-curve strategy yields a mean distance error of 1.081 m across crane-like and lift-like hazards, with 92.0% alarm accuracy at a 10 m threshold, compared with 2.553 m and 88.6% for a geometric monocular baseline and 4.121 m and 65.9% for a learned monocular depth model.

Load-bearing premise

The whole measurement rests on assuming the hazard's true highest point lies on the camera ray through the detected apex pixel, with depth fixed by where that ray meets the ground plane; a crane boom tilted toward or away from the camera breaks this, and the paper reports a bad-case error of 4.832 m.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A transmission corridor can be monitored with cameras already mounted on towers plus an annual or semi-annual UAV survey, instead of dense LiDAR installations, cutting hardware cost.
  • Clearance warnings become actionable at meter-level accuracy: with a 10 m safety threshold, a 1.08 m mean error will rarely invert a correct alarm decision.
  • The method's error does not grow with distance as steeply as classic monocular depth, because the distance is computed as ray-to-curve rather than point depth; the paper's 20-140 m measurements support this.
  • The same geometric prior pipeline can be extended to other hazards, such as excavators and aerial lifts, without retraining the depth module, since only the detector and keypoint extractor are object-specific.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same ray-meets-ground-plane depth constraint could transfer to railway or highway clearance monitoring, where corridor point-cloud maps are already collected periodically.
  • Beyond the paper: the reported bad case suggests a concrete extension: if the boom apex location is uncertain, fuse a learned monocular depth estimate for that pixel with the geometric depth constraint rather than trusting the ray alone.
  • Beyond the paper: because the method converts depth into a ray-to-curve distance, its error depends mostly on keypoint pixel accuracy; a small apex-refinement network could shrink the worst-case 4.832 m error without adding sensors.
  • Beyond the paper: the 1.08 m average comes from 90 annotated pairs in one corridor; the paper does not establish whether accuracy holds across seasons, weather, corridor lengths, or non-flat terrain, so those need field trials.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. ElectricSight proposes a low-cost monitoring system for power transmission line corridors that combines a fixed monocular camera with an offline UAV-collected LiDAR point cloud. The method detects hazards (cranes, excavators, aerial lifts) in 2D using a fine-tuned YOLOv7, registers the image to the static point cloud, and then estimates the 3D distance from the hazard to the power line by intersecting the camera ray through the detected apex with a vertical plane built from ground points and the ground normal. The resulting ray is used to compute the minimum distance to the power-line point cloud, and an alarm is raised if this distance is below a 10 m threshold. The paper reports experiments on one 200 m corridor with 90 point cloud-image pairs, claiming a mean distance error of 1.08 m and a 92% alarm accuracy, with comparisons against Metric3Dv2 and a monocular geometric baseline.

Significance. If the reported accuracy were robust, the system would be a practical and economical alternative to per-tower LiDAR for transmission-line safety monitoring, and the combination of static point-cloud priors with monocular depth constraints is a sensible way to obtain metric depth without dense sensor deployment. The paper includes a real-world evaluation with ground-truth point clouds, comparisons to two baselines, and an ablation study, which are strengths. However, the central performance claim rests on a geometric construction that has a documented failure mode for inclined crane booms, and the evaluation is limited to a single corridor with 90 samples and no external benchmark. The method itself is a combination of existing components (YOLO, GMM/Hough keypoint extraction, an existing registration method, RANSAC ground estimation), and the novelty lies mainly in the specific integration and the depth-constraint ray formulation. The significance is therefore conditional on resolving the geometric validity and evaluation breadth concerns.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-C3 and III-C4, Eq. (4)] The construction of plane D is underspecified and the depth constraint is not valid for inclined booms. The text says two grounding points A and B are retrieved from the 2D-3D correspondence table, but only one ground point (the midpoint of the bottom edge) is defined in Section III-A2b; it is unclear what A and B are and how they are obtained for a dynamic object that is absent from the static point cloud. More importantly, S_d is defined as the intersection of the camera ray through the apex pixel with the vertical plane D, and the modified ray Q' is anchored at S_d. For a crane boom tilted toward or away from the camera, the true apex does not lie in plane D, so Q' does not pass through the actual boom, and the computed minimum distance to Q' can be unrelated to the true clearance. The paper itself reports a 4.832 m error in this situation (Section IV-E3, Fig. 6), which is large enough to flip an alarm decision at the 10 m threshold. The manuscript does not report how often such orientations occur in the 90-sample dataset or provide any mitigation, so the claimed 1.08 m mean error and 92% alarm accuracy are conditional on an unreported distribution of boom orientations.
  2. [Section IV-A and IV-B, Table I] The evaluation is based on a single 200 m corridor with 90 point cloud-image pairs and no external benchmark or cross-site validation. The introduction claims validation in 'diverse real-world scenarios,' but the experiment section describes one test site. The mean error of 1.081 m with standard deviation 1.108 m, together with a documented bad case of 4.832 m, implies that the mean is sensitive to sample composition and does not by itself establish safety-relevant reliability. The paper should report the full error distribution, a breakdown by boom orientation and distance, confidence intervals, and ideally additional independent sites or a public benchmark; without these, the central performance claim is not adequately supported.
  3. [Section III-C5] The final distance is computed as the minimum distance between the power-line point cloud and the ray Q', not to the actual 3D geometry of the hazard object. The manuscript assumes that 'these apexes lie along a specific ray' and that the apex distance reflects the shortest distance from the hazard to the wire. This assumption is not justified for crane booms, where the closest point to a power line can occur anywhere along the boom, not at the apex. The method can therefore produce both missed and false alarms even when the depth constraint is exact. The authors should either provide evidence that the apex ray is consistently the closest feature or extend the representation to a more complete 3D model of the hazard.
  4. [Section IV-D1, Table II] The ablation text appears to state the result in the wrong direction: the text says using GMM and Hough Transform 'shows an increase in Mean Distance Error of over 0.2m,' but the table shows the full method (row 4) has a mean error of 1.518 m, which is lower than rows 1 and 2 (1.769 m and 1.770 m), i.e., an improvement of about 0.25 m. The checkmark pattern in the table is also confusing because row 3 applies GMM/HT without the detection-arm component, and the comparison logic should be spelled out in the text.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-C2, Eq. (3)] The formula for Orient has unbalanced brackets and parentheses, making it difficult to parse; it should be rewritten with clear matrix dimensions and notation.
  2. [References] Reference [27] is a verbatim duplicate of reference [23] (both cite the same 'Vision-based ACC with a single camera' paper by Stein et al.); one should be removed or the citations disambiguated.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption says '20-140m range' but Section IV-A describes a 200-meter corridor; the discrepancy should be clarified.
  4. [Section IV-B] The claim that ElectricSight 'significantly outperforms' the baselines is not backed by any statistical significance test; with 90 samples and large standard deviations, a paired comparison or confidence intervals are needed.
  5. [Introduction and Section IV-A] The introduction states that the system was validated with 'extensive data collected from diverse real-world scenarios,' but the experiments are from a single secure experimental base; the claims should be aligned with the actual evaluation scope.
  6. [Section III-C1] The notation for points in Eq. (1) uses superscripts S_T^C and S_T^W, while the surrounding text uses S_C and S_W; the notation should be unified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the depth estimates are geometric constructions validated against external ground truth; the documented bad case is an accuracy limitation, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is geometric and self-contained. The depth constraint point S_d is computed by intersecting the camera ray through the apex pixel (Eq. 2) with a plane D constructed from environmental ground points and a RANSAC ground normal (Section III-C3), after which the minimum distance d_min is the point-to-ray distance to registered power line points (Section III-C5). No parameter is fitted to the 90 test distance labels: the only trained component, the fine-tuned YOLOv7 detector, supplies 2D keypoints rather than distances, and the ablations compare geometric variants without optimizing against the reported error. The registration method [22] is self-cited, but it is independently validated in this paper against pseudo-ground-truth extrinsic parameters produced by the external calibration toolbox [25], so the citation carries real evidence rather than an unverified premise. The acknowledged bad case of 4.832 m error (Section IV-E3, Fig. 6) is a documented modeling limitation caused by crane booms tilted toward the camera, where the apex does not lie on the constructed ray; this affects the reliability and conditionality of the reported mean accuracy but does not make the prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step is present.

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

The method relies on standard computer vision building blocks (YOLO, registration, RANSAC) plus three domain assumptions: flat ground, static point cloud prior, and apex-on-ray. No new physical entities are introduced. The only hand-chosen system parameter is the 10 m warning threshold.

free parameters (1)
  • safety threshold d_thres = 10 m
    Hand-chosen warning threshold; used to compute alarm accuracy, so it is an operating parameter rather than a fitted constant.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ground is flat in the vicinity of the hazard object (used to define the ground point as the midpoint of the bounding box bottom edge and to estimate the ground plane).
    Section III-A2b and III-C3; the flat-ground assumption is explicitly stated and is needed for the ground point and plane construction.
  • ad hoc to paper The apex of the hazard lies on the ray from the camera optical center through the apex pixel, and this ray is a valid proxy for the object's closest point.
    Section III-C5; stated as an assumption for the minimum distance calculation. The paper's own bad case shows it can fail.
  • domain assumption The offline environmental point cloud is static, up to date, and free of dynamic hazards, so it provides valid depth priors for the scene.
    Section I and III-B; the UAV map is collected periodically and does not include real-time hazards.
  • domain assumption The camera intrinsic matrix K is known and the extrinsic registration T_L^C is accurate.
    Equations (1) and (3); the method projects points and constructs rays using these calibration quantities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ElectricSight: 3D Hazard Monitoring for Power Lines Using Low-Cost Sensors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/54GYSQ2D

@misc{pith2026250506573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ElectricSight: 3D Hazard Monitoring for Power Lines Using Low-Cost Sensors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/54GYSQ2D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06573}
}
read the original abstract

Protecting power transmission lines from potential hazards involves critical tasks, one of which is the accurate measurement of distances between power lines and potential threats, such as large cranes. The challenge with this task is that the current sensor-based methods face challenges in balancing accuracy and cost in distance measurement. A common practice is to install cameras on transmission towers, which, however, struggle to measure true 3D distances due to the lack of depth information. Although 3D lasers can provide accurate depth data, their high cost makes large-scale deployment impractical. To address this challenge, we present ElectricSight, a system designed for 3D distance measurement and monitoring of potential hazards to power transmission lines. This work's key innovations lie in both the overall system framework and a monocular depth estimation method. Specifically, the system framework combines real-time images with environmental point cloud priors, enabling cost-effective and precise 3D distance measurements. As a core component of the system, the monocular depth estimation method enhances the performance by integrating 3D point cloud data into image-based estimates, improving both the accuracy and reliability of the system. To assess ElectricSight's performance, we conducted tests with data from a real-world power transmission scenario. The experimental results demonstrate that ElectricSight achieves an average accuracy of 1.08 m for distance measurements and an early warning accuracy of 92%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06573 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our distance measurement system: the UAV (sensor1) collects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our Electricsight: The method consists of three main stages: (1) 2D Detection: Detect hazardous objects (e.g., cranes) in 2D images and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Key steps of the 3D measurement stage, including ray construction, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The visualization of distance measurement and warning. Crane: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 3D Measure results of different target types in 20-140m range: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the crane boom’s forward and backward tilt. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Development of a safety-and energy-aware impedance controller for collaborative robots,

    G. Raiola, C. A. Cardenas, T. S. Tadele, T. De Vries, and S. Stramigioli, “Development of a safety-and energy-aware impedance controller for collaborative robots,” IEEE Robotics and automation letters , vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1237–1244, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Mono-camera based simultaneous obstacle recognition and distance estimation for obstacle avoidance of power transmission lines inspection robot,

    J. H. Yoo, C. Kim, and D. H. Kim, “Mono-camera based simultaneous obstacle recognition and distance estimation for obstacle avoidance of power transmission lines inspection robot,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 6902–6907

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Safety strategy of power transmission channel coordinated with transfer capability support for power system emergency,

    J. Wang, X. Xiong, J. Hu, and X. Lu, “Safety strategy of power transmission channel coordinated with transfer capability support for power system emergency,” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, vol. 110, pp. 232–245, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    A feasibility study on autonomous online condition monitoring of high-voltage overhead power lines,

    H. Zangl, T. Bretterklieber, and G. Brasseur, “A feasibility study on autonomous online condition monitoring of high-voltage overhead power lines,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 1789–1796, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Plgan: Generative adversarial networks for power-line segmentation in aerial images,

    R. Abdelfattah, X. Wang, and S. Wang, “Plgan: Generative adversarial networks for power-line segmentation in aerial images,” IEEE Transac- tions on Image Processing , 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Early detection of tree encroachment in high voltage powerline corridor using growth model and uav-borne lidar,

    Y . Chen, J. Lin, and X. Liao, “Early detection of tree encroachment in high voltage powerline corridor using growth model and uav-borne lidar,” International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoin- formation, vol. 108, p. 102740, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Linespyx: A power line inspection robot based on digital radiography,

    Y . Gao, G. Song, S. Li, F. Zhen, D. Chen, and A. Song, “Linespyx: A power line inspection robot based on digital radiography,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4759–4765, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Visible and infrared imaging based inspection of power installation,

    B. Jalil, M. Pascali, G. Leone, M. Martinelli, D. Moroni, O. Salvetti, and A. Berton, “Visible and infrared imaging based inspection of power installation,” Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis , vol. 29, pp. 35– 41, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 25 references
  1. [10]

    Real-time detection of moving objects in a dynamic scene from moving robotic vehicles,

    A. Talukder, S. Goldberg, L. Matthies, and A. Ansar, “Real-time detection of moving objects in a dynamic scene from moving robotic vehicles,” in Proceedings 2003 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2003)(Cat. No. 03CH37453) , vol. 2. IEEE,...

    2003

  2. [11]

    A multi-sensor fusion system for moving object detection and tracking in urban driving environments,

    H. Cho, Y .-W. Seo, B. V . Kumar, and R. R. Rajkumar, “A multi-sensor fusion system for moving object detection and tracking in urban driving environments,” in 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2014, pp. 1836–1843

    2014

  3. [12]

    Research on automatic monitoring of tree barrier distance of high voltage transmission lines,

    X. Liang, C. Zhang, X. Tang, Y . Liu, and Z. Li, “Research on automatic monitoring of tree barrier distance of high voltage transmission lines,” in 2020 International Conference on Robots & Intelligent System (ICRIS) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 24–27

    2020

  4. [13]

    Measurement of tree barriers on transmission line based on binocular vision and steger algorithm,

    H. Mao, X. Miao, and H. Jiang, “Measurement of tree barriers on transmission line based on binocular vision and steger algorithm,” in 2019 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 3353– 3358

    2019

  5. [14]

    Power line- guided automatic electric transmission line inspection system,

    C. Xu, Q. Li, Q. Zhou, S. Zhang, D. Yu, and Y . Ma, “Power line- guided automatic electric transmission line inspection system,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 71, pp. 1–18, 2022

    2022

  6. [15]

    Automatic clearance anomaly detection for transmission line corridors utilizing uav- borne lidar data,

    C. Chen, B. Yang, S. Song, X. Peng, and R. Huang, “Automatic clearance anomaly detection for transmission line corridors utilizing uav- borne lidar data,” Remote Sensing , vol. 10, no. 4, p. 613, 2018

    2018

  7. [16]

    Power line extraction and tree risk detection based on airborne lidar,

    S. Xi, Z. Zhang, Y . Niu, H. Li, and Q. Zhang, “Power line extraction and tree risk detection based on airborne lidar,” Sensors, vol. 23, no. 19, p. 8233, 2023

    2023

  8. [17]

    An improved method for power- line reconstruction from point cloud data,

    B. Guo, Q. Li, X. Huang, and C. Wang, “An improved method for power- line reconstruction from point cloud data,” Remote sensing, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 36, 2016

    2016

  9. [18]

    Real-time lidar-based power lines detection for unmanned aerial vehicles,

    F. Azevedo, A. Dias, J. Almeida, A. Oliveira, A. Ferreira, T. Santos, A. Martins, and E. Silva, “Real-time lidar-based power lines detection for unmanned aerial vehicles,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

    2019

  10. [19]

    A novel development of robots with cooperative strategy for long-term and close-proximity autonomous transmission-line inspection,

    J. Bian, X. Hui, X. Zhao, and M. Tan, “A novel development of robots with cooperative strategy for long-term and close-proximity autonomous transmission-line inspection,” in 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1898–1904

    2019

  11. [20]

    Yolov7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors,

    C.-Y . Wang, A. Bochkovskiy, and H.-Y . M. Liao, “Yolov7: Trainable bag-of-freebies sets new state-of-the-art for real-time object detectors,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2023, pp. 7464–7475

    2023

  12. [21]

    Adaptive background mixture models for real-time tracking,

    C. Stauffer and W. E. L. Grimson, “Adaptive background mixture models for real-time tracking,” in Proceedings. 1999 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (Cat. No PR00149), vol. 2. IEEE, 1999, pp. 246–252

    1999

  13. [22]

    Rendering-enhanced automatic image-to-point cloud registration for roadside scenes,

    Y . Sheng, L. Zhang, X. Li, Y . Duan, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhang, and J. Ji, “Rendering-enhanced automatic image-to-point cloud registration for roadside scenes,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05164 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Deep vanishing point detection: Geometric priors make dataset variations vanish,

    Y . Lin, R. Wiersma, , S. L. Pintea, K. Hildebrandt, E. Eisemann, and J. C. van Gemert, “Deep vanishing point detection: Geometric priors make dataset variations vanish,” Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022

    2022

  15. [25]

    General, single-shot, target-less, and automatic lidar-camera extrinsic calibration toolbox,

    K. Koide, S. Oishi, M. Yokozuka, and A. Banno, “General, single-shot, target-less, and automatic lidar-camera extrinsic calibration toolbox,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05094 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Metric3d v2: A versatile monocular geometric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation,

    M. Hu, W. Yin, C. Zhang, Z. Cai, X. Long, H. Chen, K. Wang, G. Yu, C. Shen, and S. Shen, “Metric3d v2: A versatile monocular geometric foundation model for zero-shot metric depth and surface normal estimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15506 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [27]

    Vision-based acc with a single camera: bounds on range and range rate accuracy,

    G. Stein, O. Mano, and A. Shashua, “Vision-based acc with a single camera: bounds on range and range rate accuracy,” in IEEE IV2003 Intelligent V ehicles Symposium. Proceedings (Cat. No.03TH8683), 2003, pp. 120–125

    2003

Pith tools

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