Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 59 references

ROI-Guided Point Cloud Geometry Compression Towards Human and Machine Vision

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes RPCGC, a point cloud geometry codec whose enhancement layer spends bits according to an ROI mask and whose loss includes 3D detection error, and claims about 10% higher detection mAP at high bitrates on ScanNet and SUN…

desk verdict A genuinely new ROI-guided point cloud codec with a plausible compression story, but the headline 10% detection gain is not supported by the evaluation as run. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14240 v1 pith:56MXGQUD submitted 2025-04-19 cs.CV cs.MM

Xie Liang , Gao Wei , Zhenghui Ming , Li Ge This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.MM
keywords pointcloudgeometrycompressionregionofinterestmachinevision3Dobjectdetectionrate-distortionoptimizationresidualcodinghumanandlearned
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

Point cloud compression usually optimizes only human-visible fidelity, so the semantic detail that a downstream detector needs is the first thing lost at low bitrates. This paper proposes RPCGC, a dual-layer geometry codec in which a base layer stores a coarse G-PCC reconstruction and an enhancement layer codes residuals, with both layers steered toward object regions by an ROI mask produced by a segmentation-style prediction network. The mask enters twice: it multiplies the residual features before entropy coding, and it weights a Chamfer-distance distortion term per point, so bits are spent preferentially on foreground objects. A detection loss from a 3D object detector is added to the rate-distortion objective, jointly optimizing compression and perception. The paper reports that at high bitrates on ScanNet and SUN RGB-D this scheme beats several learning-based codecs on both rate-distortion and detection accuracy, with roughly 10% higher mAP.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ROI mask produced by the pair (RPN, RSN): the RPN is a sparse-convolution U-Net that outputs a per-point probability of instance label, and the RSN converts that into a foreground/background mask matched to residual features by nearest-neighbor search, with foreground weighted doubly. This mask is the mechanism that carries the argument in two places: it multiplies the enhancement-layer residual feature map, written $x'_{enh} = x_{enh} * (1 + x_m)$, and it enters the distortion term as the Mask-weighted Chamfer Distance $D_{RW-CD}$, in which each point's squared distance is weighted by its predicted mask value. The same mask logic is reflected in the total loss $L_{total} = \alpha D_{RW-CD} + \beta R + \gamma L_{detection}$, coupling rate, fidelity, and detection. A semantic-aware attention module and a multi-scale feature extraction module sit inside the residual codec and are shown by ablation to improve compression performance; the mask and detection loss are what move detection accuracy.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment would settle it: run RPCGC and the baselines on SUN RGB-D with masks predicted by the RPN (mIoU about 60%) rather than ground-truth labels, give every codec the same joint detection-loss fine-tuning, and compare mAP at matched bitrates; if the detection gain over baselines falls below the reported roughly 10%, the evaluation protocol rather than the ROI mechanism is carrying the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that ROI-guided bit allocation makes point cloud geometry compression serve both humans and machines: treating object regions as a mask and weighting both the residual features and the distortion metric by that mask yields a reconstruction that is better for 3D object detection without sacrificing visual fidelity. The mechanism is a two-layer encoding: the base layer uses G-PCC to code quantized coordinates, and the enhancement layer codes the residual between original and de-quantized coordinates, processed by residual analysis and synthesis networks. A sparse-convolution U-Net (the RPN) predicts per-point instance probabilities, and the RSN converts them into a foreground/background mask that is applied to residual features as strong supervision and to a mask-weighted Chamfer distance as weak supervision. Detection loss from the Group-Free detector is folded into the rate-distortion objective. The experiments show the gain is confined to higher bitrates: around 0.5-3 bpp the detection mAP rises by roughly 10% over the compared learning-based codecs, while at low bitrates contour information is lost and G-PCC/AVS detect better.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported detection comparison isolates the ROI mechanism: on SUN RGB-D the encoder is given original segmentation labels instead of the RPN's own predictions, and RPCGC is jointly optimized with the detector while the comparison codecs are not, so a practitioner who has to predict masks and tune all codecs equally might see the roughly 10% detection gain shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If RPCGC is right, point cloud codecs can be built with a two-layer structure where the enhancement layer's bit budget is explicitly steered by object masks, and this pays off specifically in the high-bitrate regime used by machine-analysis applications.
  • At high bitrates on ScanNet, RPCGC reports BD-PSNR gains of 9.129 dB over PCGCv2 and 1.211 dB over SparsePCGC on D1 PSNR, and detection mAP@0.25 rises to 0.562-0.616 compared with about 0.52-0.63 for the baselines, with similar average gains on SUN RGB-D.
  • The method is not a low-bitrate win: the paper states that at lower bitrates G-PCC and AVS detect better, and RPCGC is likely better suited for applications that require high bitrates specifications.
  • The ablation results imply that each component contributes differently: detection loss and mask weighting mainly lift detection, while SAM and MSFEM mainly lift reconstruction fidelity, so the design can be tuned per task.
  • The generalization experiments on MPEG/MVUB samples indicate the ROI and loss modules transfer to voxelized point clouds outside ScanNet and SUN RGB-D, beating traditional and early learned codecs on D2 PSNR.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the SUN RGB-D evaluation uses ground-truth segmentation labels rather than the RPN's predicted masks (the paper reports RPN mIoU of only about 60%), the practical gain depends on how well the mask predictor does at inference; a fair field test should use predicted masks and report the drop.
  • Editorial inference: the baselines are not jointly optimized with the detector, so part of the 10% detection gap may come from joint optimization rather than from the ROI mechanism itself; retraining all codecs with the same detection loss would isolate the ROI contribution.
  • Editorial inference: the mask-weighted distortion idea is naturally a rate-allocation rule, so it could be extended to other downstream tasks such as classification and segmentation, and to variable-rate point cloud codecs, which the authors list as future directions.
  • Editorial inference: if the RPN could be made lightweight and run entirely on the encoder side, the same architecture would apply to LiDAR point clouds from autonomous driving, where the high-bitrate regime is common; this is a testable extension the paper does not carry out.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an ROI-guided point cloud geometry compression framework (RPCGC) that combines a G-PCC-based base layer with a learned enhancement layer. An ROI prediction network (RPN) and ROI searching network (RSN) generate per-point masks that weight both the residual features and a Chamfer-distance distortion term, and a detection loss from Group-Free is added to the rate-distortion objective. The authors claim exceptional compression performance and a roughly 10% detection accuracy improvement over learning-based methods at high bitrates on ScanNet and SUN RGB-D. The compression results are reported via RD curves and BD-PSNR, and detection results via mAP@0.25 and mAP@0.5.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the ROI-guided bit allocation and joint detection loss would be a practically valuable contribution to human-and-machine point cloud compression. The paper has clear strengths: a complete dual-branch architecture with residual analysis/synthesis, a Multi-Scale Feature Extraction Module, a Semantic-aware Attention Module, ablation studies, and generalization experiments on MPEG datasets. The RD comparisons on ScanNet against learned codecs are informative. However, the central machine-vision claim is not established by the experiments as reported, because the detection evaluation uses oracle ground-truth masks on SUN RGB-D and jointly trains the detector for RPCGC while using an off-the-shelf detector for all baselines. The compression claims are also somewhat overstated relative to the reported BD-PSNR values. As a result, the main novelty—the ROI-guided mechanism—is not isolated or validated by the current protocol.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] The SUN RGB-D experiments use the original segmentation labels instead of RPN-predicted masks because the RPN mIoU is only 60%. This is an oracle setting: the encoder is given object-location information that would not be available to a deployed codec. The claimed detection gain on SUN RGB-D is therefore an upper bound on the proposed pipeline, not its actual performance. Please report detection accuracy with predicted RPN masks or explicitly reframe these experiments as an oracle study and adjust the abstract and conclusion claims accordingly.
  2. [Section 4.2, Machine Vision Evaluation] The detection comparison is confounded by asymmetric detector training. Baselines are evaluated with an off-the-shelf Group-Free detector, while RPCGC's compression network and the detector are jointly optimized using the detection loss in Eq. (10). Figure 5(d) shows that adding detection loss alone markedly improves detection performance, so the reported mAP gap may be due to detector adaptation rather than to ROI-guided compression. A matched protocol—either a fixed detector for all codecs or the same fine-tuning procedure on compressed outputs for every codec—is needed to attribute the gain to the proposed mechanism.
  3. [Table 2] The detection table reports rows without bpp labels, stating that 'each algorithm computes detection accuracy at a similar bpp' without specifying the operating points. The claimed 'roughly 10%' improvement cannot be traced from the table, and several rows contradict it (e.g., ScanNet row 3 at mAP@0.25: RPCGC 0.616 vs G-PCC 0.629; SUN RGB-D row 1 at mAP@0.25: RPCGC 0.032 vs G-PCC 0.099). Please provide bpp values for each row and report results at explicitly matched bitrates.
  4. [Abstract, Table 1, Figure 3] The compression performance claims are overstated. On SUN RGB-D, Table 1 shows RPCGC is worse than G-PCC in D2 PSNR (-0.185 dB) and worse than SPCGC in D1 PSNR (-0.126 dB); on ScanNet, D2 PSNR is -0.084 dB relative to G-PCC. The text should qualify 'exceptional compression performance' to the specific bitrate ranges and distortion metrics where RPCGC is actually superior.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (2)] The information-bottleneck notation is inconsistent: \bar{x} and t are not defined, and the variables v and t are not used consistently in the derivation.
  2. [Section 3.4] After describing the entropy encoder for the enhancement layer, the text says 'obtaining the BL bitstream'; this appears to be a typo for 'EL bitstream'.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'RPCGC-base represents a scenario where no optimization strategies are added'; please clarify which strategies are omitted (mask weighting, detection loss, or both) and whether the architecture is otherwise unchanged.
  4. [Table 3] The average encoding time for SPCGC is listed as 1.327 seconds, which is inconsistent with the ScanNet and SUN RGB-D values (0.738 and 0.589 seconds); please verify the average calculation.
  5. [Section 1] The claim of being 'the first to introduce' an ROI-guided point cloud compression scheme should be supported by a more detailed comparison with existing task-oriented point cloud compression works, such as [19], [21], [39], and [49], which also target machine vision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the compression RD derivation is self-contained; the detection comparison is confounded by joint detection loss and oracle SUN RGB-D masks, but this is a validity risk, not a derivation-level circle.

full rationale

The paper's compression derivation is self-contained. The base/enhancement residual structure follows G-PCC and GRASP-Net-style residual coding; the rate-distortion objective (Eqs. 4-6, 10) is a standard RD loss augmented by a mask-weighted Chamfer distance, and the mask is produced by an RPN trained with cross-entropy on instance labels (Eq. 8). No load-bearing equation reduces to its own input by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or central premise is imported from the authors' own prior work; the many self-citations (e.g., [46]-[51]) are contextual. The main concern is the machine-vision evaluation, not circularity. Section 4.2 states that 'unlike other algorithms that put compressed data into a Group-Free detector, RPCGC utilizes a joint optimization approach', and Eq. (10) puts gamma*L_detection into the training loss, so the reported mAP gap is not an independent test of the ROI-guided codec. Section 4.1 further discloses that on SUN RGB-D 'we use the original segmentation labels instead of the predictions from the RPN model', giving the encoder oracle object information. These protocol choices mean the 10% detection gain could shrink in a matched comparison with predicted masks and equally fine-tuned baselines, but the detection mAP is a benchmark result rather than a quantity derived from the RD equations; the D1/D2 PSNR fidelity comparisons against G-PCC, AVS, PCGCv2, and SparsePCGC remain independent external benchmarks. Hence no formal circularity, only an evaluation confound.

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

The method's reported gains rest on several hand-set weights (alpha, beta, gamma, quantization steps, foreground mask multiplier) and on domain assumptions about the surrogate loss, deterministic coding, foreground importance, and detector loss transfer. No code is released, and the SUN RGB-D mask comes from ground-truth labels, so the central detection claim carries the heaviest burden.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (distortion weight) = 1 to 5
    Set by hand in Eq. (10) to sweep the rate-distortion trade-off; the RD curves depend on this sweep.
  • beta (rate weight) = 1
    Fixed rate loss weight in Eq. (10); chosen by hand.
  • gamma (detection loss weight) = 0.01
    Weight of the Group-Free detection loss in Eq. (10); chosen by hand and critical for the detection gain claim.
  • quantization step = 0.15 to 0.45
    Adjusted to produce different bitrates; hand-set range for the rate-distortion curves.
  • foreground mask multiplier = 2
    Foreground mask values are applied to residual features with double weight; hand-set heuristic in Section 3.3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The total loss Eq. (6)/(10) is a valid surrogate for the information bottleneck objective Eq. (2), with distortion terms replacing mutual information terms.
    Section 3.2: 'We support lambda_h D_h as the proxy for mu I(...) and lambda_m D_m as a surrogate for tau I(...).' This replacement is assumed, not proven.
  • domain assumption The codec mapping is deterministic, so the conditional entropy term in Eq. (3) is zero.
    Section 3.2 Eq. (3) drops H((x_base, x'_enh) | x); quantization is treated as deterministic.
  • domain assumption Foreground objects, defined as all categories except furniture, doors, floors, and walls, are the regions that matter for detection.
    Section 3.3 Region Selection defines foreground and background; the whole method assumes preserving these regions improves detection.
  • domain assumption Group-Free detection loss is a good proxy for machine-vision task distortion.
    Section 3.5 adds L_detection to the RD loss; this assumes detector loss minimization transfers to mAP at test time.
  • domain assumption A G-PCC base layer plus a learned residual enhancement layer can represent the point cloud without losing critical geometry.
    Section 3.1 architecture; the central coding structure assumes residual coding is sufficient for both fidelity and detection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ROI-Guided Point Cloud Geometry Compression Towards Human and Machine Vision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/56MXGQUD

@misc{pith2026250414240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ROI-Guided Point Cloud Geometry Compression Towards Human and Machine Vision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/56MXGQUD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14240}
}
read the original abstract

Point cloud data is pivotal in applications like autonomous driving, virtual reality, and robotics. However, its substantial volume poses significant challenges in storage and transmission. In order to obtain a high compression ratio, crucial semantic details usually confront severe damage, leading to difficulties in guaranteeing the accuracy of downstream tasks. To tackle this problem, we are the first to introduce a novel Region of Interest (ROI)-guided Point Cloud Geometry Compression (RPCGC) method for human and machine vision. Our framework employs a dual-branch parallel structure, where the base layer encodes and decodes a simplified version of the point cloud, and the enhancement layer refines this by focusing on geometry details. Furthermore, the residual information of the enhancement layer undergoes refinement through an ROI prediction network. This network generates mask information, which is then incorporated into the residuals, serving as a strong supervision signal. Additionally, we intricately apply these mask details in the Rate-Distortion (RD) optimization process, with each point weighted in the distortion calculation. Our loss function includes RD loss and detection loss to better guide point cloud encoding for the machine. Experiment results demonstrate that RPCGC achieves exceptional compression performance and better detection accuracy (10% gain) than some learning-based compression methods at high bitrates in ScanNet and SUN RGB-D datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14240 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The overview of our proposed RPCGC framework includes: (1) The Residual Analysis Module (RAM) shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of the network in RPCGC. (a) “RAM” stands for the Residual Analysis Module, (b) “RSM” denotes the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance comparison using Rate-Distortion (RD) and Rate-Detection (R-mAP) curves under different bitrates. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The visualization of the detection outputs of differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The ablation experiment. (a) and (b) show the detection results of RPCGC on ScanNet using various models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yuanchao Bai, Xu Yang, Xianming Liu, Junjun Jiang, Yaowei Wang, Xiangyang Ji, and Wen Gao. 2022. Towards End-to-End Image Compression and Analysis with Transformers. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 36. 104–112

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Chunlei Cai, Li Chen, Xiaoyun Zhang, and Zhiyong Gao. 2019. End-to-End Optimized ROI Image Compression. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 29 (2019), 3442–3457

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Zhengxue Cheng, Heming Sun, and Masaru Takeuchi. 2020. Learned Image Com- pression with Discretized Gaussian Mixture Likelihoods and Attention Modules. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 7939–7948

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Christopher Choy, JunYoung Gwak, and Silvio Savarese. 2019. 4D Spatio- Temporal Convnets: Minkowski Convolutional Neural Networks. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 3075–3084

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Angela Dai, Angel X Chang, Manolis Savva, and Maciej Halber. 2017. Scannet: Richly-Annotated 3D Reconstructions of Indoor Scenes. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 5828–5839

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xi- aohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. 2020. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Haoqiang Fan, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. 2017. A Point Set Generation Network for 3D Object Reconstruction from a Single Image. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 605–613

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Songlin Fan, Wei Gao, and Ge Li. 2022. Salient object detection for point clouds. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 1–19

    work page 2022

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Chunyang Fu, Ge Li, Rui Song, Wei Gao, and Shan Liu. 2022. OctAttention: Octree-based Large-scale Contexts Model for Point Cloud Compression. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2202.06028 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Linyao Gao, Tingyu Fan, Jianqiang Wan, Yiling Xu, Jun Sun, and Zhan Ma

  3. [11]

    Wei Gao, Ge Li, Huiming Zheng, Yuyang Wu, and Liang Xie. 2022. OpenPoint- Cloud: An Open-Source Algorithm Library of Deep Learning Based Point Cloud Compression. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 7347–7350

    2022

  4. [12]

    September, 2022

    AVS Point Cloud Compression Working Group. September, 2022. Reference Soft- ware Algorithm Description of AVS Point Cloud Coding. Audio Video Standard, N3445, Online (September, 2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Gongde Guo, Hui Wang, and David Bell. 2003. KNN Model-Based Approach in Classification. In OTM Confederated International Conferences. Springer, 986–996

    2003

  6. [14]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. Identity Map- pings in Deep Residual Networks. In European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 630–645

    2016

  7. [15]

    Lila Huang, Shenlong Wang, Kelvin Wong, Jerry Liu, and Raquel Urtasun

  8. [16]

    Tianxin Huang and Yong Liu. 2019. 3D Point Cloud Geometry Compression on Deep Learning. In ACM International Conference on Multimedia . 890–898

    2019

  9. [17]

    Alireza Javaheri, Catarina Brites, Fernando Pereira, and João Ascenso. 2020. A Generalized Hausdorff Distance Based Quality Metric for Point Cloud Geometry. In International Conference on Quality of Multimedia Experience . IEEE, 1–6

    2020

  10. [18]

    Davi Lazzarotto and Touradj Ebrahimi. 2023. Evaluating the Effect of Sparse Convolutions on Point Cloud Compression. In 11th European Workshop on Visual Information Processing. IEEE, 1–6

    2023

  11. [19]

    Bojun Liu, Shanshan Li, Xihua Sheng, Li Li, and Dong Liu. 2023. Joint Opti- mized Point Cloud Compression for 3D Object Detection. In IEEE International Conference on Image Processing . IEEE, 1185–1189

    2023

  12. [20]

    Kang Liu, Dong Liu, Li Li, Ning Yan, and Houqiang Li. 2021. Semantics-to- Signal Scalable Image Compression with Learned Revertible Representations. International Journal of Computer Vision 129, 9 (2021), 2605–2621

    2021

  13. [21]

    Lei Liu, Zhihao Hu, and Jing Zhang. 2023. PCHM-Net: A New Point Cloud Compression Framework for Both Human Vision and Machine Vision. In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo . IEEE, 1997–2002

    2023

  14. [22]

    Ze Liu, Zheng Zhang, Yue Cao, Han Hu, and Xin Tong. 2021. Group-Free 3D Object Detection via Transformers. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. 2949–2958

    2021

  15. [23]

    January, 2016

    Charles Loop, Qin Cai, S Orts Escolano, and Philip A Chou. January, 2016. Mi- crosoft Voxelized Upper Bodies A Voxelized Point Cloud Dataset. MPEG, M38673, Geneva (January, 2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Xiaoqi Ma, Yingzhan Xu, Xinfeng Zhang, Lv Tang, Kai Zhang, and Li Zhang. 2023. HM-PCGC: A Human-Machine Balanced Point Cloud Geometry Compression Scheme. In IEEE International Conference on Image Processing . IEEE, 2265–2269

    2023

  17. [25]

    Yi Ma, Yongqi Zhai, Chunhui Yang, Jiayu Yang, Ruofan Wang, Jing Zhou, Kai Li, Ying Chen, and Ronggang Wang. 2021. Variable Rate ROI Image Compression Optimized for Visual Quality. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 1936–1940

    2021

  18. [26]

    Chou, David Flynn, Maja Krivokuća, Ohji Nakagami, and Toshiyasu Sugio

    Khaled Mammou, Philip A. Chou, David Flynn, Maja Krivokuća, Ohji Nakagami, and Toshiyasu Sugio. January, 2019. G-PCC Codec Description v2.MPEG, N18189, Marrakech (January, 2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Jiahao Pang, Muhammad Asad Lodhi, and Dong Tian. 2022. GRASP-Net: Geomet- ric Residual Analysis and Synthesis for Point Cloud Compression. InInternational Workshop on Advances in Point Cloud Compression, Processing and Analysis. 11–19

    2022

  20. [28]

    Aaditya Prakash, Nick Moran, Solomon Garber, Antonella DiLillo, and James Storer. 2017. Semantic Perceptual Image Compression using Deep Convolution Networks. In Data Compression Conference. IEEE, 250–259

    2017

  21. [29]

    Charles R Qi, Or Litany, Kaiming He, and Leonidas J Guibas. 2019. Deep Hough Voting for 3D Object Detection in Point Clouds. In IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision . 9277–9286

    2019

  22. [30]

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. 2017. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 652–660

    2017

  23. [31]

    Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. 2017. Pointnet++: Deep Hierarchical Feature Learning on Point Sets in a Metric Space. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Maurice Quach, Giuseppe Valenzise, and Frederic Dufaux. 2019. Learning Con- volutional Transforms for Lossy Point Cloud Geometry Compression. In IEEE international conference on image processing . IEEE, 4320–4324

    2019

  25. [33]

    Maurice Quach, Giuseppe Valenzise, and Frederic Dufaux. 2020. Improved Deep Point Cloud Geometry Compression. In IEEE International Workshop on Multime- dia Signal Processing. IEEE, 1–6

    2020

  26. [34]

    Zizheng Que, Guo Lu, and Dong Xu. 2021. Voxelcontext-Net: An Octree Based Framework for Point Cloud Compression. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 6042–6051

    2021

  27. [35]

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. 2015. U-net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 234–241

    2015

  28. [36]

    Rui Song, Chunyang Fu, Shan Liu, and Ge Li. 2023. Efficient Hierarchical Entropy Model for Learned Point Cloud Compression. InIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 14368–14377

    2023

  29. [37]

    Shuran Song, Samuel P Lichtenberg, and Jianxiong Xiao. 2015. SUN RGB-D: A RGB-D Scene Understanding Benchmark Suite. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 567–576

    2015

  30. [38]

    Naftali Tishby, Fernando C Pereira, and William Bialek. 2000. The Information Bottleneck Method. arXiv preprint physics/0004057 (2000)

    2000 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Mateen Ulhaq and Ivan V Bajić. 2023. Learned Point Cloud Compression for Classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.05959 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Jianqiang Wang, Dandan Ding, Zhu Li, Xiaoxing Feng, Chuntong Cao, and Zhan Ma. 2021. Sparse Tensor-based Multiscale Representation for Point Cloud Geometry Compression. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2111.10633 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Jianqiang Wang, Dandan Ding, Zhu Li, and Zhan Ma. 2021. Multiscale Point Cloud Geometry Compression. In Data Compression Conference. IEEE, 73–82

    2021

  34. [42]

    Jianqiang Wang, Hao Zhu, Haojie Liu, and Zhan Ma. 2021. Lossy Point Cloud Geometry Compression via End-to-End Learning. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 31, 12 (2021), 4909–4923

    2021

  35. [43]

    Louis Wiesmann, Andres Milioto, Xieyuanli Chen, Cyrill Stachniss, and Jens Behley. 2021. Deep Compression for Dense Point Cloud Maps. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6, 2 (2021), 2060–2067

    2021

  36. [44]

    Yuyang Wu, Liang Xie, Shangkun Sun, Wei Gao, and Yiqiang Yan. 2024. Adaptive Intra Period Size for Deep Learning-based Screen Content Video Coding. In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo Workshops . IEEE

    2024

  37. [45]

    Zhirong Wu, Shuran Song, Aditya Khosla, Fisher Yu, Linguang Zhang, and Xiaoou Tang. 2015. 3D Shapenets: A Deep Representation for Volumetric Shapes. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 1912–1920

    2015

  38. [46]

    Liang Xie and Wei Gao. 2024. LearningPCC: A PyTorch Library for Learning- Based Point Cloud Compression. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    2024

  39. [47]

    Liang Xie and Wei Gao. 2024. PCHMVision: An Open-Source Library of Point Cloud Compression for Human and Machine Vision. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia

    2024

  40. [49]

    Liang Xie, Wei Gao, and Huiming Zheng. 2022. End-to-End Point Cloud Geometry Compression and Analysis with Sparse Tensor. In International Workshop on Advances in Point Cloud Compression, Processing and Analysis . 27–32

    2022

  41. [50]

    Liang Xie, Wei Gao, Huiming Zheng, and Ge Li. 2024. SPCGC: Scalable Point Cloud Geometry Compression for Machine Vision. In IEEE International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation . 594–595

    2024

  42. [51]

    Liang Xie, Wei Gao, Huiming Zheng, and Hua Ye. 2024. Semantic-Aware Visual Decomposition for Point Cloud Geometry Compression. In2024 Data Compression Conference. 595–595. https://doi.org/10.1109/DCC58796.2024.00112

    2024

  43. [52]

    Liang Xie, MengHao Hu, and XinBei Bai. 2022. Online Improved Vehicle Track- ing Accuracy via Unsupervised Route Generation. In IEEE 34th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence . IEEE, 788–792

    2022

  44. [53]

    Liang Xie, MengHao Hu, XinBei Bai, and WenKe Huang. 2022. Towards Hardware- Friendly and Robust Facial Landmark Detection Method. In International Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing . Springer, 432–444

    2022

  45. [54]

    Liang Xie, Xingming Mu, and Wei Gao. 2024. PKU-DPCC: A New Dataset for Dynamic Point Cloud Compression. In APSIPA Transactions on Signal and Information Processing

    2024

  46. [55]

    Jiacheng Xu, Zhijun Fang, Yongbin Gao, Siwei Ma, Yaochu Jin, Heng Zhou, and Anjie Wang. 2021. Point AE-DCGAN: A Deep Learning Model for 3D Point Cloud Lossy Geometry Compression. In Data Compression Conference. IEEE, 379–379

    2021

  47. [56]

    Wei Yan, Shan Liu, Thomas H Li, Zhu Li, Ge Li, et al . 2019. Deep Autoencoder-based Lossy Geometry Compression for Point Clouds. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1905.03691 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Wenhan Yang, Haofeng Huang, Yueyu Hu, Ling-Yu Duan, and Jiaying Liu. 2021. Video Coding for Machine: Compact Visual Representation Compression for Intelligent Collaborative Analytics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.09241 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  49. [58]

    January, 2019

    Vladyslav Zakharchenko. January, 2019. V-PCC Codec Description. MPEG, N18190, Marrakech (January, 2019)

    2019

  50. [2020]

    In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Octsqueeze: Octree-Structured Entropy Model for LiDAR Compression. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 1313–1323

  51. [2021]

    In IEEE International Conference on Image Processing

    Point Cloud Geometry Compression Via Neural Graph Sampling. In IEEE International Conference on Image Processing . IEEE, 3373–3377

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.