Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

What is "Spatial" about Spatial Computing?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that spatial computing is best understood as a single integrative computational paradigm, with 'spatial' meaning both contextual understanding of space and mixed space for interaction.

desk verdict A clear conceptual synthesis of spatial computing's two schools, but the exhaustiveness of that 'two' is asserted rather than shown, and a plausible third school is sitting in the bibliography uncited. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20477 v2 pith:5NV252RA submitted 2025-08-28 cs.HC

Yibo Wang , Yuhan Luo , Janghee Cho , Junnan Yu This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords spatialcomputingmixedrealitygeographicinformationsciencehuman-computerinteractioncontextualunderstandingofspaceforparadigmconceptualanalysis
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 argues that 'spatial computing' names a single coherent field, not two disconnected technologies. It traces the term from its 2003 coinage back to geographic information systems and forward through mixed-reality research, then identifies two schools of thought about what 'spatial' means: space as contextual data that a machine interprets, and space as a mixed interactive medium where physical and digital environments merge for embodied interaction. The paper proposes an integrative computational paradigm in which these two senses are complementary dimensions of one relationship among space, computation, and human experience. A reader should care because conceptual fragmentation across GIScience, HCI, and computing currently blocks shared definitions, consistent evaluation criteria, and interdisciplinary system design.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a two-school taxonomy of the word 'spatial.' The first school, 'contextual understanding of space,' treats space as a data-rich environment to be captured, structured, and interpreted using point clouds, 3D meshes, and semantic maps. The second, 'mixed space for interaction,' treats space as a computational medium where digital and physical elements coexist and users interact through body, gesture, and context. The paper's argument works by showing that both schools already rely on space as an active, shaped, computable component, and that no recent application belongs exclusively to one school; the taxonomy therefore supports the proposed integrative computational parad

What would settle it

A systematic content analysis of peer-reviewed definitions of 'spatial computing' with explicit inclusion criteria from 2003 onward that surfaces a third operational notion of 'spatial'—for instance a purely formal geometric or phenomenological-experiential conception that cannot be reduced to contextual-understanding or mixed-space—would falsify the taxonomy's exhaustiveness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spatial computing should be understood as an integrative computational paradigm that redefines the relationship between space, computation, and human experience—not as either a set of geospatial technologies or a mixed-reality interaction technique. The paper reaches this claim by tracing two evolutionary threads—geospatial computing, rooted in GIS, and mixed reality, rooted in the reality-virtuality continuum—and then abstracting two corresponding schools of thought about the word 'spatial': a contextual understanding of space, in which computational models turn spatial data into meaning that guides interaction with the physical world, and a mixed space for interac

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central claim stands on the assumption that 'spatial' in spatial computing is fully captured by exactly two schools of thought—contextual understanding of space and mixed space for interaction—so if researchers hold a third distinct notion of space, the proposed unified paradigm would be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the integrative paradigm holds, researchers in GIScience, HCI, and mixed reality can work from a shared conceptual foundation instead of competing definitions.
  • System evaluation can be based on two dimensions: how well a system interprets spatial context and how well it supports embodied mixed-space interaction.
  • Future AR/VR and autonomous systems can be deliberately designed to combine spatial-data interpretation with interactional space, rather than optimizing one at the expense of the other.
  • Space becomes a first-class computational variable, so design moves beyond sensor accuracy and hardware performance to include how systems shape human perception, agency, and embodiment.
  • The two-school synthesis gives a historical continuity claim: geospatial computing and mixed reality are not separate histories but two threads of one trajectory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the taxonomy is taken prescriptively, it yields a two-axis design test: any proposed spatial system can be checked for how well it models the physical environment and how well it engages the user in that environment; systems weak on either axis would be incomplete spatial computing.
  • A systematic, inclusion-criteria-driven review of the literature might reveal a third sense of 'spatial'—for example a purely formal geometric or phenomenological-experiential conception—that the two-school taxonomy would need to absorb; the paper's integrative claim would then be extendable, not invalidated.
  • The paper's historical thread suggests a convergence prediction: as AI perception and mixed-reality displays mature, the two schools will increasingly merge, and the most informative test cases will be systems that must do both at once, such as autonomous robots that interact naturally with people in shared physical space.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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. This manuscript is a conceptual review aiming to clarify 'spatial computing.' It traces the term's origins (Greenwold 2003), identifies two historical threads (geospatial computing from GIScience; mixed reality from Milgram and immersive HCI), and then proposes that 'spatial' is understood in two schools: (1) spatial as contextual understanding, where spatial data guides machine interpretation of the physical world, and (2) spatial as mixed space for interaction, where digital and physical environments merge for embodied interaction. The authors synthesize these schools into an 'integrative computational paradigm' that redefines space, computation, and human experience, and they discuss representative applications, challenges, and future directions.

Significance. If the two-school taxonomy is accepted, the paper offers a useful, historically grounded synthesis and a clear pedagogical table (Table 1) that could help HCI, GIScience, and MR researchers communicate across disciplinary boundaries. The manuscript's strengths are its use of primary sources for the historical narrative (Greenwold, Milgram, Shekhar), its explicit linking of conceptual schools to concrete application categories, and its balanced discussion of challenges. Its central novelty claim—that spatial computing is one coherent integrative paradigm—is plausible and would be a genuinely helpful contribution to conceptual debates. However, the paper's contribution is critically dependent on the claim that the two schools exhaust how 'spatial' is understood across the relevant fields. That claim is currently not supported by a transparent methodology or by engagement with alternative conceptualizations. The synthesis in Section 4.1 is only as strong as the taxonomy's coverage, so this load-bearing point requires substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3 and §4.1] The two-school taxonomy is load-bearing: Section 4.1's 'integrative computational paradigm' synthesizes exactly these two schools, and Section 4.2 calls the identification a 'structured and systematic approach.' Yet no method is given for selecting or analyzing the 40 references: there are no inclusion criteria, search strategy, or definition-extraction procedure. The stress-test note's specific claim that [7] is never cited is not correct—[7] is cited in the opening paragraph of §3—but the underlying concern remains: [7] (Brodersen et al., 'Spatial Computing and Spatial Practices') is never discussed, and its focus on spatial practices and the social construction of space is not obviously reducible to either 'contextual understanding' or 'mixed space for interaction.' Similarly, the paper folds a formal/geometric notion of space into School 1 without argument. Since the central definiti
  2. [§1] The paper's motivating claim that conceptual fragmentation 'hinders the necessary theoretical foundation' and 'complicat[es] system development by preventing the establishment of consistent evaluation criteria' is supported only by reference [15], a general HCI methods chapter (Hudson & Mankoff). No spatial-computing-specific evidence is provided for this causal claim. As this motivation is used to justify the entire review, the authors should either supply concrete examples of evaluative or developmental problems caused by definitional divergence or soften the claim to a plausible observation rather than an established obstacle.
  3. [§4.2] The sentence 'Our identification of these two perspectives on space offers, for the first time, a structured and systematic approach to integrating diverse perspectives on spatial computing' is an unsupported priority claim. Prior surveys and taxonomies of spatial computing exist (including some cited in this very paper, e.g., [29], [38]), so 'for the first time' is likely overclaiming. This sentence should be removed or qualified (e.g., 'in this paper, we offer...').
  4. [§4.1] The proposed definition—'spatial computing should be understood as an integrative computational paradigm'—is presented as the payoff of the review, but the manuscript does not articulate criteria by which this synthesis could be assessed. What would count as a successful integrative paradigm, or a failure? Without such criteria, the definition risks being a restatement of the two schools under a single label. The authors should clarify the added analytical value of the synthesis over simply listing the two schools, perhaps by showing how the integrated framework yields design or research questions that the separate schools would miss.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, §3.2.1] The term 'interfaceless experience' is used without definition; it should be defined at first use. Also, 'Optic See-Through MR' should be 'Optical See-Through MR.'
  2. [Table 1] In Table 1, 'Geoscience' under Application Areas is imprecise; the paper consistently uses 'GIScience' elsewhere. Please harmonize.
  3. [References [11], [33]] References [11] (Future Market Insights) and [33] (LinkedIn post) are non-archival industry sources. If these statistics are retained, the authors should label them as industry estimates and, where possible, cite peer-reviewed or archival sources for market and search-volume data.
  4. [§4.3.1] The parenthetical '(simulation environment)' after 'dynamically interpreted and computed environment' is unclear; it seems to introduce a term not defined or used elsewhere. Please clarify or remove.
  5. [§2.2] The phrase 'dissolved the boundaries' is used twice in close proximity (end of §2.2 and §4.3.2); rephrase one occurrence for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a conceptual synthesis; the proposed 'integrative paradigm' is a definitional umbrella, not a derived prediction, and no self-citation chain is load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a conceptual literature review and synthesis; it contains no equations, fitted parameters, or empirical predictions, so the main quantitative circularity patterns do not apply. The central claim (Section 4.1) is a proposed definition of spatial computing as an 'integrative computational paradigm,' formed by combining the two schools identified in Section 3. A definitional proposal of this kind is not a derivation: the paper does not claim to predict the schools from the paradigm or the paradigm from the schools; it names a synthesis. The two-school taxonomy is built from narrative selection of references rather than a systematic corpus method, and the paper acknowledges the perspectives are not mutually exclusive (Section 4). Selection bias or lack of formal inclusion criteria is a validity/rigor limitation, not circularity. The skeptic's claim that reference [7] (Brodersen et al., 'Spatial Computing and Spatial Practices') is never cited is factually incorrect: Section 3 cites [7] alongside [18] as an example of framing spatial computing as a technological framework. There are no self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The 'integrative paradigm' is essentially an umbrella definition, and presenting a definition as a contribution may be modest, but it does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper relies on standard scholarly assumptions about representative citation and accurate reporting of cited sources. The main unstated premises are that a hand-picked narrative review can establish the taxonomy and that conceptual confusion is a real obstacle. No quantitative fitting occurs.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The literature cited in the paper is representative of how spatial computing is conceptualized across disciplines.
    Sections 2 and 3 build the two-thread and two-school taxonomy on 40 selected references without a systematic corpus, inclusion criteria, or coding protocol.
  • domain assumption Conceptual fragmentation actually obstructs progress in spatial computing.
    Introduction and Section 4 claim fragmentation 'hinders the necessary theoretical foundation' and 'complicates system development', supported only by Hudson and Mankoff [15], a general HCI methods reference, not by evidence specific to spatial computing.
  • domain assumption The market and public-interest statistics (5,500% search rise; USD 97.9B to 280B market) are reliable.
    Section 1 sources these figures to a LinkedIn post [33] and an industry market report [11], not academic measurements.
invented entities (1)
  • Spatial computing as an integrative computational paradigm redefining environment, computation, and human experience
    purpose: To unify the two schools and give the field a single conceptual anchor.
    This is a definitional proposal introduced in Section 4.1; it has no external predictor or falsifiable handle outside the paper, only coordinating value.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What is "Spatial" about Spatial Computing?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NV252RA

@misc{pith2026250820477,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What is "Spatial" about Spatial Computing?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NV252RA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20477}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in geographic information systems and mixed reality technologies have positioned spatial computing as a transformative paradigm in computational science. However, the field remains conceptually fragmented, with diverse interpretations across disciplines like Human-Computer Interaction, Geographic Information Science, and Computer Science, which hinders a comprehensive understanding of spatial computing and poses challenges for its coherent advancement and interdisciplinary integration. In this paper, we trace the origins and historical evolution of spatial computing and examine how "spatial" is understood, identifying two schools of thought: "spatial" as the contextual understanding of space, where spatial data guides interaction in the physical world; and "spatial" as a mixed space for interaction, emphasizing the seamless integration of physical and digital environments to enable embodied engagement. By synthesizing these perspectives, we propose spatial computing as a computational paradigm that redefines the interplay between environment, computation, and human experience, offering a holistic lens to enhance its conceptual clarity and inspire future technological innovations that support meaningful interactions with and shaping of environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20477 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Origin of Spatial Computing and Its Two Evolutionary Threads: The Geospatial Computing and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Anders Brodersen, Monika Büscher, Michael Christensen, Mette Agger Eriksen, Kaj Grønbæk, Jannie Friis Kristensen, Gunnar Kramp, Peter Krogh, Martin Ludvigsen, Preben Holst Mogensen, Michael Bang Nielsen, Dan Shapiro, and Peter Ørbæk. 2007. Spatial Computing and Spatial Practices. In The Disappearing Computer, Norbert Streitz, Achilles Kameas, and Irene Ma...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-540- 2007

  2. [15]

    Hudson and Jennifer Mankoff

    Scott E. Hudson and Jennifer Mankoff. 2014. Concepts, Values, and Methods for Technical Human–Computer Interaction Research. In Ways of Knowing in HCI , Judith S. Olson and Wendy A. Kellogg (Eds.). Springer New York, New York, NY, 69–93. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_4 2014

  3. [29]

    Shashi Shekhar, Steven Feiner, and Walid G. Aref. 2015. From GPS and virtual globes to spatial computing - 2020. GeoInformatica 19, 4 (Oct. 2015), 799–832. doi:10.1007/s10707-015-0235-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10707-015-0235-9 2015

  4. [38]

    Tigwell, Nicolas Lalone, Pengyuan Zhou, Michael Saker, Alan Chamberlain, John Dunham, Sanzida Mojib Luna, and David Schwartz

    Jiangnan Xu, Konstantinos Papangelis, Garreth W. Tigwell, Nicolas Lalone, Pengyuan Zhou, Michael Saker, Alan Chamberlain, John Dunham, Sanzida Mojib Luna, and David Schwartz. 2024. Spatial Computing: Defining the Vision for the Future. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–4. doi:10.114...

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [1]

    Adam, Basit Shafiq, and Robin Staffin

    Nabil R. Adam, Basit Shafiq, and Robin Staffin. 2012. Spatial Computing and Social Media in the Context of Disaster Management. IEEE Intelligent Systems 27, 6 (Nov. 2012), 90–96. doi:10.1109/MIS.2012.113

    work page doi:10.1109/mis.2012.113 2012

  6. [2]

    John Akers, Joelle Zimmermann, Laura Trutoiu, Brian Schowengerdt, and Ira Kemelmacher-Shlizerman. 2020. Mixed Reality Spatial Computing in a Remote Learning Classroom. In Symposium on Spatial User Interaction . ACM, Virtual Event Canada, 1–3. doi:10.1145/3385959.3422705

    work page arXiv 2020

  7. [3]

    Till Ballendat, Nicolai Marquardt, and Saul Greenberg. 2010. Proxemic interaction: designing for a proximity and orientation-aware environment. In ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces . 121–130

    work page 2010

  8. [4]

    Caseysimone Ballestas, Senthil Chandrasegaran, and Euiyoung Kim. 2021. A Framework for Centralizing Ethics in the Design Engineering of Spatial Computing Artifacts. In Volume 6: 33rd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (DTM). American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Virtual, Online, V006T06A040. doi:10.1115/DETC2021- 71203

    doi:10.1115/detc2021- 2021

Show all 40 references
  1. [5]

    Sarah Witham Bednarz and Karen Kemp. 2011. Understanding and nurturing spatial literacy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 21 (2011), 18–23

    2011

  2. [6]

    Jessica Blanchard, Sonita Koshal, Simon Morley, and Mark McGurk. 2022. The use of mixed reality in dentistry. British Dental Journal 233, 4 (Aug. 2022), 261–265. doi:10.1038/s41415-022-4451-z

    2022 doi

  3. [8]

    Jeffrey Delmerico, Roi Poranne, Federica Bogo, Helen Oleynikova, Eric Vollenweider, Stelian Coros, Juan Nieto, and Marc Pollefeys. 2022. Spatial Computing and Intuitive Interaction: Bringing Mixed Reality and Robotics Together. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine 29, 1 (March ...

    2022

  4. [9]

    Paul Dourish. 2001. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction . The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/mitpress/ 7221.001.0001

    2001 doi

  5. [10]

    Raul Fernandez-Rojas, Anthony Perry, Hemant Singh, Benjamin Campbell, Saber Elsayed, Robert Hunjet, and Hussein A. Abbass. 2019. Contextual Awareness in Human-Advanced-Vehicle Systems: A Survey.IEEE Access 7 (2019), 33304–33328. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2902812

    2019

  6. [11]

    Future Market Insights. 2022. Spatial Computing Market Size, Demand & Trends 2022-2032. https://www. futuremarketinsights.com/reports/spatial-computing-market

    2022

  7. [12]

    Dweepna Garg, Bhavika Patel, Radhika Patel, and Ritika Jani. 2023. Spatial Computing: Next Big Thing of Physical and Digital World. In ICDSMLA 2021, Amit Kumar, Sabrina Senatore, and Vinit Kumar Gunjan (Eds.). Vol. 947. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 211–219. doi:10.100...

    2023 doi

  8. [13]

    Simon Greenwold. 2003. Spatial computing. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Master (2003)

    2003

  9. [14]

    Saurabh Gupta, Varun Tolani, James Davidson, Sergey Levine, Rahul Sukthankar, and Jitendra Malik. 2017. Cognitive Mapping and Planning for Visual Navigation. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.1702.03920

    2017 doi arXiv

  10. [16]

    Hiroshi Ishii and Brygg Ullmer. 1997. Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems . ACM, Atlanta Georgia USA, 234–241. doi:10.1145/258549.258715

    1997

  11. [17]

    Hyeonjung (Tari) Jung, Mingzhou Yang, Matthew Eagon, and William Northrop. 2022. Revolutionizing electric vehicle management: spatial computing challenges and opportunities. InProceedings of the 15th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Computational Transportation Science...

    2022

  12. [18]

    Mohammad Keshavarzi. 2022. Contextual Spatial Computing: A Generative Approach . PhD thesis. UC Berkeley. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/68q581bt

    2022

  13. [19]

    Yang, Patrick Peluse, and Luisa Caldas

    Mohammad Keshavarzi, Michael Zollhoefer, Allen Y. Yang, Patrick Peluse, and Luisa Caldas. 2022. Synthesizing Novel Spaces for Remote Telepresence Experiences. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, Singapore, Singapor...

    2022

  14. [20]

    Werner Kuhn and Andrea Ballatore. 2015. Designing a Language for Spatial Computing. InAGILE 2015, Fernando Bacao, Maribel Yasmina Santos, and Marco Painho (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 309–326. doi:10.1007/978- , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: Se...

    2015 doi

  15. [21]

    Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521, 7553 (May 2015), 436–444. doi:10.1038/nature14539

    2015 doi

  16. [22]

    David J Maguire. 1991. An overview and definition of GIS. Geographical information systems: Principles and applications 1, 1 (1991), 9–20

    1991

  17. [23]

    Paul Milgram, Haruo Takemura, Akira Utsumi, and Fumio Kishino. 1994. Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies 2351 (01 1994). doi:10.1117/12.197321

    1994 doi

  18. [24]

    Donald A Norman. 1998. The invisible computer

    1998

  19. [25]

    Erin Pangilinan, Steve Lukas, and Vasanth Mohan (Eds.). 2019. Creating augmented and virtual realities: theory and practice for next-generation spatial computing (first edition ed.). O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA

    2019

  20. [26]

    Jakub Rozlivek, Alessandro Roncone, Ugo Pattacini, and Matej Hoffmann. 2025. HARMONIOUS—Human-Like Reactive Motion Control and Multimodal Perception for Humanoid Robots. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 41 (2025), 378–393. doi:10.1109/TRO.2024.3502216

    2025

  21. [27]

    Archana Sasi and Sathish Kumar Ravichandran. 2021. Future Innovation in Healthcare by Spatial Computing using ProjectDR. In 2021 Third International Conference on Inventive Research in Computing Applications (ICIRCA) . IEEE, Coimbatore, India, 829–833. doi:10.1109/ICIRCA51532....

    2021

  22. [28]

    Arathi Sethumadhavan, Josh Lovejoy, and David Mondello. 2021. A framework for evaluating social acceptability of spatial computing devices. Interactions 28, 3 (May 2021), 52–56. doi:10.1145/3457873

    2021 doi

  23. [30]

    Feiner, and Walid G

    Shashi Shekhar, Steven K. Feiner, and Walid G. Aref. 2015. Spatial computing. Commun. ACM 59, 1 (Dec. 2015), 72–81. doi:10.1145/2756547

    2015 doi

  24. [31]

    Shashi Shekhar and Pamela Vold. 2020. Spatial computing. The MIT Press, Cambridge. doi:10.7551/mitpress/11275.001. 0001

    2020 doi

  25. [32]

    John Snow. 1856. Cholera and the water supply in the south districts of London in 1854. Journal of Public Health, and Sanitary Review 2, 7 (1856), 239

  26. [33]

    Nifty Sparks. 2024. One Month Later: The Impact of Apple’s Vision Pro on Metaverse Search Volume. https: //www.linkedin.com/pulse/one-month-later-impact-apples-vision-pro-metaverse-search/

    2024

  27. [34]

    Yiliu Tang, Jason Situ, and Yun Huang. 2024. Beyond User Experience: Technical and Contextual Metrics for Large Language Models in Extended Reality. In Companion of the 2024 on ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. ACM, Melbourne VIC Austral...

    2024

  28. [35]

    Ramon Elias Weber. 2024. Spatial Computing for Building Performance and Design . PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/157180

    2024

  29. [36]

    Mark Weiser. 1999. The computer for the 21 st century. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review 3, 3 (July 1999), 3–11. doi:10.1145/329124.329126

    1999

  30. [37]

    Yiqun Xie, Jayant Gupta, Yan Li, and Shashi Shekhar. 2018. Transforming Smart Cities with Spatial Computing. In2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2) . IEEE, Kansas City, MO, USA, 1–9. doi:10.1109/ISC2.2018.8656800

    2018

  31. [39]

    Bo Zhang, Jiakang Yuan, Botian Shi, Tao Chen, Yikang Li, and Yu Qiao. 2023. Uni3D: a unified baseline for multi-dataset 3D object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR) . 9253–9262

    2023

  32. [40]

    Hengshuang Zhao, Jianping Shi, Xiaojuan Qi, Xiaogang Wang, and Jiaya Jia. 2017. Pyramid Scene Parsing Network. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . 6230–6239. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2017.660 , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2025

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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