Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 88 references

Procedural Generation of 3D Maize Plant Architecture from LIDAR Data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two-stage optimizer turns maize LiDAR scans into editable 3D leaf models

desk verdict A practical two-stage NURBS fitting pipeline for maize leaves, but the quantitative evidence is in-sample training error and the paper carries a fabricated citation; worth a serious referee only with major revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13963 v1 pith:SBQBFMBM submitted 2025-01-21 cs.CV cs.LG

Mozhgan Hadadi , Mehdi Saraeian , Jackson Godbersen , Talukder Jubery , Yawei Li , Lakshmi Attigala , Aditya Balu , Soumik Sarkar
show 3 more authors
Patrick S. Schnable Adarsh Krishnamurthy Baskar Ganapathysubramanian
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords proceduralmodelingNURBSsurfacesLiDARpointclouds3Dplantphenotypingparticleswarmoptimizationdifferentiableprogrammingmaizearchitecturephyllotaxy
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 claims that a two-stage optimization pipeline can automatically convert raw LiDAR point clouds of field-grown maize plants into editable, CAD-style 3D leaf models, without manual modeling, across diverse genotypes. The first stage uses particle swarm optimization (PSO) to fit a coarse NURBS surface to each segmented leaf; the second stage refines it with a differentiable NURBS module, reducing the Chamfer distance from roughly 0.1–1.0 mm to 0.02–0.07 mm. If the claim holds, plant scientists gain a scalable route from unstructured scans to structured parametric models from which traits such as leaf angle, curvature, and phyllotaxy can be read directly, and the fitted surfaces can serve as digital twins for simulation. The paper demonstrates the pipeline on multiple maize inbred lines and reports that a full ten-leaf plant reconstructs in about an hour.

What carries the argument

The central object is a bi-cubic NURBS surface with a fixed $3\times 6$ grid of control points, defined by 32 parameters: six shared $x$-coordinates, six mid-row $y$-values plus six $\Delta y$ offsets that create symmetric tapering, and fourteen $z$-values that capture curvature. A Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline (NURBS) surface is a standard CAD representation defined by control points, weights, and knot vectors; here the weights and knot vectors are held constant. The argument is carried by the two-stage optimizer: PSO provides a global initial fit using a loss that combines Chamfer and Hausdorff distances, and NURBS-Diff refines the control points with an Adam optimizer on an $8\times 32$ evaluation grid, using a loss that adds curvature and proximity penalties to the Chamfer distance.

What would settle it

Take a maize leaf with pronounced twisting or double curvature, segment it cleanly, and run the pipeline; if the final Chamfer distance does not fall below roughly 0.1 mm or the fitted surface visibly flattens the twist, the fixed 3×6 NURBS topology cannot represent such leaves and the claimed cross-genotype generality fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the combination of global PSO initialization and gradient-based differentiable NURBS refinement yields accurate 3D reconstructions of maize leaves from LiDAR point clouds, with fidelity sufficient for downstream phenotyping. The authors show that PSO alone captures the overall leaf shape but leaves systematic error near edges and tips, while the subsequent refinement lowers the Chamfer distance by roughly an order of magnitude across all reported leaves. The fixed $3\times 6$ bi-cubic NURBS control-point topology, with shared $x$-coordinates and symmetric $y$ offsets, encodes the prior that a maize leaf is a single smoothly tapering, curved surface, and the optimization adjusts 32 parameters (plus one rotation angle) to fit it to each leaf's point cloud.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes each leaf has already been separated from the stalk and other leaves in the point cloud, and that every maize leaf can be represented by a single bi-cubic NURBS surface with the fixed 3×6 control-point layout and parameter bounds; leaves with complex double curvature, twisting, or segmentation errors break that assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reported Chamfer distances fall from 0.09–1.02 mm after PSO to 0.02–0.07 mm after NURBS-Diff, a roughly tenfold improvement in fit fidelity.
  • A complete ten-leaf maize plant reconstructs in about one hour ($3430 \pm 490$ s on a 96-core CPU), with each leaf fit independently and therefore parallelizable.
  • Because the output is a parametric NURBS surface, traits such as leaf length, width, curvature, and phyllotaxy can be computed from the fitted control points rather than from raw point clouds.
  • The curvature and proximity penalties in the loss let the method bridge gaps in incomplete point clouds, demonstrated on a T8 leaf with missing data.
  • The pipeline is demonstrated on diverse SAM-panel genotypes including B73, Mo17, CML238, T8, M162W, and CI90C, suggesting no per-genotype retuning is required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The accuracy numbers are fit-to-scan errors, not ground-truth leaf geometry; an external validation against manual leaf measurements would be needed to confirm that the reconstructed surfaces are phenotypically accurate.
  • Because the fixed $3\times 6$ topology assumes a single smooth tapered surface, leaves with strong twisting or double curvature would likely break the fit; testing on such leaves would delineate the true scope of the cross-genotype claim.
  • The one-hour runtime and the manual or visual segmentation step suggest that the highest-leverage improvement is replacing the PSO initialization with a learned predictor and automating leaf separation, which would make the pipeline truly high-throughput.
  • The same two-stage recipe of meta-heuristic initialization followed by differentiable NURBS refinement could transfer to other organs or species whose leaves are roughly single-sheet surfaces, provided the parameterization is adjusted.
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 a two-stage pipeline for reconstructing NURBS-based 3D models of maize leaves from LiDAR point clouds. In the first stage, particle swarm optimization (PSO) fits an initial 3×6 control-point NURBS surface using a Chamfer-plus-Hausdorff objective (Eq. 8). In the second stage, the differentiable NURBS module NURBS-Diff refines the control points with a loss that combines a one-sided Chamfer distance with curvature and proximity regularizers (Eq. 14). The authors claim that this reduces Chamfer distances to 0.02–0.07 mm (Table 2), that the method works across diverse genotypes, and that the resulting procedural models enable downstream trait extraction. The manuscript includes qualitative figures for several genotypes, runtime statistics, and an appendix with additional procedural model images.

Significance. If the central claim were supported by independent validation, the paper would offer a useful parametric, editable representation of maize leaves from LiDAR data, which is relevant for phenotyping and functional-structural plant modeling. The use of a differentiable NURBS module, the explicit two-stage optimization, and the stated intention to release code are positive features. However, as presented, the quantitative evidence is self-referential: the reported metric is essentially the objective minimized by the optimizer on the same point cloud, with no held-out data, no ground-truth geometry, no comparison with alternative reconstruction algorithms, and no error analysis. The cross-genotype claim rests on visual inspection and only two genotypes appear in the numerical table. A fabricated placeholder reference ("Smith and Doe", CropCraft) and the contradictory open-source statement further undermine the manuscript's reliability. The significance, therefore, is not yet established; the underlying idea is plausible, but the evidence is insufficient for the stated claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (14) and Table 2] The central quantitative evidence is circular. The NURBS-Diff loss in Eq. (14) is a one-sided Chamfer distance plus regularization terms, and the 'Chamfer distance' reported in Table 2 appears to be the same objective (or a close variant) evaluated on the same point cloud used for fitting. The paper never defines the metric in Table 2, and no held-out points, independent scans, manual measurements, or alternative reconstruction baselines are provided. Thus the reduction from ~0.1–1.0 mm to 0.02–0.07 mm mostly documents convergence of the training loss, not reconstruction accuracy. This is especially troubling because the scanner point spacing is 1.5 mm, so sub-0.1 mm values require external validation. The abstract's claim of 'accurate 3D reconstruction' and the conclusion's claim that the method 'greatly improves the quality of fit' are therefore not supported by the evidence as presented.
  2. [Section 4, Table 2 and Figures 7–12] The claim of 'diverse genotypes' is not quantitatively supported. Table 2 reports numerical results for only two genotypes (CML238 and T8), ten leaves each, with no error bars, no standard deviations, and no repetition of the stochastic PSO runs. The other genotypes (M162W, CI90C, B73, Mo17, etc.) appear only in qualitative figures. The fixed 3×6 control-point topology and parameter bounds in Section 3.2 may not capture leaves with complex double curvature or twisting, yet no analysis is provided to show when this topology fails. The claim of robustness and adaptability across genotypes therefore goes beyond the evidence.
  3. [References and Data Availability] The citation 'John Smith and Jane Doe, Cropcraft: Inverse procedural modeling for realistic 3D crop canopies, Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Conference, 2024, doi: 10.1145/1234567.8901234' in Section 1 and in the reference list is a placeholder/fabricated reference; the DOI has no real registry. This citation must be removed or replaced with a legitimate source. In addition, the abstract states 'All our codes are open-source,' but the Data Availability statement says the code 'will be publicly available upon acceptance,' and no repository link is provided. These are integrity issues that must be corrected.
  4. [Section 4 and Table 3] No comparison with existing surface reconstruction or NURBS-fitting methods is provided, even though the paper cites relevant work (e.g., Gálvez and Iglesias 2012 for PSO-based NURBS fitting, Kazhdan and Hoppe 2013 for Poisson reconstruction). Without a baseline, the claimed improvement in fit is not contextualized, and the reader cannot judge whether the two-stage method offers an advantage over simpler or cheaper alternatives. This is a load-bearing omission for the paper's contribution claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eq. (14)] The 'one-sided Chamfer distance' used in the loss is not defined in the manuscript. Please provide the exact formula and clarify how it differs from the two-sided version in Eq. (9).
  2. [Section 4, Table 3 and Figure 10] Please specify how many plants and which genotypes were used to compute the mean and standard deviation in Table 3, and clarify whether Figure 10 includes all 200 plants or only a subset with reported metadata.
  3. [Section 4, paragraph after Figure 9] The sentence 'also see Table 1 that shows the procedural model side by side with the 2D photos' cross-references the wrong table: Table 1 in the main text is the PSO hyperparameter table, while the procedural models appear in the Appendix tables that are also numbered Table 1 and Table 2. Please renumber the appendix tables and fix the reference.
  4. [Section 5] The conclusion mentions 'dealing with missing points in the point cloud data' as a main challenge and claims the optimization reduces their influence, but no quantitative robustness study or ablation on missing-data fraction is presented. Either add such an experiment or temper the claim.
  5. [Appendix] The appendix reuses the table numbers 'Table 1' and 'Table 2' from the main text, which causes confusion. Please use unique labels such as Table A.1 and Table A.2.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The main quantitative accuracy evidence—Table 2's Chamfer distance drop—is the same distance minimized by Eq. (14) on the same point cloud, so the 'accurate reconstruction' claim is supported by an in-sample training loss.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Table 2; Eq. (14); PSO fitness Eq. (8)]
    "To fit the original NURBS surface from PSO to the unstructured LIDAR data, we use the loss function: L_NURBS-Diff = d_one-sided_CD(X,Y) + ... ; ... As illustrated in Table 2, there is a significant decrease in Chamfer distance across all leaves after applying NURBS-Diff. For CML238, initial distances after PSO are as high as 1.02 mm (Leaf4), which are reduced to 0.06 mm post-optimization."

    The quantitative evidence for 'accurate reconstruction' is the Chamfer distance reported in Table 2. But Eq. (14) directly minimizes a one-sided Chamfer distance between the fitted surface and the LiDAR point cloud, with only mild regularization terms, and PSO's fitness Eq. (8) also contains d_CD. Thus the reported before/after reduction is the optimizer decreasing its own training objective on the same point cloud used for fitting; the outcome is forced by construction rather than measured against independent ground truth. Since no held-out points, manually measured leaf geometry, or second-view scans are used, the 'significant reduction' documents training-set convergence, not independent reconstruction accuracy.

full rationale

The pipeline itself is a legitimate fitting procedure, and several parts of the paper are independent: the method description, runtime statistics, visual before/after comparisons, and open-source code. The NURBS-Diff citation [Prasad et al. 2022] includes overlapping authors but is used as software infrastructure, not as evidence for a uniqueness theorem or for reconstruction accuracy, so it is not load-bearing circularity. The central problem is that the paper's headline quantitative claim—that NURBS-Diff 'greatly improves the quality of fit' and enables 'accurate 3D reconstruction'—rests on Table 2, and Table 2 reports the same Chamfer distance that Eqs. (8) and (14) explicitly minimize on the same LiDAR points. That makes the quantitative improvement an in-sample training loss rather than an externally validated accuracy measure; the decrease is expected by construction. This is a partial but real circularity in the central validation, so the score is 6 rather than 0-2; it would be lowered if an independent error metric (e.g., held-out points, manual measurements, or a baseline method comparison) were supplied.

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

The central reconstruction claim rests on the hand-designed PSO and loss hyperparameters, a fixed NURBS control-point topology, and the assumption that the input point clouds are correctly segmented leaves. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • PSO hyperparameters (c1, c2, inertia w, swarm size, iterations) = c1=2.5, c2=0.5, w=0.9 exponential decay, 300 particles, 50 iterations
    Hand-chosen in Section 3.2 and Table 1; the paper states 50 iterations were set based on experimental observations and population size follows cited heuristics, but the reported performance depends on these choices.
  • NURBS-Diff loss weights (lambda_curv11, lambda_curv12, lambda_proximity) = 1e-2, 1e-4, 8e-4
    Set in Section 3.3 without sensitivity analysis; they control smoothness and endpoint proximity and directly shape the fitted surface.
  • Control point structural constraints and bounds = x in [0.2, 1.2]; y in [-0.1, 0.1]; delta_y first/last 0.0-0.1, middle 0.05-0.2; z in [0, 1]; shared x across rows…
    Hand-designed in Section 3.2 to force a leaf-like profile with tapered ends and flat base; any leaf outside this parameter envelope cannot be represented.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each maize leaf is representable as a single bi-cubic NURBS surface with a fixed 3x6 control-point grid.
    Section 3.2 fixes the grid and structural constraints; leaves with complex double curvature, folds, or severe damage would violate this topological assumption.
  • domain assumption The LiDAR point clouds are correctly segmented into individual leaves and stalks, and each leaf cloud is a sample of one smooth surface.
    Section 2 describes visual quality checks and segmentation but gives no automated segmentation details or validation; incorrect segmentation propagates directly into surface fitting.
  • domain assumption Normalizing each leaf by its maximum x coordinate preserves aspect ratio and shape sufficiently for a size-invariant fit.
    Section 3.2 divides x, y, z by the greatest x value; this assumes the leaf length direction is aligned with x and that scaling is isotropic, which may not hold for curved leaves.
  • domain assumption PSO with 300 particles and 50 iterations finds a global enough optimum to initialize the refinement stage.
    Section 3.2 sets these values based on experimental observations and cited heuristics; no convergence guarantees or repeated runs are reported.
  • domain assumption The one-sided Chamfer distance used in the NURBS-Diff loss is a valid fidelity measure consistent with the two-sided Chamfer reported in Table 2.
    Section 3.3 Eq. 14 uses one-sided CD while Section 4 Table 2 reports Chamfer reduction; the paper does not define which variant is reported, so the comparison may mix metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Procedural Generation of 3D Maize Plant Architecture from LIDAR Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SBQBFMBM

@misc{pith2026250113963,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Procedural Generation of 3D Maize Plant Architecture from LIDAR Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SBQBFMBM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13963}
}
read the original abstract

This study introduces a robust framework for generating procedural 3D models of maize (Zea mays) plants from LiDAR point cloud data, offering a scalable alternative to traditional field-based phenotyping. Our framework leverages Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline (NURBS) surfaces to model the leaves of maize plants, combining Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) for an initial approximation of the surface and a differentiable programming framework for precise refinement of the surface to fit the point cloud data. In the first optimization phase, PSO generates an approximate NURBS surface by optimizing its control points, aligning the surface with the LiDAR data, and providing a reliable starting point for refinement. The second phase uses NURBS-Diff, a differentiable programming framework, to enhance the accuracy of the initial fit by refining the surface geometry and capturing intricate leaf details. Our results demonstrate that, while PSO establishes a robust initial fit, the integration of differentiable NURBS significantly improves the overall quality and fidelity of the reconstructed surface. This hierarchical optimization strategy enables accurate 3D reconstruction of maize leaves across diverse genotypes, facilitating the subsequent extraction of complex traits like phyllotaxy. We demonstrate our approach on diverse genotypes of field-grown maize plants. All our codes are open-source to democratize these phenotyping approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13963 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The workflow outlining the proposed two-step optimization process for reconstructing maize [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. LiDAR point cloud data visualized for four maize genotypes. These point clouds capture the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the optimization workflow used for fitting NURBS surfaces to maize [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of the NURBS surface parameters, including the control points ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Flowchart illustrating the PSO algorithm used for initializing the NURBS surface. Key steps [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Output of the PSO optimization step for four genotypes. The PSO algorithm provides an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Final NURBS surface reconstruction using the NURBS-Diff optimization method for four geno [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of input LiDAR point clouds (magenta color) and final NURBS-Diff surfaces (green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Final reconstructed 3D leaf surfaces for five maize genotypes. The leaves are aligned in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Histogram of the total computation time (in seconds) for generating the 3D maize plant proce [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Step-by-step processing of B73 maize plant. (a) Raw data, (b) segmented data, (c) PSO output, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Step-by-step processing of Mo17 maize plant. (a) Raw data, (b) segmented data, (c) PSO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A new voronoi-based surface reconstruction algorithm

    Nina Amenta, Marshall Bern, and Manolis Kamvysselis. A new voronoi-based surface reconstruction algorithm. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH ’98), pages 415--421, 1998. doi:10.1145/280814.280947

    work page arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    A simple algorithm for homeomorphic surface reconstruction

    Nina Amenta, Sunghee Choi, Tamal K Dey, and Naveen Leekha. A simple algorithm for homeomorphic surface reconstruction. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry, pages 213--222, 2000. doi:10.1145/336154.336207

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    The power crust

    Nina Amenta, Sunghee Choi, and Ravi Krishna Kolluri. The power crust. In Proceedings of the Sixth ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications (SMA '01), pages 249--266, 2001. doi:10.1145/376957.376986

    work page arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Robust surface reconstruction of plant leaves from 3D Point Clouds

    Ryuhei Ando, Yuko Ozasa, and Wei Guo. Robust surface reconstruction of plant leaves from 3D Point Clouds . Plant Phenomics, 2021: 0 1--12, 2021. doi:10.34133/2021/3184185

    work page doi:10.34133/2021/3184185 2021

  5. [5]

    Automated reconstruction of 3D open surfaces from sparse point clouds

    Mohammad Samiul Arshad and William J Beksi. Automated reconstruction of 3D open surfaces from sparse point clouds. In 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct), pages 216--221, 2022. doi:10.1109/ISMAR-Adjunct57072.2022.00048

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Sal: Sign agnostic learning of shapes from raw data

    Matan Atzmon and Yaron Lipman. Sal: Sign agnostic learning of shapes from raw data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2565--2574, 2020

    2020

  7. [7]

    Nesti-net: Normal estimation for unstructured 3D point clouds using convolutional neural networks

    Yizhak Ben-Shabat, Michael Lindenbaum, and Anath Fischer. Nesti-net: Normal estimation for unstructured 3D point clouds using convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 10112--10120, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    A survey of surface reconstruction from point clouds

    Matthew Berger, Andrea Tagliasacchi, Lee M Seversky, Pierre Alliez, Gael Guennebaud, Joshua A Levine, Andrei Sharf, and Claudio T Silva. A survey of surface reconstruction from point clouds. In Computer Graphics Forum, volume 36, pages 301--329. Wiley Online Library, 2017. doi:10.1111/cgf.12802

    doi:10.1111/cgf.12802 2017

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Surface reconstruction by computing restricted voronoi cells in parallel

    Dobrina Boltcheva and Bruno L \'e vy. Surface reconstruction by computing restricted voronoi cells in parallel. Computer-Aided Design, 90: 0 123--134, 2017. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2017.05.011

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    A 3D printed plant model for accurate and reliable 3D plant phenotyping

    Jonas B \"o mer, Felix Esser, Elias Marks, Radu Alexandru Rosu, Sven Behnke, Lasse Klingbeil, Heiner Kuhlmann, Cyrill Stachniss, Anne-Katrin Mahlein, and Stefan Paulus. A 3D printed plant model for accurate and reliable 3D plant phenotyping. GigaScience, 13: 0 giae035, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Particle swarm optimization for single objective continuous space problems: a review

    Mohammad Reza Bonyadi and Zbigniew Michalewicz. Particle swarm optimization for single objective continuous space problems: a review. Evolutionary computation, 25 0 (1): 0 1--54, 2017. doi:10.1162/EVCO_r_00180

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Boulch and R

    A. Boulch and R. Marlet. Deep learning for robust normal estimation in unstructured point clouds. Computer Graphics Forum, 35 0 (5): 0 281--290, 2016. doi:10.1111/cgf.12983

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Ssd: smoothed signed distance surface reconstruction

    Fatih Calakli and Gabriel Taubin. Ssd: smoothed signed distance surface reconstruction. Computer Graphics Forum, 30 0 (7): 0 1993--2002, 2011. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8659.2011.02058.x

    1993

  6. [14]

    Reconstruction and representation of 3D objects with radial basis functions

    Jonathan C Carr, Richard K Beatson, Jon B Cherrie, Tim J Mitchell, W Richard Fright, Bruce C McCallum, and Tim R Evans. Reconstruction and representation of 3D objects with radial basis functions. In Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactiv...

    2001

  7. [15]

    Surface reconstruction using neural networks

    David S Chen, Ramesh C Jain, and Brian G Schunck. Surface reconstruction using neural networks. In Proceedings 1992 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 815--816. IEEE Computer Society, 1992. doi:10.1109/CVPR.1992.223251

    1992

  8. [16]

    Particle swarm optimization, volume 93

    Maurice Clerc. Particle swarm optimization, volume 93. John Wiley & Sons, 2010

    2010

  9. [17]

    A volumetric method for building complex models from range images

    Brian Curless and Marc Levoy. A volumetric method for building complex models from range images. In Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pages 303--312, 1996. doi:10.1145/237170.237269

    1996

  10. [18]

    Dey and Samrat Goswami

    Tamal K. Dey and Samrat Goswami. Tight cocone: A water-tight surface reconstructor. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 3 0 (4): 0 302--307, 2003. doi:10.1145/781606.781627

    2003

  11. [19]

    Delaunay based shape reconstruction from large data

    Tamal K Dey, Joachim Giesen, and James Hudson. Delaunay based shape reconstruction from large data. In Proceedings IEEE 2001 Symposium on Parallel and Large-Data Visualization and Graphics (Cat. No. 01EX520), pages 19--146, 2001. doi:10.5555/502125.502129

    2001

  12. [20]

    Dey, Ramsay Dyer, and Lei Wang

    Tamal K. Dey, Ramsay Dyer, and Lei Wang. Localized cocone surface reconstruction. Computer & Graphics, 35: 0 483--491, 2011. doi:10.1016/j.cag.2011.03.014

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    Computational botany: advancing plant science through functional--structural plant modelling, 2018

    Jochem B Evers, Veronique Letort, Michael Renton, and Mengzhen Kang. Computational botany: advancing plant science through functional--structural plant modelling, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Estimation of walnut structure parameters using terrestrial photogrammetry based on structure-from-motion (sfm)

    Alfonso Fern \'a ndez-Sarr \' a, Isabel L \'o pez-Cort \'e s, Jes \'u s Mart \' , and Javier Estornell. Estimation of walnut structure parameters using terrestrial photogrammetry based on structure-from-motion (sfm). Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 50 0 (10): ...

    1931

  15. [23]

    Stickypillars: Robust and efficient feature matching on point clouds using graph neural networks

    Kai Fischer, Martin Simon, Florian Olsner, Stefan Milz, Horst-Michael Gross, and Patrick Mader. Stickypillars: Robust and efficient feature matching on point clouds using graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Kohonen-swarm algorithm for unstructured data in surface reconstruction

    Fadni Bin Forkan and Siti Mariyam Hj Shamsuddin. Kohonen-swarm algorithm for unstructured data in surface reconstruction. In 2008 Fifth International Conference on Computer Graphics, Imaging and Visualisation, pages 5--11. IEEE, 2008. doi:10.1109/CGIV.2008.58

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    Particle swarm optimization for non-uniform rational B-Spline (NURBS) surface reconstruction from clouds of 3D data points

    Akemi G \'a lvez and Andr \'e s Iglesias. Particle swarm optimization for non-uniform rational B-Spline (NURBS) surface reconstruction from clouds of 3D data points. Information Sciences, 192: 0 174--192, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.11.007

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Particle swarm optimization for b \'e zier surface reconstruction

    Akemi G \'a lvez, Angel Cobo, Jaime Puig-Pey, and Andr \'e s Iglesias. Particle swarm optimization for b \'e zier surface reconstruction. In Computational Science--ICCS 2008: 8th International Conference, Krak \'o w, Poland, June 23-25, 2008, Proceedings, Part II 8 , pages 116...

    2008 doi

  19. [27]

    Approaches to three-dimensional reconstruction of plant shoot topology and geometry

    Jonathon A Gibbs, Michael Pound, Andrew P French, Darren M Wells, Erik Murchie, and Tony Pridmore. Approaches to three-dimensional reconstruction of plant shoot topology and geometry. Functional Plant Biology, 44 0 (1): 0 62--75, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Groueix, M

    T. Groueix, M. Fisher, V. Kim, B. Russel, and M. Aubry. Atlasnet: a papier-mâché approach to learning 3D surface generation. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 216--224, 2018. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2018.00030

    2018

  21. [29]

    Pcpnet: Learning local shape properties from raw point clouds

    Paul Guerrero, Yanir Kleiman, Maks Ovsjanikov, and Niloy J Mitra. Pcpnet: Learning local shape properties from raw point clouds. Computer Graphics Forum, 37 0 (2): 0 75--85, 2018. doi:10.1111/cgf.13343

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Pair Barracuda swarm optimization algorithm: A natural-inspired metaheuristic method for high dimensional optimization problems

    Jia Guo, Guoyuan Zhou, Ke Yan, Yuji Sato, and Yi Di. Pair Barracuda swarm optimization algorithm: A natural-inspired metaheuristic method for high dimensional optimization problems. Scientific Reports, 13 0 (1): 0 18314, 2023. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-43748-w

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    How to make sense of 3D representations for plant phenotyping: a compendium of processing and analysis techniques

    Negin Harandi, Breght Vandenberghe, Joris Vankerschaver, Stephen Depuydt, and Arnout Van Messem. How to make sense of 3D representations for plant phenotyping: a compendium of processing and analysis techniques. Plant Methods, 19 0 (1): 0 60, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Gnss/ins-assisted structure from motion strategies for uav-based imagery over mechanized agricultural fields

    Seyyed Meghdad Hasheminasab, Tian Zhou, and Ayman Habib. Gnss/ins-assisted structure from motion strategies for uav-based imagery over mechanized agricultural fields. Remote Sensing, 12 0 (3): 0 351, 2020. doi:10.3390/rs12030351

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Surface reconstruction from unorganized points

    Hugues Hoppe, Tony DeRose, Tom Duchamp, John McDonald, and Werner Stuetzle. Surface reconstruction from unorganized points. In Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on computer graphics and interactive techniques, pages 71--78, 1992. doi:10.1145/142920.134011

    1992

  26. [34]

    Surface reconstruction from point clouds: A survey and a benchmark

    Zhangjin Huang, Yuxin Wen, Zihao Wang, Jinjuan Ren, and Kui Jia. Surface reconstruction from point clouds: A survey and a benchmark. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2024. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2024.3429209

    2024

  27. [35]

    Iterative sequential bat algorithm for free-form rational bézier surface reconstruction

    Andres Iglesias, Akemi G \'a lvez, and Marta Collantes. Iterative sequential bat algorithm for free-form rational bézier surface reconstruction. International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation, 11 0 (1), 2018. doi:10.1504/ijbic.2018.090093

    2018

  28. [36]

    In-field crop row phenotyping from 3D modeling performed using structure from motion

    Sylvain Jay, Gilles Rabatel, Xavier Hadoux, Daniel Moura, and Nathalie Gorretta. In-field crop row phenotyping from 3D modeling performed using structure from motion. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 110: 0 70--77, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2014.09.021

    2015 doi

  29. [37]

    Local implicit grid representations for 3D scenes

    Chiyu Jiang, Avneesh Sud, Ameesh Makadia, Jingwei Huang, Matthias Nie ner, and Thomas Funkhouser. Local implicit grid representations for 3D scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6001--6010, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Surface reconstruction using neural networks and adaptive geometry meshes

    Ad MB Junior, ADD Neto, and Jorge Dantas de Melo. Surface reconstruction using neural networks and adaptive geometry meshes. In 2004 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37541), volume 1, pages 803--807. IEEE, 2004. doi:10.1109/IJCNN.2004.1380023

    2004 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Screened poisson surface reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan and Hugues Hoppe. Screened poisson surface reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG), 32 0 (3): 0 1--13, 2013. doi:10.1145/2487228.2487237

    2013

  32. [40]

    Poisson surface reconstruction

    Michael Kazhdan, Matthew Bolitho, and Hugues Hoppe. Poisson surface reconstruction. In Proceedings of the Fourth Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing, pages 61--70, 2006

    2006

  33. [41]

    Gpumlib: deep learning som library for surface reconstruction

    Wai Lee, Shafaatunnur Hasan, Siti Shamsuddin, and Noel Lopes. Gpumlib: deep learning som library for surface reconstruction. International Journal of Advances in Soft Computing and its Applications, 9 0 (2), 2017. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.25152.02568

    2017

  34. [42]

    Schnable, and Michael J

    Samuel Leiboff, Xianran Li, Heng-Cheng Hu, Natalie Todt, Jinliang Yang, Xiao Li, Xiaoqing Yu, Gary J Muehlbauer, Marja CP Timmermans, Jianming Yu, Patrick S. Schnable, and Michael J. Scanlon. Genetic control of morphometric diversity in the maize shoot apical meristem. Nature ...

    2015

  35. [43]

    Deep iterative surface normal estimation

    Jan Eric Lenssen, Christian Osendorfer, and Jonathan Masci. Deep iterative surface normal estimation. In Proceedings of the ieee/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11247--11256, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Michels, Bedrich Benes, S\" o ren Pirk, and Wojtek Pa ubicki

    Bosheng Li, Jonathan Klein, Dominik L. Michels, Bedrich Benes, S\" o ren Pirk, and Wojtek Pa ubicki. Rhizomorph : The coordinated function of shoots and roots. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42 0 (4), 2023. doi:10.1145/3592145

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Pu-gan: a point cloud upsampling adversarial network

    Ruihui Li, Xianzhi Li, Chi-Wing Fu, Daniel Cohen-Or, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Pu-gan: a point cloud upsampling adversarial network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 7203--7212, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    S. P. Lim and H. Haron. Cube kohonen self-organizing map (cksom) model with new equations in organising unstructured data. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 24 0 (4): 0 1414--1424, 2013. doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2013.2259259

    2013

  39. [47]

    Applying nurbs surface approximation with different parameterization methods on cksom model closed surface data

    Seng Poh Lim and Habibollah Haron. Applying nurbs surface approximation with different parameterization methods on cksom model closed surface data. In Image and Signal Processing: 6th International Conference, ICISP 2014, Cherbourg, France, June 30--July 2, 2014. Proceedings 6...

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    Implicit surface reconstruction with radial basis functions via pdes

    Xiao-Yan Liu, Hui Wang, CS Chen, Qing Wang, Xiaoshuang Zhou, and Yong Wang. Implicit surface reconstruction with radial basis functions via pdes. Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 110: 0 95--103, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.enganabound.2019.09.021

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    Two decades of functional--structural plant modelling: now addressing fundamental questions in systems biology and predictive ecology

    Ga \"e tan Louarn and Youhong Song. Two decades of functional--structural plant modelling: now addressing fundamental questions in systems biology and predictive ecology. Annals of Botany, 126 0 (4): 0 501--509, 2020. doi:10.1093/aob/mcaa143

    2020 doi

  42. [50]

    Deepdt: Learning geometry from delaunay triangulation for surface reconstruction

    Yiming Luo, Zhenxing Mi, and Wenbing Tao. Deepdt: Learning geometry from delaunay triangulation for surface reconstruction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2277--2285, 2021. doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i3.16327

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    Streaming surface reconstruction using wavelets

    Josiah Manson, Guergana Petrova, and Scott Schaefer. Streaming surface reconstruction using wavelets. In Computer Graphics Forum, volume 27, pages 1411--1420. Wiley Online Library, 2008. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8659.2008.01281.x

    2008

  44. [52]

    Occupancy networks: Learning 3D reconstruction in function space

    Lars Mescheder, Michael Oechsle, Michael Niemeyer, Sebastian Nowozin, and Andreas Geiger. Occupancy networks: Learning 3D reconstruction in function space. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4460--4470, 2019

    2019

  45. [53]

    P y S warms: A research-toolkit for Particle Swarm Optimization in Python

    Lester James Miranda. P y S warms: A research-toolkit for Particle Swarm Optimization in Python . Journal of Open Source Software, 3, 2018. doi:10.21105/joss.00433. URL https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00433

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    Multi-level partition of unity implicits

    Yutaka Ohtake, Alexander Belyaev, Marc Alexa, Greg Turk, and Hans-Peter Seidel. Multi-level partition of unity implicits. In Acm Siggraph 2005 Courses, pages 173--es. Association for Computing Machinery, 2005. doi:10.1145/1198555.1198649

    2005

  47. [55]

    3D modeling and reconstruction of plants and trees: A cross-cutting review across computer graphics, vision, and plant phenotyping

    Fumio Okura. 3D modeling and reconstruction of plants and trees: A cross-cutting review across computer graphics, vision, and plant phenotyping. Breeding Science, 72 0 (1): 0 31--47, 2022

    2022

  48. [56]

    Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation

    Jeong Joon Park, Peter Florence, Julian Straub, Richard Newcombe, and Steven Lovegrove. Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 165--174, 2019

    2019

  49. [57]

    Measuring crops in 3D : using geometry for plant phenotyping

    Stefan Paulus. Measuring crops in 3D : using geometry for plant phenotyping. Plant Methods, 15 0 (1): 0 1--13, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Plant phenotyping powered by 3D vision technology

    Photoneo. Plant phenotyping powered by 3D vision technology. Photoneo Case Study, 2024. URL https://www.photoneo.com/feeding-the-world-plant-phenotyping- 3D -vision-for-sustainable-agriculture/

    2024

  51. [59]

    Pound et al

    Michael P. Pound et al. A 3D phytomer-based reconstruction framework for understanding maize phenotypic traits. Plant Physiology, 191: 0 145--160, 2023. doi:10.1093/plphys/kiad045

    2023 doi

  52. [60]

    NURBS-Diff : A differentiable programming module for NURBS

    Anjana Deva Prasad, Aditya Balu, Harshil Shah, Soumik Sarkar, Chinmay Hegde, and Adarsh Krishnamurthy. NURBS-Diff : A differentiable programming module for NURBS . Computer-Aided Design, 146: 0 103199, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2022.103199

    2022

  53. [61]

    Geotransformer: Fast and robust point cloud registration with geometric transformer

    Zheng Qin, Hao Yu, Changjian Wang, Yulan Guo, Yuxing Peng, Slobodan Ilic, Dewen Hu, and Kai Xu. Geotransformer: Fast and robust point cloud registration with geometric transformer. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45 0 (8): 0 9806--9821, 2023. do...

    2023

  54. [62]

    Image-based 3D Modelling : A review

    Fabio Remondino and Sabry El-Hakim. Image-based 3D Modelling : A review. The Photogrammetric Record, 21 0 (115): 0 269--291, 2006

    2006

  55. [63]

    Biorthogonal wavelet surface reconstruction using partial integrations

    Xiaohua Ren, Luan Lyu, Xiaowei He, Wei Cao, Zhixin Yang, Bin Sheng, Yanci Zhang, and Enhua Wu. Biorthogonal wavelet surface reconstruction using partial integrations. In Computer Graphics Forum, volume 37, pages 13--24. Wiley Online Library, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    The B73 maize genome: complexity, diversity, and dynamics

    Patrick S Schnable, Doreen Ware, Robert S Fulton, Joshua C Stein, Fusheng Wei, Shiran Pasternak, Chengzhi Liang, Jianwei Zhang, Lucinda Fulton, Tina A Graves, et al. The B73 maize genome: complexity, diversity, and dynamics. science, 326 0 (5956): 0 1112--1115, 2009. doi:10.11...

    2009 doi

  57. [65]

    Particle swarm optimization: A survey of historical and recent developments with hybridization perspectives

    Saptarshi Sengupta, Sanchita Basak, and Richard Alan Peters. Particle swarm optimization: A survey of historical and recent developments with hybridization perspectives. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, 1 0 (1): 0 157--191, 2018. doi:10.3390/make1010010

    2018 doi

  58. [66]

    Pointtrinet: Learned triangulation of 3D point sets

    Nicholas Sharp and Maks Ovsjanikov. Pointtrinet: Learned triangulation of 3D point sets. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23--28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXIII 16, pages 762--778. Springer, 2020. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58592-1_45

    2020 doi

  59. [67]

    Functional--structural plant models: a growing paradigm for plant studies

    Risto Siev \"a nen, Christophe Godin, Theodore M DeJong, and Eero Nikinmaa. Functional--structural plant models: a growing paradigm for plant studies. Annals of botany, 114 0 (4): 0 599--603, 2014

    2014

  60. [68]

    Cropcraft: Inverse procedural modeling for realistic 3D crop canopies

    John Smith and Jane Doe. Cropcraft: Inverse procedural modeling for realistic 3D crop canopies. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Conference, pages 23--34. ACM, 2024. doi:10.1145/1234567.8901234

    2024

  61. [69]

    Robust plant phenotyping via model-based optimization

    Paloma Sodhi, Shounak Dasgupta, Sriram Vijayarangan, and Sanjay Kumar. Robust plant phenotyping via model-based optimization. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 7255--7262. IEEE, 2018. doi:10.1109/IROS.2018.8594245

    2018

  62. [70]

    Allelic variation and heterosis in maize: how do two halves make more than a whole? Genome research, 17 0 (3): 0 264--275, 2007

    Nathan M Springer and Robert M Stupar. Allelic variation and heterosis in maize: how do two halves make more than a whole? Genome research, 17 0 (3): 0 264--275, 2007. doi:10.1101/gr.5347007

    2007 doi

  63. [71]

    3D -gpt: Procedural 3D modeling with large language models

    Chunyi Sun, Junlin Han, Weijian Deng, Xinlong Wang, Zishan Qin, and Stephen Gould. 3D -gpt: Procedural 3D modeling with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.12945, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Multi-scale surface reconstruction based on a curvature-adaptive signed distance field

    Yizhi Tang and Jieqing Feng. Multi-scale surface reconstruction based on a curvature-adaptive signed distance field. Computers & Graphics, 70: 0 28--38, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.cag.2017.07.015

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    Diversity of maize shoot apical meristem architecture and its relationship to plant morphology

    Addie M Thompson, Jianming Yu, Marja CP Timmermans, Patrick Schnable, James E Crants, Michael J Scanlon, and Gary J Muehlbauer. Diversity of maize shoot apical meristem architecture and its relationship to plant morphology. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, 5 0 (5): 0 819--827, 20...

    2015 doi

  66. [74]

    Vos, L.F.M

    J. Vos, L.F.M. Marcelis, P.H.B Visser, Paul C. Struik, and J.B. Evers. Functional-Structural Plant Modelling in Crop Production. Springer, 2007 a

    2007

  67. [75]

    Functional-structural plant modelling in crop production

    Jan Vos, LFM Marcelis, and JB Evers. Functional-structural plant modelling in crop production. In Functional-structural plant modelling in crop production, pages 1--12. Springer, 2007 b

    2007

  68. [76]

    Application research of cuckoo neural network algorithm in surface reconstruction

    Hai-jun Wang and Tao Jin. Application research of cuckoo neural network algorithm in surface reconstruction. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 1314, pages 1--6, 2019 a . doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1314/1/012156

    2019 doi

  69. [77]

    Application of wolf swarm neural network in surface reconstruction

    Hai-jun Wang and Tao Jin. Application of wolf swarm neural network in surface reconstruction. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 569: 0 1--6, 2019 b . doi:10.1088/1757-899X/569/5/052019

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    Application of ba-bp neural network in surface reconstruction

    Hai-jun Wang and Tao Jin. Application of ba-bp neural network in surface reconstruction. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1550, 2020. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1550/3/032144

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    ‘structure-from-motion’photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications

    Matthew J Westoby, James Brasington, Niel F Glasser, Michael J Hambrey, and Jennifer M Reynolds. ‘structure-from-motion’photogrammetry: A low-cost, effective tool for geoscience applications. Geomorphology, 179: 0 300--314, 2012. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.08.021

    2012 doi

  72. [80]

    Deep geometric prior for surface reconstruction

    Francis Williams, Teseo Schneider, Claudio Silva, Denis Zorin, Joan Bruna, and Daniele Panozzo. Deep geometric prior for surface reconstruction. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10130--10139, 2019. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2019.01037

    2019

  73. [81]

    Particle swarm optimization based on dimensional learning strategy

    Guiping Xu, Quanlong Cui, Xiaohu Shi, Hongwei Ge, Zhi-Hui Zhan, Heow Pueh Lee, Yanchun Liang, Ran Tai, and Chunguo Wu. Particle swarm optimization based on dimensional learning strategy. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 45: 0 33--51, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2018.12.009

    2019 doi

  74. [82]

    Implicit surface reconstruction with radial basis functions

    Jun Yang, Zhengning Wang, Changqian Zhu, and Qiang Peng. Implicit surface reconstruction with radial basis functions. In Computer Vision and Computer Graphics. Theory and Applications: International Conference VISIGRAPP 2007, Barcelona, Spain, March 8-11, 2007. Revised Selecte...

    2007 doi

  75. [83]

    Research on hybrid strategy particle swarm optimization algorithm and its applications

    Jicheng Yao, Xiaonan Luo, Fang Li, Ji Li, Jundi Dou, and Hongtai Luo. Research on hybrid strategy particle swarm optimization algorithm and its applications. Scientific Reports, 14 0 (1): 0 24928, 2024. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-76010-y

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    Genetic design and statistical power of nested association mapping in maize

    Jianming Yu, James B Holland, Michael D McMullen, and Edward S Buckler. Genetic design and statistical power of nested association mapping in maize. Genetics, 178 0 (1): 0 539--551, 2008. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.074245

    2008 doi

  77. [85]

    Surface reconstruction from unorganized points using self-organizing neural networks

    Yizhou Yu. Surface reconstruction from unorganized points using self-organizing neural networks. In IEEE visualization, volume 99, pages 61--64. Citeseer, 1999

    1999

  78. [86]

    Ssrnet: Scalable 3D surface reconstruction network

    Ganzhangqin Yuan, Qiancheng Fu, Zhenxing Mi, Yiming Luo, and Wenbing Tao. Ssrnet: Scalable 3D surface reconstruction network. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29 0 (12): 0 4906--4919, 2022. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2022.3193406

    2022

  79. [87]

    Schnable, Eric Lyons, Duke Pauli, Kobus Barnard, and Bedrich Benes

    Ariyan Zarei, Bosheng Li, James C. Schnable, Eric Lyons, Duke Pauli, Kobus Barnard, and Bedrich Benes. Plantsegnet: 3D point cloud instance segmentation of nearby plant organs with identical semantics. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 221: 0 108922, 2024. doi:10.1016/...

    2024

  80. [88]

    An improved particle swarm optimization combined with double-chaos search

    Xuepeng Zheng, Bin Nie, Jiandong Chen, Yuwen Du, Yuchao Zhang, and Haike Jin. An improved particle swarm optimization combined with double-chaos search. Math. Biosci. Eng, 20 0 (9): 0 15737--15764, 2023. doi:10.3934/mbe.2023701

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.