Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Enhancing Lidar Point Cloud Sampling via Colorization and Super-Resolution of Lidar Imagery

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 This paper claims that colorizing and super-resolving a lidar's own range and signal images before keypoint detection yields a smaller, better-chosen point cloud for odometry, cutting rotation error on most datasets and translation error…

desk verdict A modest, incremental lidar-odometry sampling pipeline that shows a real rotation-error and point-count win but is oversold in the abstract and has an underspecified point-index mapping that needs fixing before the central comparison is credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02049 v1 pith:TJ7P42KF submitted 2025-05-04 cs.RO

Sier Ha , Honghao Du , Xianjia Yu , Tomi Westerlund This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords lidarodometrypointcloudsamplingsuper-resolutioncolorizationkeypointdetectionimageryKISS-ICPALIKE
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

Lidar sensors that also produce 360-degree range and signal images let the authors borrow deep-learning image tools originally built for cameras. This paper proposes sampling a lidar point cloud by detecting keypoints in those images after colorizing and super-resolving them, then feeding only the matched 3D points to ICP-based odometry. The claim is that the enhanced images surface more reliable keypoints, so fewer points are needed and drift falls: rotation error improves on most test routes and translation error improves in open environments, while the sampled clouds are several times smaller than the prior scheme's. A sympathetic reader would take the contribution as a cheap, calibration-free way to make lidar odometry both lighter and more accurate.

What carries the argument

The pipeline runs each lidar image through gamma correction, with adaptive histogram equalization for the unevenly exposed signal image, then optionally through CARN, a lightweight cascading residual super-resolution network that doubles image size, and DeOldify, a GAN-based colorization model. Keypoints are detected by ALIKE, a learned keypoint and descriptor extractor, across all three RGB channels of the enhanced images, matched between frames with mutual nearest neighbors, and mapped back to point-cloud indices to form the sampled cloud. The sampled cloud is then passed to KISS-ICP, a point-to-point ICP odometry system with its own sampling disabled, and errors are computed against ground truth with the evo tool. The machinery's work is to convert the lidar's own low-resolution imagery into a richer, more discriminative image so that a camera-trained keypoint extractor finds stable points that correspond to reliable geometry.

What would settle it

Take one static lidar frame, detect keypoints in the original signal image and in its 2x super-resolved version, map both sets back to 3D points, and measure the 3D distance between corresponding mapped pairs; if the median distance exceeds the lidar's angular resolution at that range, the coordinate mapping is wrong and the reported odometry gains would not survive a correct mapping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated in its conclusion, is that a point-cloud sampling strategy driven by DL-enhanced lidar imagery outperforms the authors' earlier keypoint-based sampling: rotation error is lower across most datasets, translation error is lower in more open environments, and this is achieved with far fewer points because neighboring points around each keypoint are no longer included. Across the seven enhancement combinations tested, the configurations that combine colorized and 2x super-resolved signal images with range imagery (comb 3 and comb 4) give the best accuracy in most scenarios. The method does admit a limitation: in confined spaces such as the forest and lab sequences, translation errors are slightly higher than the prior approach.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a keypoint found in a twice-enlarged or colorized image can be mapped back to the original point cloud's indices by a straightforward coordinate correspondence, but the paper never states or verifies this mapping, and any error there would misalign the sampled cloud and invalidate the odometry comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Lidar odometry can run on dramatically smaller point clouds—roughly one-third to one-tenth of the prior scheme's point count—without losing accuracy, reducing memory and compute in registration.
  • Camera-trained image enhancement models transfer to lidar-generated imagery as-is, meaning no lidar-camera calibration or retraining is needed to obtain the benefit.
  • Enhancement choices matter by environment: colorization helps most in indoor scenes, while super-resolution contributes in open spaces, so the best deployment may vary per route.
  • Because the method only changes how points are sampled, it can be dropped into existing ICP-based or lidar-inertial odometry pipelines as a preprocessing step.
  • The lower rotation errors in most datasets suggest that keypoint-selected clouds contain more geometrically consistent structure per point than voxel- or neighborhood-based sampling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the colorization and super-resolution models were retrained on lidar imagery rather than camera RGB images, the keypoint-quality gains could be larger than those reported here, since the paper itself notes the models were designed for camera images.
  • A scene-adaptive selection among the seven combinations—colorization for dark indoor corridors, super-resolution for open roads—might remove the translation-error penalty the method currently shows in confined spaces.
  • The unspecified mapping from super-resolved pixels back to original point-cloud indices is the step most worth stress-testing; an explicit reprojection verification would tell whether the reported gains are sensitive to coordinate scaling.
  • The same enhanced-image keypoints could serve as a sampling prior inside tightly coupled lidar-inertial odometry, potentially compounding the drift reduction without a separate registration stage.
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 lidar-odometry point-cloud sampling method that operates on Ouster lidar imagery. Range and signal images are preprocessed with gamma correction and CLAHE, then optionally colorized with DeOldify and/or super-resolved with CARN. Keypoints are detected with the ALIKE detector on various combinations of the resulting images, matched between frames with mutual nearest neighbors, and used to select a subset of the original 3D points. The sampled cloud is fed to KISS-ICP with its internal sampling disabled, and translation/rotation errors are evaluated with evo on five sequences (open road, forest, two lab spaces, and a large hall). Seven image-combination variants are compared against the authors' prior keypoint-based sampling work. The claim is that the method achieves lower translation and rotation errors while using fewer points, particularly in open environments, and that the number of points is substantially reduced.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper demonstrates a potentially useful engineering recipe: bootstrap camera-oriented DL image enhancement tools onto lidar-generated images without any camera calibration, and use the enhanced keypoints to downsample point clouds for odometry. A genuine strength is that the evaluation is performed on public lidar data across diverse environments and reports actual point counts, so the reader can see the large reduction in points relative to the prior method. The paper also names specific pretrained models (CARN, DeOldify, ALIKE) and uses a standard odometry system (KISS-ICP). However, the significance is currently limited by an underspecified keypoint-to-point mapping, an abstract that overstates the results, and a comparison to prior work that is not controlled for point budget or pipeline differences.

major comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 1, lines 25-30 and Section III-B-2] The mapping from keypoints detected in enhanced images back to original point-cloud indices is never defined. The algorithm writes pckp <- pc[index[mkptst]], but after 2x super-resolution the keypoint coordinates are expressed in a 2048-column image while the original range/signal images are 1024-column, and comb3 and comb4 pool keypoints from up to six image variants with different resolutions. The paper does not state whether coordinates are divided by two, how rounding and boundary cases are handled, or whether the final point index is taken from a single variant or merged across variants. Since Table III is an evaluation of the sampled cloud, an incorrect coordinate transform would make the entire odometry comparison invalid. Please specify the exact index conversion, including the treatment of super-resolved and colorized variants and the combination rule for indices coming from multiple images.
  2. [Abstract and Section V] The abstract's claim that the approach achieves 'lower translation and rotation errors' is contradicted by the paper's own Table III and conclusion. For example, on Forest the best comb (comb0/comb3) reports 0.086 m mean translation versus 0.080 m for prior work; on Lab space (hard) comb3 reports 0.045/0.050 versus 0.033/0.047 for prior work; and on Lab space (easy) comb3 reports 0.032/0.036 versus 0.025/0.028. Section V explicitly states that the method 'exhibits reduced accuracy in translation errors within more confined spaces.' The abstract and any summary claims should be narrowed to match the demonstrated result: lower rotation error on most datasets, lower translation error in more open environments, and fewer points used.
  3. [Table III and Table IV] The comparison to prior work is not controlled for point count. The prior-work rows use 3,183 to 11,627 points per cloud, whereas the proposed combinations use roughly 628 to 2,053 points. Because the downstream KISS-ICP runs on different point counts, the translation/rotation differences in Table III could reflect the number of points rather than the quality of the keypoint-driven sampling. The paper should either evaluate prior work at matched point budgets, evaluate the proposed method at the prior work's point counts, or explicitly present the result as an accuracy-per-point trade-off. Without this, the statement that the method 'surpasses' prior work is not fully supported. Please also clarify the meaning of the prior-work labels '4 7', '5 5', and '7 5' in the tables.
  4. [Section III-B-6 and Section IV] Several preprocessing and combination choices appear to be tuned on the same datasets used for evaluation: pthresh = 240, the gamma exponent, the CLAHE parameters, the super-resolution scale factor, and the selection of comb3/comb4 as the best combinations. No sensitivity analysis, ablation, or held-out sequence is reported, so it is unclear whether the conclusions generalize or are the result of overfitting to these five sequences. Please add parameter-sensitivity experiments or evaluate on at least one sequence not used for any design choice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3] The figure uses the abbreviations 'Rng' and 'Sng' while the text uses 'rng' and 'sig'; please unify the notation throughout.
  2. [Algorithm 1] Variable names are inconsistent: 'imgprc' and 'img_prc' are both used, and 'img hist' should be 'img_hist'. Please revise the pseudocode for consistency and to make the dataflow unambiguous.
  3. [Table III] The table has typographical issues, including a missing opening parenthesis in the Forest prior-work row ('0.080 /0.102') and inconsistent spacing in the rotation-error entries. Please reformat the table and consider adding standard deviations or per-sequence statistics, since the current entries appear to be single-run values.
  4. [Section III-B-2] The sentence 'the resolution size did not significantly affect the results of the effective key point extraction if it is above 2' is ambiguous; it should state the scale factor explicitly (e.g., '2x') and clarify whether this observation is qualitative or supported by a table.
  5. [References] Reference [18] is malformed ('PointNet+. Deep hierarchical feature learning...') and the citation for [12] should be completed with its venue and year; please proofread the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pipeline is an empirical composition of pretrained enhancement and keypoint models with an off-the-shelf ICP, and no claimed result reduces to its input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical rather than analytic. It takes pretrained DL models (CARN for super-resolution, DeOldify for colorization, ALIKE for keypoint detection), applies them to lidar-generated images, samples the point cloud at detected keypoint locations, and evaluates the resulting odometry with the off-the-shelf KISS-ICP system. No quantity reported in Tables III and IV is obtained by fitting a parameter to the evaluation metric and then renaming that fit as a prediction; the preprocessing choices (pthresh = 240, gamma, CLAHE) are fixed image-enhancement settings, not fitted predictors of translation or rotation error. The self-citations to prior work [11] and [12] serve as the comparison baseline and as justification for selecting CARN and DeOldify, but the central claim of improved odometry accuracy is tested experimentally against that baseline rather than derived from the citations themselves, so the citations are not load-bearing in a way that forces the outcome. The identified gap concerning how keypoints detected in 2x super-resolved images are mapped back to original point-cloud indices is a real specification and correctness risk, since Algorithm 1 line 29 relies on an undefined index mapping, but an underspecified mapping is not the same as a circular derivation: it does not make the sampled output equivalent to the input by construction. Overall, the paper's claims are not circular; the main concerns are experimental selection over the seven combinations and the missing coordinate-mapping details, which are correctness and reproducibility issues rather than circularity.

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

The central claim rests on a handful of hand-chosen preprocessing parameters, a domain assumption about image-to-point index correspondence, and the transferability of natural-image DL models to lidar imagery. No new physical entity or formal axiom is introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • pthresh (signal image threshold) = 240
    Used in Algorithm 1 (Lines 11-13) to decide whether pixels receive adaptive histogram equalization before gamma compensation; the value is chosen by hand and affects keypoint detection.
  • gamma compensation exponent = not specified
    Applied to range and signal images in Algorithm 1 (Lines 9 and 13) to brighten dark lidar imagery; the exponent value is not reported.
  • CLAHE parameters = not specified
    Adaptive histogram equalization applied to signal pixels below pthresh (Algorithm 1, Line 12); clip limit and tile grid are not reported.
  • super-resolution scale factor = 2
    CARN is applied at 2x magnification throughout the combinations in Table II; the paper notes resolution size above 2 did not significantly affect results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ouster lidar images are free from temporal mismatch and perfectly spatially correlated with the point cloud, so pixel indices map one-to-one to 3D points.
    Stated in Section I and used implicitly whenever keypoints from range or signal images are converted to point cloud samples (Algorithm 1, Line 29).
  • domain assumption Keypoints detected in DL-enhanced (colorized and super-resolved) images correspond to 3D points that are reliable for ICP registration.
    The proposed sampling method assumes that image-space saliency transfers to geometric registration quality; the paper evaluates this empirically but does not prove or analyze the geometric meaning of selected points.
  • domain assumption The pretrained networks (DeOldify, CARN, ALIKE) behave consistently on lidar imagery despite being trained on natural camera images.
    The authors state in Section V that existing models are primarily designed and trained on camera images rather than lidar images, yet the framework relies on their outputs for point selection.
  • domain assumption The ground truth trajectories from the multi-modal dataset [4], [46] are accurate enough to make the reported error differences meaningful.
    Used in Section III-A and Section IV; the forest sequence is described as having a limited traversal distance of roughly 12 meters, which makes small absolute errors subject to scale effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Lidar Point Cloud Sampling via Colorization and Super-Resolution of Lidar Imagery." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TJ7P42KF

@misc{pith2026250502049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Lidar Point Cloud Sampling via Colorization and Super-Resolution of Lidar Imagery},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TJ7P42KF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02049}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in lidar technology have led to improved point cloud resolution as well as the generation of 360 degrees, low-resolution images by encoding depth, reflectivity, or near-infrared light within each pixel. These images enable the application of deep learning (DL) approaches, originally developed for RGB images from cameras to lidar-only systems, eliminating other efforts, such as lidar-camera calibration. Compared with conventional RGB images, lidar imagery demonstrates greater robustness in adverse environmental conditions, such as low light and foggy weather. Moreover, the imaging capability addresses the challenges in environments where the geometric information in point clouds may be degraded, such as long corridors, and dense point clouds may be misleading, potentially leading to drift errors. Therefore, this paper proposes a novel framework that leverages DL-based colorization and super-resolution techniques on lidar imagery to extract reliable samples from lidar point clouds for odometry estimation. The enhanced lidar images, enriched with additional information, facilitate improved keypoint detection, which is subsequently employed for more effective point cloud downsampling. The proposed method enhances point cloud registration accuracy and mitigates mismatches arising from insufficient geometric information or misleading extra points. Experimental results indicate that our approach surpasses previous methods, achieving lower translation and rotation errors while using fewer points.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustrative example of potential drift and the effec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of Ouster lidar data. From top to bottom on the left: signal intensity, reflectivity, near-infrared (near-IR), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The system overview of the proposed approach. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Loam: Lidar odometry and mapping in real-time

    Ji Zhang, Sanjiv Singh, et al. Loam: Lidar odometry and mapping in real-time. In Robotics: Science and systems , volume 2, pages 1–9. Berkeley, CA, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Low-drift and real-time lidar odometry and mapping

    Ji Zhang and Sanjiv Singh. Low-drift and real-time lidar odometry and mapping. Autonomous robots, 41:401–416, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Autonomous navigation system of greenhouse mobile robot based on 3d lidar and 2d lidar slam

    Saike Jiang, Shilin Wang, Zhongyi Yi, Meina Zhang, and Xiaolan Lv. Autonomous navigation system of greenhouse mobile robot based on 3d lidar and 2d lidar slam. Frontiers in plant science , 13:815218, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    A benchmark for multi-modal lidar slam with ground truth in gnss-denied environments

    Ha Sier, Qingqing Li, Xianjia Yu, Jorge Pe ˜na Queralta, Zhuo Zou, and Tomi Westerlund. A benchmark for multi-modal lidar slam with ground truth in gnss-denied environments. Remote Sensing, 15(13):3314, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Coin-lio: Complementary intensity- augmented lidar inertial odometry

    Patrick Pfreundschuh, Helen Oleynikova, Cesar Cadena, Roland Sieg- wart, and Olov Andersson. Coin-lio: Complementary intensity- augmented lidar inertial odometry. In 2024 IEEE International Con- ference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 1730–1737. IEEE, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    LiDAR-as-Camera for End-to-End Driving

    Ardi Tampuu, Romet Aidla, Jan Are van Gent, and Tambet Mati- isen. Lidar-as-camera for end-to-end driving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.15170, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Lidar as a camera – digital lidar’s implications for computer vision

    Angus Pacala. Lidar as a camera – digital lidar’s implications for computer vision. Ouster Blog , 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Analyzing General-Purpose Deep-Learning Detection and Segmentation Models with Images from a Lidar as a Camera Sensor

    Yu Xianjia, Sahar Salimpour, Jorge Pena Queralta, and Tomi Westerlund. Analyzing general-purpose deep-learning detection and segmentation models with images from a lidar as a camera sensor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.04064, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    General-purpose deep learning detection and segmentation models for images from a lidar-based camera sensor

    Xianjia Yu, Sahar Salimpour, Jorge Pe ˜na Queralta, and Tomi Westerlund. General-purpose deep learning detection and segmentation models for images from a lidar-based camera sensor. Sensors, 23(6):2936, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    R-liom: Reflectivity-aware lidar-inertial odometry and mapping

    Yanchao Dong, Lingxiao Li, Sixiong Xu, Wenxuan Li, Jinsong Li, Yahe Zhang, and Bin He. R-liom: Reflectivity-aware lidar-inertial odometry and mapping. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 8(11):7743–7750, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Lidar- generated images derived keypoints assisted point cloud registration scheme in odometry estimation

    Haizhou Zhang, Xianjia Yu, Sier Ha, and Tomi Westerlund. Lidar- generated images derived keypoints assisted point cloud registration scheme in odometry estimation. Remote Sensing , 15(20):5074, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Enhancing the reliability of lidar point cloud sampling: A colorization and super-resolution approach based on lidar-generated images

    Sier Ha, Honghao Du, Xianjia Yu, Jian Song, and Tomi Westerlund. Enhancing the reliability of lidar point cloud sampling: A colorization and super-resolution approach based on lidar-generated images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11532, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kiss-icp: In defense of point-to-point icp–simple, accurate, and robust registration if done the right way

    Ignacio Vizzo, Tiziano Guadagnino, Benedikt Mersch, Louis Wiesmann, Jens Behley, and Cyrill Stachniss. Kiss-icp: In defense of point-to-point icp–simple, accurate, and robust registration if done the right way. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 8(2):1029–1036, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Fast-lio: A fast, robust lidar-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated kalman filter

    Wei Xu and Fu Zhang. Fast-lio: A fast, robust lidar-inertial odometry package by tightly-coupled iterated kalman filter. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 6(2):3317–3324, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Tightly coupled 3d lidar inertial odometry and mapping

    Haoyang Ye, Yuying Chen, and Ming Liu. Tightly coupled 3d lidar inertial odometry and mapping. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 3144–3150. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    F-loam: Fast lidar odometry and mapping

    Han Wang, Chen Wang, Chun-Lin Chen, and Lihua Xie. F-loam: Fast lidar odometry and mapping. In 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 4390–4396. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    The farthest point strategy for progressive image sampling

    Yuval Eldar, Michael Lindenbaum, Moshe Porat, and Yehoshua Y Zeevi. The farthest point strategy for progressive image sampling. IEEE transactions on image processing , 6(9):1305–1315, 1997

    1997

  10. [18]

    Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space

    Qi Charles Ruizhongtai, Yi Li, Su Hao, and Guibas Leonidas J Point- Net+. Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 30, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Learning to sample

    Oren Dovrat, Itai Lang, and Shai Avidan. Learning to sample. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2760–2769, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Pst- net: Point cloud sampling via point-based transformer

    Xu Wang, Yi Jin, Yigang Cen, Congyan Lang, and Yidong Li. Pst- net: Point cloud sampling via point-based transformer. In Image and Graphics: 11th International Conference, ICIG 2021, Haikou, China, August 6–8, 2021, Proceedings, Part III 11, pages 57–69. Springer, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation

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

    2017

  14. [22]

    So-net: Self-organizing network for point cloud analysis

    Jiaxin Li, Ben M Chen, and Gim Hee Lee. So-net: Self-organizing network for point cloud analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 9397–9406, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Deep hough voting for 3d object detection in point clouds

    Charles R Qi, Or Litany, Kaiming He, and Leonidas J Guibas. Deep hough voting for 3d object detection in point clouds. In proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 9277–9286, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Distinctive image features from scale-invariant key- points

    David G Lowe. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant key- points. International journal of computer vision , 60:91–110, 2004

    2004

  17. [25]

    Surf: Speeded up robust features

    Herbert Bay, Tinne Tuytelaars, and Luc Van Gool. Surf: Speeded up robust features. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2006: 9th European Confer- ence on Computer Vision, Graz, Austria, May 7-13, 2006. Proceedings, Part I 9 , pages 404–417. Springer, 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    Machine learning for high- speed corner detection

    Edward Rosten and Tom Drummond. Machine learning for high- speed corner detection. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2006: 9th Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision, Graz, Austria, May 7-13, 2006. Proceedings, Part I 9 , pages 430–443. Springer, 2006

    2006

  19. [27]

    Brief: Binary robust independent elementary features

    Michael Calonder, Vincent Lepetit, Christoph Strecha, and Pascal Fua. Brief: Binary robust independent elementary features. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2010: 11th European Conference on Computer Vision, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, September 5-11, 2010, Proceedings, Part IV 11, pages...

    2010

  20. [28]

    Orb: An efficient alternative to sift or surf

    Ethan Rublee, Vincent Rabaud, Kurt Konolige, and Gary Bradski. Orb: An efficient alternative to sift or surf. In 2011 International conference on computer vision , pages 2564–2571. Ieee, 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    Super- point: Self-supervised interest point detection and description, 2018

    Daniel DeTone, Tomasz Malisiewicz, and Andrew Rabinovich. Super- point: Self-supervised interest point detection and description, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Xiaoming Zhao, Xingming Wu, Weihai Chen, Peter C. Y . Chen, Qing- song Xu, and Zhengguo Li. Aliked: A lighter keypoint and descriptor extraction network via deformable transformation. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , 72:1–16, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Deoldify–a deep learning based project for colorizing and restoring old images (and video!), 2019

    J Antic. Deoldify–a deep learning based project for colorizing and restoring old images (and video!), 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Thermal infrared image colorization for nighttime driving scenes with top-down guided attention

    Fuya Luo, Yunhan Li, Guang Zeng, Peng Peng, Gang Wang, and Yongjie Li. Thermal infrared image colorization for nighttime driving scenes with top-down guided attention. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Chromagan: Adver- sarial picture colorization with semantic class distribution

    Patricia Vitoria, Lara Raad, and Coloma Ballester. Chromagan: Adver- sarial picture colorization with semantic class distribution. In The IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision , pages 2445– 2454, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Ddcolor: Towards photo-realistic image colorization via dual decoders

    Xiaoyang Kang, Tao Yang, Wenqi Ouyang, Peiran Ren, Lingzhi Li, and Xuansong Xie. Ddcolor: Towards photo-realistic image colorization via dual decoders. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 328–338, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Disentangled image colorization via global anchors

    Menghan Xia, Wenbo Hu, Tien-Tsin Wong, and Jue Wang. Disentangled image colorization via global anchors. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 41(6):204:1–204:13, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Instance-aware image colorization

    Jheng-Wei Su, Hung-Kuo Chu, and Jia-Bin Huang. Instance-aware image colorization. In IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Colorful image colorization

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A Efros. Colorful image colorization. In ECCV, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    I2v-gan: Unpaired infrared-to-visible video translation

    Shuang Li, Bingfeng Han, Zhenjie Yu, Chi Harold Liu, Kai Chen, and Shuigen Wang. I2v-gan: Unpaired infrared-to-visible video translation. In ACMMM, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Image super-resolution using deep convolutional networks

    Chao Dong, Chen Change Loy, Kaiming He, and Xiaoou Tang. Image super-resolution using deep convolutional networks. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 38(2):295–307, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Accurate image super-resolution using very deep convolutional networks

    Jiwon Kim, Jung Kwon Lee, and Kyoung Mu Lee. Accurate image super-resolution using very deep convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1646–1654, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Photo-realistic single image super- resolution using a generative adversarial network

    Christian Ledig, Lucas Theis, Ferenc Husz ´ar, Jose Caballero, Andrew Cunningham, Alejandro Acosta, Andrew Aitken, Alykhan Tejani, Jo- hannes Totz, Zehan Wang, et al. Photo-realistic single image super- resolution using a generative adversarial network. In Proceedings of the I...

    2017

  34. [42]

    Esrgan: Enhanced super-resolution generative adversarial networks

    Xintao Wang, Ke Yu, Shixiang Wu, Jinjin Gu, Yihao Liu, Chao Dong, Yu Qiao, and Chen Change Loy. Esrgan: Enhanced super-resolution generative adversarial networks. In The European Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ECCVW) , September 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    Swinir: Image restoration using swin transformer

    Jingyun Liang, Jiezhang Cao, Guolei Sun, Kai Zhang, Luc Van Gool, and Radu Timofte. Swinir: Image restoration using swin transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.10257 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Cross aggregation transformer for image restoration

    Zheng Chen, Yulun Zhang, Jinjin Gu, Yongbing Zhang, Linghe Kong, and Xin Yuan. Cross aggregation transformer for image restoration. In NeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Fast, accurate, and lightweight super-resolution with cascading residual network

    Namhyuk Ahn, Byungkon Kang, and Kyung-Ah Sohn. Fast, accurate, and lightweight super-resolution with cascading residual network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.08664, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Multi-modal lidar dataset for benchmarking general-purpose localization and mapping algorithms

    Li Qingqing, Yu Xianjia, Jorge Pena Queralta, and Tomi Westerlund. Multi-modal lidar dataset for benchmarking general-purpose localization and mapping algorithms. In 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 3837–3844. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Faster-lio: Lightweight tightly coupled lidar-inertial odometry using parallel sparse incremental voxels

    Chunge Bai, Tao Xiao, Yajie Chen, Haoqian Wang, Fang Zhang, and Xiang Gao. Faster-lio: Lightweight tightly coupled lidar-inertial odometry using parallel sparse incremental voxels. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(2):4861–4868, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

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