Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

FRA-NBV: A Fast and Reflectivity-Aware Next-Best-View Strategy

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reflection-induced depth loss can be detected from missing-pixel patterns alone and repaired by changing the sensor's incidence angle, yielding up to 56% higher reconstruction coverage on shiny objects than ray-casting entropy baselines and

desk verdict A genuinely new reflective-aware NBV planner with real gains on reflective parts, but the detector has a coverage circularity the paper doesn't address and the evaluation isn't acquisition-cost-equalized. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01950 v1 pith:VT6O3QO4 submitted 2026-08-03 cs.RO

G. F. Preziosa , E. Setti , M. Faroni , A. M. Zanchettin , P. Rocco This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords next-best-view3Dreconstructionreflectivesurfacesdepthsensorsellipsoidrepresentationrecoveryposesmissingindustrialrobotics
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 proposes a next-best-view strategy that treats reflective surfaces as a first-class failure mode in 3D reconstruction. It identifies reflection-induced depth loss by finding missing depth pixels that persist across multiple acquisitions from the same pose and that fall inside the object's projected silhouette, then localizes these pixels in 3D using an online ellipsoid representation. Recovery poses are generated at different incidence angles around the detected region, and a utility function explicitly rewards visibility of the reflective area. The reported result is that on highly reflective objects FRA-NBV raises final coverage by up to 31% over the projection-based PB baseline and by about 56% over an entropy-based ray-casting baseline, while staying comparable to both on non-reflective objects.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is a two-stage pipeline built on an ellipsoid-based volumetric representation. First, a detector computes a per-pixel invalidity ratio over repeated acquisitions and keeps pixels invalid at least half the time that also lie strictly inside the projected union of occupied and frontier ellipsoids; ray-ellipsoid intersection then places these pixels in 3D, and DBSCAN clusters them into reflective regions. Second, a recovery stage builds an oriented bounding box around the largest region, samples four poses in a diamond pattern around it so each has a different angle of incidence, and scores them with a utility function that adds the region's projected area to the standard fron

What would settle it

Hold a flat, mirror-polished metal plate fixed and acquire depth from a grid of poses that systematically vary incidence angle; if there is a wide angular range over which the plate's depth remains invalid for every pose, the recovery premise fails for that surface class. Alternatively, run FRA-NBV on a non-reflective object whose missing depth is due to occlusion rather than reflectivity; if recovery poses still fire and consume iterations, the detector cannot distinguish reflectivity from occlusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reflectivity-aware planning does not need CAD models, material reflectance models, RGB data, or learned priors. Persistent, spatially coherent missing depth inside the projected ellipsoidal silhouette of the object is treated as the signature of a reflective surface. For each qualifying pixel, the viewing ray is intersected with the frontier ellipsoids to obtain a 3D location; these locations are clustered into OBB-wrapped regions. Around the largest region, four recovery poses are sampled in a diamond layout with different incidence angles, and the view utility is augmented with the projected area of the reflective region. The experiments show that the coverage gai

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that persistent missing depth pixels inside the projected object silhouette are caused by surface reflectivity and can be recovered by changing the sensor's angle of incidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, industrial scanning of unknown reflective parts no longer requires pre-registered CAD models or material libraries; the sensing failure is detected online from depth statistics alone.
  • The method is designed for heavily downsampled depth (60x40 pixels in the experiments), implying the detection signal survives low-resolution sensing, a condition typical of low-cost industrial setups.
  • Recovery poses are counted inside the same NBV iteration, so the coverage gain is not an artifact of simply taking more scans; per-view increments are larger than standard views on shiny objects.
  • On non-reflective objects the method matches the baselines in coverage, meaning the reflectivity-aware machinery can be left on without degrading normal exploration.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The detector's core signal is not specific to specular reflection: any surface that produces persistent missing depth inside the silhouette, such as transparent glass or matte-black absorbing materials, could plausibly be flagged and recovered with the same incidence-angle heuristic; the paper does not test this but the mechanism is agnostic to the physical cause.
  • The diamond layout and the restoration threshold tau_rec are manually chosen; nothing in the argument pins them to an optimum, so a sensitivity analysis or a learned policy could shift the observed gain without changing the main claim.
  • The ray-ellipsoid intersection assumes the first frontier ellipsoid hit is the missing surface; on concave or mutually reflecting geometry this location estimate degrades, and the paper's own qualitative concave experiments are the place to watch for that limitation.
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. The paper proposes FRA-NBV, a next-best-view strategy for reconstructing unknown objects with reflective surfaces. It extends the projection-based PB-NBV framework by detecting persistent, spatially coherent invalid-depth pixels as candidate reflective regions, localizing them in 3D via the current ellipsoidal object estimate, and selecting recovery poses that vary the sensor incidence angle. The recovery utility in Eq. (14) adds a term proportional to the projected area of the identified reflective region. The method is evaluated on four physical objects with increasing reflectivity/complexity over 15 runs each, comparing against a ray-cast entropy method and PB-NBV; the paper reports coverage gains up to 31% over PB and 56% over RE on the most reflective object, while remaining comparable on non-reflective objects.

Significance. If the reported gains hold, this is a useful practical contribution: it attacks a real industrial problem, does not require CAD or material priors, works with low-resolution depth-only sensing, and includes a reasonable attempt (Fig. 5) to separate the informative value of recovery views from the simple effect of additional acquisitions. The recovery-activation counts in Fig. 4a also suggest the detector is selective rather than triggered indiscriminately. However, the central quantitative claim is currently supported by point estimates without statistical dispersion, and the comparison protocol does not equalize the total number of sensor poses. The detector's dependence on the current object estimate also raises a correctness-risk concern for large fully reflective patches. These issues are addressable, but they affect the strength of the headline claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI-C, Fig. 2a, Fig. 5] The experimental protocol states that recovery poses are integrated inside each NBV iteration and are not counted as additional iterations. Thus FRA-NBV can execute up to four extra acquisitions per iteration relative to PB and RE, so the headline 'up to 31% / approximately 56%' improvement is not acquisition-budget-equalized. Fig. 5 attempts a per-view increment control, but it is reported only for selected objects, has bins marked 'X' for insufficient samples, and does not provide an aggregate acquisition-efficiency curve. Please report final coverage as a function of total number of sensor poses, or an equivalent per-pose added-coverage metric, and quantify how the reported gains change under equal acquisition budgets.
  2. [Sec. V-A, Eqs. (6)-(8); Sec. III-B] The detector keeps only invalid pixels whose rays intersect the ellipsoid set E_o ∪ E_f, and this set is built from occupied and frontier voxels derived from depth measurements. A large reflective patch that returns no depth will generally not be present in the occupied voxels, so the projected silhouette I_o may exclude the very pixels the detector needs. The paper acknowledges that the ellipsoid may overestimate the object extent, but it does not address underestimation due to missing reflective data. The Object D results may work because the reflective fittings are partly surrounded by non-reflective structure. Please add an experiment on a largely or fully reflective object, or a synthetic invalid-depth mask, to characterize this failure mode, and qualify the generality claim accordingly.
  3. [Sec. VI-C; Table I] Final reconstruction coverage is reported as point improvements ('up to 31%', 'approximately 56%') without confidence intervals or significance tests, although 15 runs per object are available. Dispersion is reported only for per-acquisition time in Table I. Please provide the distribution of final coverage per object (e.g., median/IQR or boxplots) and pairwise significance tests between FRA-NBV and the baselines. Without this, the reader cannot assess the stability of the claimed gains across runs.
  4. [Sec. V-B, Eqs. (12)-(14); Sec. VII] The recovery mechanism relies on the physical premise that varying the incidence angle with the fixed diamond offsets ρ,d will make the reflective surface measurable. The paper provides no success-rate or ablation data for this premise, and the qualitative concave-geometry results are only mentioned as available on the website, not included in the manuscript. Please add an analysis of how often recovery poses actually restore depth, or explicitly scope the claim to surfaces observable from at least one of the sampled incidence angles.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Page 2, author header] Typo: 'REFLECTIVITY-AW ARE' should read 'REFLECTIVITY-AWARE'.
  2. [Eq. (15)] 'reconquered volume' appears to be a nonstandard term; likely 'recovered volume' is intended.
  3. [Fig. 2] The caption describes experimental result graphs, but the text refers to Fig. 2a as showing the four test objects. Please clarify the subfigure layout and unify the references.
  4. [Sec. V-A and V-B] The thresholds η≥0.5 and τ_rec=30%, and the offsets ρ=d=10cm, are presented as fixed choices without sensitivity analysis. A short robustness study would strengthen confidence in the method's applicability to other objects and sensors.
  5. [General] The paper would benefit from releasing code and collected data to support reproducibility, since the per-view increment analysis and the recovery-activation counts are central to the claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the coverage gains are measured outcomes of a heuristic recovery strategy, not enforced by fitted parameters or by-construction definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are empirical: FRA-NBV is compared against PB and RE baselines by measuring final reconstruction coverage against a CAD ground truth (Sec. VI-C). The recovery utility in Eq. (14) adds a term proportional to the projected area A_r of the detected reflective region, but this is a control objective, not a fitted parameter nor a derived prediction; it does not guarantee that tilting the sensor recovers depth. The reflective-region detector (Sec. V-A, Eqs. 6-8) does depend on the ellipsoid object estimate to localize invalid-depth pixels, and a fully reflective patch absent from that estimate could be filtered out by the silhouette intersection and ray-ellipsoid steps; however, this is a robustness limitation under the paper's stated assumptions, not an equivalence by construction or a tautology. The paper also includes a per-view coverage increment analysis (Fig. 5) to argue that recovery poses contribute more than mere extra acquisitions. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the method builds on the external PB-NBV framework [10], and the only self-citation [4] appears as background on low-resolution sensing. No fitted constants are used to manufacture the reported improvements.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the physical assumption that persistent missing depth in the object silhouette is caused by reflectivity and can be recovered by changing incidence angle. The paper's own parameters (τ_rec, ρ, d, η, N_k) are hand-set and their influence on the reported gains is not analyzed. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (8)
  • τ_rec (recovery threshold) = 30%
    Controls how many recovery poses are executed per reflective region; directly affects final coverage and the reported improvement.
  • invalidity ratio threshold η = 0.5
    Pixels with >50% invalid measurements across N_k acquisitions are labeled frequently invalid. Choice influences false-positive rate.
  • recovery sampling offsets ρ and d = ρ = 10 cm, d = 10 cm
    Determine the standoff and lateral spread of recovery poses; the effect of their values on coverage is not analyzed.
  • N_k acquisitions per pose = 15
    Number of repeated depth frames used to compute invalidity ratio; affects noise filtering.
  • voxel resolution s_v = 0.75 cm
    Volumetric discretization; also used to expand the recovery bounding box by 2× s_v.
  • N_pos candidate poses = 32
    Number of sampled candidate poses for the base NBV evaluation.
  • stagnation and iteration limits = τ_stag=1%, N_max=15
    Termination criteria; N_max caps the number of NBV iterations.
  • sampling radius γ = 20 cm
    Hemisphere radius for candidate view sampling around the object OBB.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Reflective surfaces cause persistent missing depth measurements in low-cost depth sensors
    Assumption that underlies the entire detector; introduced in Sec. I and Sec. V-A.
  • domain assumption Changing the sensor incidence angle increases the probability of reliable depth acquisition on reflective surfaces
    Stated in Sec. V-B; physical premise of the recovery strategy.
  • domain assumption The ellipsoid-based representation of the partial object estimate is accurate enough for silhouette masking and ray-surface association
    Inherited from PB-NBV; used in Sec. V-A stages 2-4.
  • ad hoc to paper The four diamond-shaped recovery poses with fixed offsets ρ,d are sufficient to achieve angular diversity across different object geometries
    The authors note that other configurations providing comparable angular diversity could also be effective (Sec. V-B); no criterion connects geometry to offsets.
  • domain assumption Controlled lighting conditions do not change the qualitative behavior of the method
    Experiments use fixed lamps; uncontrolled industrial lighting is not tested (Sec. VI-A).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FRA-NBV: A Fast and Reflectivity-Aware Next-Best-View Strategy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VT6O3QO4

@misc{pith2026260801950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FRA-NBV: A Fast and Reflectivity-Aware Next-Best-View Strategy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VT6O3QO4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01950}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous 3D reconstruction with depth sensors is strongly affected by reflective surfaces, which cause missing or unreliable measurements and reduce the effectiveness of conventional Next-Best-View (NBV) strategies. This limitation is particularly critical in industrial applications involving reflective components and low-cost, low-resolution depth sensing, where robustness to sensing failures is essential. This paper proposes a Fast Reflectivity-Aware Next-Best-View (FRA-NBV) strategy that explicitly addresses reflection-induced depth loss without relying on prior object models or assumptions on material reflectance, making it suitable for a wide range of industrial configurations. Reflective regions are identified from the spatial distribution of missing depth measurements and localized in three-dimensional space using an online ellipsoid-based representation of the object estimate. A recovery strategy then selects additional poses that modify the sensor's angle of incidence to improve the likelihood of reconstructing the affected regions. Experiments on objects with different geometric and reflective complexity demonstrate that the approach significantly improves reconstruction coverage under realistic industrial conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01950 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the FRA-NBV pipeline. A voxel-based model and its ellipsoidal approximation are maintained and updated for efficient view evaluation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Experimental results with the graphs of reconstruction percentage achieved by the NBV algorithms. (b) Parameters used for the experiments. Objects have increasing reflectivity from Object A to D. Fig. 2a shows the four test objects used in the experiments. In particular, Object A is a non-reflective steel cuboid with simple geometry; Object B is a pneumatic valve featuring mixed materials and moderate geometric … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experimental setup. on reflective surfaces, controlled lighting conditions were adopted in all experiments. A set of fixed lamps was used to provide consistent illumination of the object workspace, ensuring repeatability across trials. B. Recovery Activation Count This section reports the average number of recovery acti￾vations per reconstruction for FRA-NBV (Fig. 4a). The goal is to assess whether the recovery mech… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experimental results (over 15 runs): (a) Number of recovery activations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references

  1. [1]

    A structured review and taxonomy of next-best-view strategies for 3d reconstruction,

    B. Alsadik, H. A. Mahdi, and N. A. Abdulateef, “A structured review and taxonomy of next-best-view strategies for 3d reconstruction,”ISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    Next-best-view prediction for active stereo cameras and highly reflective objects,

    J. Yang and S. L. Waslander, “Next-best-view prediction for active stereo cameras and highly reflective objects,” inIEEE ICRA, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Surface reflectance estimation and segmentation from single depth image of tof camera,

    S. Lee, J. Kim, H. Lim, and S. C. Ahn, “Surface reflectance estimation and segmentation from single depth image of tof camera,”Signal Processing: Image Communication, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Low resolution next best view for robot packing,

    G. F. Preziosa, C. Castellano, A. M. Zanchettin, M. Faroni, and P. Rocco, “Low resolution next best view for robot packing,”IFAC-PapersOnLine, 2025, 14th IFAC Symposium on Robotics ROBOTICS

    2025

  5. [5]

    Effect of matte coating on 3d optical measurement accuracy,

    D. Palousek, M. Omasta, D. Koutny, J. Bednar, T. Koutecky, and F. Dokoupil, “Effect of matte coating on 3d optical measurement accuracy,”Optical Materials, 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    Occlusions as a guide for planning the next view,

    J. Maver and R. Bajcsy, “Occlusions as a guide for planning the next view,”IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1993

    1993

  7. [7]

    A solution to the next best view problem for automated surface acquisition,

    R. Pito, “A solution to the next best view problem for automated surface acquisition,”IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 1999

    1999

  8. [8]

    View planning for automated three-dimensional object reconstruction and inspection,

    W. R. Scott, G. Roth, and J.-F. Rivest, “View planning for automated three-dimensional object reconstruction and inspection,”ACM Comput. Surv., 2003

    2003

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Autonomous view planning methods for 3d scanning,

    I. D. Lee, J. H. Seo, and B. Yoo, “Autonomous view planning methods for 3d scanning,”Automation in Construction, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Pb-nbv: Efficient projection- based next-best-view planning framework for reconstruction of unknown objects,

    Z. Jia, Y . Li, Q. Hao, and S. Zhang, “Pb-nbv: Efficient projection- based next-best-view planning framework for reconstruction of unknown objects,”IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. (RAL), 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Efficient algorithms for next best view evaluation,

    F. Bissmarck, M. Svensson, and G. Tolt, “Efficient algorithms for next best view evaluation,” inIEEE/RSJ IROS, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    Efficient autonomous exploration planning of large-scale 3-d environments,

    M. Selin, M. Tiger, D. Duberg, F. Heintz, and P. Jensfelt, “Efficient autonomous exploration planning of large-scale 3-d environments,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. (RAL), 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    A double branch next-best- view network and novel robot system for active object reconstruction,

    Y . Han, I. H. Zhan, W. Zhao, and Y .-J. Liu, “A double branch next-best- view network and novel robot system for active object reconstruction,” inIEEE ICRA, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Pred-nbv: Prediction-guided next-best-view planning for 3d object reconstruction,

    H. Dhami, V . D. Sharma, and P. Tokekar, “Pred-nbv: Prediction-guided next-best-view planning for 3d object reconstruction,” inIEEE/RSJ IROS, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    A surface- based next-best-view approach for automated 3d model completion of unknown objects,

    S. Kriegel, T. Bodenm ¨uller, M. Suppa, and G. Hirzinger, “A surface- based next-best-view approach for automated 3d model completion of unknown objects,” inIEEE ICRA, 2011

    2011

  8. [16]

    A multi-sensor next-best-view framework for geometric model-based robotics applications,

    J. Cui, J. T. Wen, and J. Trinkle, “A multi-sensor next-best-view framework for geometric model-based robotics applications,” inIEEE ICRA, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Neurar: Neural uncertainty for autonomous 3d reconstruction with implicit neural representations,

    Y . Ran, J. Zeng, S. He, J. Chen, L. Li, Y . Chen, G. Lee, and Q. Ye, “Neurar: Neural uncertainty for autonomous 3d reconstruction with implicit neural representations,”IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. (RAL), 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Neu-nbv: Next best view planning using uncertainty estimation in image-based neural rendering,

    L. Jin, X. Chen, J. R ¨uckin, and M. Popovi ´c, “Neu-nbv: Next best view planning using uncertainty estimation in image-based neural rendering,” inIEEE/RSJ IROS, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimk ¨uhler, and G. Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.”ACM Trans. Graph., 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Fisherrf: Active view selection and uncertainty quantification for radiance fields using fisher information,

    W. Jiang, B. Lei, and K. Daniilidis, “Fisherrf: Active view selection and uncertainty quantification for radiance fields using fisher information,” arXiv, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Next best sense: Guiding vision and touch with fisherrf for 3d gaussian splatting,

    M. Strong, B. Lei, A. Swann, W. Jiang, K. Daniilidis, and M. Kennedy, “Next best sense: Guiding vision and touch with fisherrf for 3d gaussian splatting,” inIEEE ICRA, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Supervised learning of the next-best-view for 3d object reconstruction,

    M. Mendoza, J. I. Vasquez-Gomez, H. Taud, L. E. Sucar, and C. Reta, “Supervised learning of the next-best-view for 3d object reconstruction,” Pattern Recognition Letters, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    C-space entropy: A measure for view planning and exploration for general robot-sensor systems in unknown environments,

    Y . Yu and K. Gupta, “C-space entropy: A measure for view planning and exploration for general robot-sensor systems in unknown environments,” Int. J. Robotics Res., 2004

    2004

  16. [24]

    A probabilistic framework for next best view estimation in a cluttered environment,

    C. Potthast and G. S. Sukhatme, “A probabilistic framework for next best view estimation in a cluttered environment,”J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent., 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Efficient next-best- scan planning for autonomous 3d surface reconstruction of unknown objects,

    S. Kriegel, C. Rink, T. Bodenm ¨uller, and M. Suppa, “Efficient next-best- scan planning for autonomous 3d surface reconstruction of unknown objects,”J. Real-Time Image Process., 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    A best next view selection algorithm incorporating a quality criterion,

    N. A. Massios and R. B. Fisher, “A best next view selection algorithm incorporating a quality criterion,” inBritish Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), 1998

    1998

  19. [27]

    A fast voxel traversal algorithm for ray tracing

    J. Amanatides, A. Woo,et al., “A fast voxel traversal algorithm for ray tracing.” inEurographics, 1987

    1987

  20. [28]

    View plan- ning for 3d object reconstruction,

    J. I. V ´asquez-G´omez, E. L ¨opez-Damian, and L. E. Sucar, “View plan- ning for 3d object reconstruction,” inIEEE/RSJ IROS, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    Hierarchical ray tracing for fast volumetric next-best-view planning,

    J. I. Vasquez-Gomez, L. E. Sucar, and R. Murrieta-Cid, “Hierarchical ray tracing for fast volumetric next-best-view planning,” inIEEE Inter- national conference on computer and robot vision, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Pc-nbv: A point cloud based deep network for efficient next best view planning,

    R. Zeng, W. Zhao, and Y .-J. Liu, “Pc-nbv: A point cloud based deep network for efficient next best view planning,” inIEEE/RSJ IROS, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Nbv-hrr: Next best view planning network for highly reflective region restoration in robotic 3-d scanning,

    J. Ouyang, D. Liu, P. Jia, X. Liu, X. Liu, and Y . Sun, “Nbv-hrr: Next best view planning network for highly reflective region restoration in robotic 3-d scanning,”IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Dbscan clustering algorithm based on density,

    D. Deng, “Dbscan clustering algorithm based on density,” inInt. Forum on Electrical Engineering and Automation, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.