Learning Cross-Spectral Point Features with Task-Oriented Training

Jonathan Kelly; Mia Thomas; Trevor Ablett

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 28 references

Learning Cross-Spectral Point Features with Task-Oriented Training

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Task-oriented training on matching and homography estimation improves thermal-visible point features enough to register most aerial image pairs within 10 pixels.

desk verdict Solid cross-spectral feature-learning paper; the transfer-loss benefit is plausible and well-ablated but single-run comparisons leave the key claim not fully nailed down. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12593 v2 pith:YAW2DHD2 submitted 2025-05-19 cs.CV

Mia Thomas , Trevor Ablett , Jonathan Kelly This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords cross-spectralfeaturesthermal-visibleregistrationtask-orientedtrainingdifferentiablehomographyestimationpointUAVnavigationtransferlossfeaturematching

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

Cross-spectral point features are usually trained with direct losses on detection and description, which biases the network toward regions where thermal and visible images look alike. This paper claims that training the same feature network on the downstream tasks of matching and homography estimation makes better use of the available data. The authors run the network on thermal-visible pairs, feed its response through a fixed differentiable registration pipeline, and backpropagate losses computed on the matches and the homography estimate. Their selected model, trained with a transfer loss on matching, keeps average corner error below 10 pixels for more than 75% of test pairs on the MultiPoint dataset, while also improving feature metrics on a classical pipeline. If true, this gives UAVs a practical route to navigate in darkness and smoke using thermal imagery against existing visible-spectrum maps.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a differentiable registration pipeline with no learned parameters, adapted from [22]: it extracts subpixel keypoints with a spatial soft-argmax, computes soft matches as ZNCC-weighted sums over target keypoints with temperature $\tau$, assigns inlier scores by a sigmoid on reprojection error, and estimates the homography with a score-weighted direct linear transform. Task losses are computed on the estimated correspondences (transfer loss, in forward and inverse directions) and on the homography, then backpropagated through the pipeline so that only the feature network's weights are updated. The key quantity carrying the argument is the transfer loss—the reprojection error of estimated pseudo-target matches under the ground-truth homography—which supplies a task-level gradient that direct feature losses do not provide.

What would settle it

Retrain the transfer-loss model and the MultiPoint-W baseline multiple times with different random seeds on the same training split and compare the test-set distributions of the ACE $<10$ pixels success rate; if the two distributions overlap substantially, the claimed transfer-loss benefit is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that task-oriented supervision improves cross-spectral point features beyond what direct detector and descriptor losses achieve. Concretely, the authors compare a model trained with a transfer loss on matching against MultiPoint and MultiPoint-W baselines; the task-oriented model attains the highest registration success rates on the weighted pipeline (for example, ACE $<10$ pixels for 76.0% of estimates, versus 71.8% for MultiPoint-W) and the best repeatability (0.454), matching score (0.124), and MMA (0.317) on the classical pipeline. The paper also reports a negative result that is part of the discovery: homography-based losses (corner and Frobenius) degrade performance in this framework because backpropagating through the outlier-rejection block creates an ill-posed averaging problem, whereas the matching-level transfer loss is compatible with the geometry. Thus the authors claim that task-based losses work only when integrated into a cohesive geometric framework, and that a network can be trained directly on task performance without being tied to a single pipeline.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the transfer loss's improvement over the weighted detector loss alone is real signal rather than run-to-run training noise, because the paper reports no repeated seeds, confidence intervals, or significance tests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A network trained only through a differentiable registration pipeline still improves a classical matching-plus-RANSAC pipeline, so task-oriented training does not lock the features to one registration algorithm.
The weighted detector loss accounts for most of the repeatability improvement, while the transfer loss adds the matching and registration gain, suggesting the two supervision signals address different failure modes.
Adding homography-based losses to this pipeline is counterproductive unless geometric constraints are imposed on outlier rejection, so future task-based training should either add differentiable RANSAC or a matching-aware regularizer.
On the MultiPoint dataset, the approach outperforms visible-spectrum baselines (SIFT, ORB, SuperPoint) and the handcrafted cross-spectral LGHD baseline, indicating learned task-oriented features are the stronger route for thermal-visible registration.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same result holds beyond the agricultural MultiPoint dataset, thermal-visible UAV navigation could register live thermal frames against existing RGB map repositories, letting aircraft fly in smoke or darkness without new visible-light infrastructure; this is an extrapolation, not a result demonstrated here.
The incompatibility of homography losses may be specific to the hand-coded outlier-rejection block; replacing it with differentiable RANSAC, the paper's own suggested future work, would test whether registration-level supervision becomes viable once the outlier geometry is learned.
A direct comparison of the transfer loss against other matching-level losses (for example, descriptor-distance margins on the same pseudo-matches) would clarify whether the gain comes from task-level gradients or simply from an extra contrastive signal; the paper does not run this comparison.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear [Colleague],

Quick take: This paper proposes training cross-spectral (thermal-visible) point features with a task-oriented loss: run the feature network through a differentiable registration pipeline and backprop from matching/registration errors, rather than only supervising detection/description directly. It is a sensible extension of Gridseth and Barfoot's differentiable pose estimator to the cross-spectral setting, and the authors systematically compare loss variants (corner, Frobenius, transfer) and find transfer works best and homography losses fail for an identifiable geometric reason. That is a real, useful contribution, and the experiments are well organized: ablations on the weighted detector loss, threshold controls, and a demonstration that the model still works on a classical RANSAC pipeline. I think the central idea is likely right.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The strongest claim—that the transfer loss adds value beyond the weighted detector loss—rests on a comparison between MultiPoint-W and the full model using a single training run per method. The differences are about 4 percentage points (0.760 vs 0.718 at e<10 on the weighted pipeline), consistent across thresholds and pipelines, which is reassuring, but with no repeated seeds or confidence intervals we cannot rule out training stochasticity. That is the one thing I would want fixed before betting on the result. Second, the abstract's "more than 75% of estimates" is only true for the weighted pipeline; on the classical pipeline it is 71%. That should be clarified. Third, ReDFeat and XPoint are discussed in the related work but not included in the experiments; the omission deserves at least a sentence explaining why, since they are the closest learned cross-spectral methods. Minor: the training-duration relationship between MultiPoint-W (used as initialization) and the final model is stated but easy to misread; an explicit "same total epochs" statement would help.

The math and pipeline description are clear, the citation pattern is appropriate, and the empirical analysis is more careful than the norm for this subfield. The paper deserves a serious referee; with the repeated-run statistics and abstract fix, it would be a solid acceptance. I'd bring it to a reading group as a good example of task-oriented training applied to features, but I wouldn't necessarily cite it in my own work unless I were actively working in cross-spectral matching.

Recommendation: peer review, yes, with a request for multi-seed variance reporting.

Best, [You]

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a task-oriented training procedure for cross-spectral (thermal-visible) point features. The feature network's detection and descriptor outputs are fed into a fixed, non-learned differentiable registration pipeline, and a 'transfer' loss on the resulting match reprojection errors is added to standard detector and descriptor losses. The authors evaluate variants with transfer, corner, and Frobenius losses on the MultiPoint dataset, comparing registration success, repeatability, matching score, MMA, and mAP against handcrafted and learned baselines on both a classical RANSAC pipeline and a weighted differentiable pipeline. The selected model, trained with base losses plus transfer loss, achieves an ACE below 10 pixels for 76% of weighted-pipeline estimates and also improves classical-pipeline feature metrics. The paper concludes that task-oriented training improves cross-spectral features and that homography-based losses are incompatible with the proposed training framework.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the contribution is practically useful: it provides a simple way to supervise cross-spectral point features with a downstream matching objective while retaining classical-pipeline compatibility. The experimental design has clear strengths: the ablation over task-loss variants, the inclusion of the weighted detector loss as a controlled baseline, the detection-threshold control in Table III, and the use of held-out flights for evaluation. The paper also gives a plausible explanation for why homography-based losses fail in this framework. However, the incremental gain attributed to the transfer loss over the weighted-detector-loss baseline is small (about 4 percentage points at e<10 pixels) and is reported from single training runs without confidence intervals or significance testing. Because the paper's central message depends on this specific comparison, the current evidence is not yet fully load-bearing.

major comments (3)

[Section V-A, Table IV] The central claim that the transfer loss improves over the base losses rests on a single training run per configuration. In Table IV, Base+Transfer (Ours) achieves e<10 = 0.760 versus 0.718 for Base (MultiPoint-W), and e<5 = 0.614 versus 0.573. These differences are comparable in magnitude to typical run-to-run variability of deep feature networks, and no confidence intervals, repeated-seed runs, or significance tests are reported. Please report means and variances over at least three to five seeds, and ideally paired per-test-pair differences, for the Base and Base+Transfer conditions. Without such statistics, the claimed benefit of task-oriented training beyond the weighted detector loss is not established.
[Section IV-E, Table IV] The training procedure for the central comparison is ambiguous. The text states that the base losses are used to train MultiPoint-W, which is then used to initialize the weights for the proposed model, and that the proposed model trains for the full 1000 epochs. If the proposed model is initialized from the final MultiPoint-W weights and then trained for another 1000 epochs, it receives more optimizer updates than MultiPoint-W, which would confound the Base versus Base+Transfer comparison in Table IV. Please specify the total number of training epochs and optimizer updates for every model in Table IV, and if the proposed model is trained longer, add a control with equal total updates.
[Section V-B, Tables II and III] The standalone feature comparisons are also single-run comparisons, and the comparison between MultiPoint-W and Ours is made at different detection counts (NK = 1609 versus 1708 in Table II). Table III provides a useful NK control for MultiPoint, but the conclusion in Section V-B that 'our method receives an additional performance boost from task-oriented training' is based on a single run at a loosely matched NK, with no uncertainty estimates. Please report standard errors or confidence intervals for repeatability, matching score, MMA, and mAP, and consider matching detection thresholds across all learned methods before making the superiority claim.

minor comments (4)

[Equation (1)] The softmax argument is typeset ambiguously; it should read approximately sigma((f_zncc(sd_i, td_j) + 1) / tau), with the temperature in the denominator rather than as a separate argument.
[Abstract and Section V-A] The abstract states that the selected model achieves an ACE below 10 pixels for more than 75% of estimates without stating that this is the weighted-pipeline result. Since Table I shows lower classical-pipeline numbers, the qualifier should be included in the abstract.
[Section III-B2] The 'spatial soft argmax' used for subpixel keypoint extraction is not formally defined. Please specify the windowing scheme and the exact computation used to obtain continuous keypoint coordinates from the detection heatmap.
[Equation (3)] The notation in the reprojection error x is difficult to parse because the source/target superscripts on the homography are not clearly associated with the points being transformed. Please rewrite the expression to make clear which homography is applied to which keypoint set.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical, held-out evaluation of a task-oriented training objective; no prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a supervised-learning pipeline: feature outputs are fed into a differentiable registration pipeline, losses are applied to matching and registration estimates, and the resulting model is evaluated on held-out test flights of the MultiPoint dataset. The final claim is an empirical comparison of registration success rates, not a derived constant. The selected model uses the transfer loss plus base losses; the transfer loss (Eq. 8) is a reprojection error on pseudo-correspondences under a randomly sampled training homography, whereas the reported metric is average corner error (Eq. 12) on the test set. The model is therefore not constructed to minimize ACE by definition on the test data. Hyperparameters and loss weights are selected on a validation split, and the test flights are disjoint from training, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The comparison against MultiPoint-W is an empirical ablation; the absence of repeated-seed statistics is a statistical robustness concern, not circularity, and per the review rules does not raise the circularity score. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears: the cited prior works, MultiPoint [6] and Gridseth and Barfoot [22], are external to the present authors, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work. Consequently, no circular step is exhibited.

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

The central claim rests on standard supervised-learning assumptions and on the MultiPoint dataset's pseudo-ground truth. The main tuned quantities are the loss weights, soft-argmax temperature, outlier rejection constants, and descriptor/detector loss margins; all are chosen by hand or taken from prior work. The method introduces no new physical or conceptual entities with external falsifiable predictions.

free parameters (8)

task loss weights (lambda_C, lambda_F, lambda_T, lambda_D, lambda_K) = lambda_T=lambda_D=lambda_K=1, lambda_C=lambda_F=0 for final model
Set empirically from a tuning stage (Section III-C and Section V-C); the relative weights are chosen by hand and affect training.
softmax temperature tau = 0.01
Used in pseudo-target keypoint matching (Eq. 1); chosen as an implementation detail.
outlier rejection threshold a = 50 pixels
Used in the inlier score (Eq. 3) for training images of size 240x320; chosen by hand.
inlier score sharpness b = 5
Controls the rate of decline in the inlier sigmoid (Eq. 3).
Welsch robust loss scale c = 0.1
Applied to normalized task-based errors (Eq. 9); chosen by hand.
descriptor loss margins mP, mN and positive weight lambda_P = 1.0, 0.2, 250
Taken from MultiPoint [6]; these hyperparameters shape the contrastive descriptor training.
detector loss class weights rho_j = 64/65 for keypoint cells, 1/65 for dustbin
Hand-set to reweight the no-keypoint class in the categorical cross-entropy loss (Eq. 11).
keypoint extraction window size = 8 x 8 pixels
Determines keypoint density and matches the SuperPoint-style grid used in the feature network.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The MultiPoint pseudo-ground-truth keypoints, generated by multi-spectral homographic adaptation, are reliable enough to train and evaluate detection.
The detector loss (Eq. 11) and all feature metrics depend on this pseudo-ground truth; the paper provides no independent verification of the keypoint labels.
domain assumption Aligned thermal-visible image pairs together with randomly sampled homographies simulate the viewpoint changes that matter for UAV navigation.
Training and evaluation use random homographic warps rather than true 3D viewpoint changes from UAV motion; this is a modeling assumption about the domain.
domain assumption The differentiable registration pipeline's gradients, through soft-argmax keypoints, ZNCC matching, and weighted DLT, are sufficient to train the feature network beneficially.
The method depends on these approximations; the paper does not analyze gradient quality, and Section V-C shows that homography-based losses actually fail under this pipeline.
domain assumption The three held-out flights are representative of thermal-visible registration conditions beyond the MultiPoint dataset.
Training and testing use one dataset with a single flight split, and there is no cross-dataset evaluation.
standard math RANSAC and damped least-squares in the classical pipeline are treated as standard, correct tools for baseline evaluation.
These background algorithms are used without derivation or detailed parameter tuning analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Cross-Spectral Point Features with Task-Oriented Training." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YAW2DHD2

@misc{pith2026250512593,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Cross-Spectral Point Features with Task-Oriented Training},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YAW2DHD2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12593}
}

read the original abstract

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) enable operations in remote and hazardous environments, yet the visible-spectrum, camera-based navigation systems often relied upon by UAVs struggle in low-visibility conditions. Thermal cameras, which capture long-wave infrared radiation, are able to function effectively in darkness and smoke, where visible-light cameras fail. This work explores learned cross-spectral (thermal-visible) point features as a means to integrate thermal imagery into established camera-based navigation systems. Existing methods typically train a feature network's detection and description outputs directly, which often focuses training on image regions where thermal and visible-spectrum images exhibit similar appearance. Aiming to more fully utilize the available data, we propose a method to train the feature network on the tasks of matching and registration. We run our feature network on thermal-visible image pairs, then feed the network response into a differentiable registration pipeline. Losses are applied to the matching and registration estimates of this pipeline. Our selected model, trained on the task of matching, achieves a registration error (corner error) below 10 pixels for more than 75% of estimates on the MultiPoint dataset. We further demonstrate that our model can also be used with a classical pipeline for matching and registration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12593 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Training overview flowchart. One image of a thermal-visible image pair is transformed (i.e., augmented) by a random but known homography. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Alignment visualization for different average corner error (ACE) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Box plots of average corner error (ACE) expressed in pixels in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

[1]

A review on absolute visual localization for UA V,

A. Couturier and M. A. Akhloufi, “A review on absolute visual localization for UA V,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 135, Jan. 2021

work page 2021
[2]

[Online]

Google Earth . [Online]. Available: https://earth.google. com/

work page
[3]

SuperPoint: Self- Supervised Interest Point Detection and Description,

D. DeTone, T. Malisiewicz, and A. Rabinovich, “SuperPoint: Self- Supervised Interest Point Detection and Description,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), Jun. 2018, pp. 337–349

work page 2018
[4]

D2-Net: A Trainable CNN for Joint Description and Detection of Local Features,

M. Dusmanu et al. “D2-Net: A Trainable CNN for Joint Description and Detection of Local Features,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , Jun. 2019, pp. 8084–8093

work page 2019
[5]

R2D2: Reliable and Repeatable Detector and Descriptor,

J. Revaud, C. De Souza, M. Humenberger, and P. Weinzaepfel, “R2D2: Reliable and Repeatable Detector and Descriptor,” in Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2019

work page 2019
[6]

MultiPoint: Cross-spectral registration of ther- mal and optical aerial imagery,

F. Achermann et al. “MultiPoint: Cross-spectral registration of ther- mal and optical aerial imagery,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2020

work page 2020
[7]

ReDFeat: Recoupling Detection and Descrip- tion for Multimodal Feature Learning,

Y . Deng and J. Ma, “ReDFeat: Recoupling Detection and Descrip- tion for Multimodal Feature Learning,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 32, pp. 591–602, 2022

work page 2022
[8]

Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints,

D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 60, pp. 91–110, Nov. 2004

work page 2004

Show all 28 references

[9]

ORB: An efficient alternative to SIFT or SURF,

E. Rublee, V . Rabaud, K. Konolige, and G. Bradski, “ORB: An efficient alternative to SIFT or SURF,” in International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , Nov. 2011, pp. 2564–2571

2011
[10]

A comparison of image features for registering LWIR and visual images,

J. Cronje and J. De Villiers, “A comparison of image features for registering LWIR and visual images,” in Annual Symposium of the Pattern Recognition Association of South Africa (PRASA) , Pretoria, South Africa, Nov. 2012, pp. 1–8

2012
[11]

Statistics of Infrared Images,

N. J. W. Morris, S. Avidan, W. Matusik, and H. Pfister, “Statistics of Infrared Images,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , Jun. 2007

2007
[12]

Multispectral Image Feature Points,

C. Aguilera, F. Barrera, F. Lumbreras, A. D. Sappa, and R. Toledo, “Multispectral Image Feature Points,” Sensors, vol. 12, no. 9, pp. 12 661–12 672, Sep. 2012

2012
[13]

A Computational Approach to Edge Detection,

J. Canny, “A Computational Approach to Edge Detection,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 679–698, Nov. 1986

1986
[14]

A Local Feature Descriptor Based on Log-Gabor Filters for Keypoint Matching in Multispectral Images,

C. F. G. Nunes and F. L. C. P ´adua, “A Local Feature Descriptor Based on Log-Gabor Filters for Keypoint Matching in Multispectral Images,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters , vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1850–1854, Oct. 2017

2017
[15]

LGHD: A feature descriptor for matching across non-linear intensity variations,

C. A. Aguilera, A. D. Sappa, and R. Toledo, “LGHD: A feature descriptor for matching across non-linear intensity variations,” in IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) , Sep. 2015, pp. 178–181

2015
[16]

RIFT: Multi-Modal Image Matching Based on Radiation-Variation Insensitive Feature Transform,

J. Li, Q. Hu, and M. Ai, “RIFT: Multi-Modal Image Matching Based on Radiation-Variation Insensitive Feature Transform,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 29, pp. 3296–3310, 2020

2020
[17]

Cross- Spectral Local Descriptors via Quadruplet Network,

C. A. Aguilera, A. D. Sappa, C. Aguilera, and R. Toledo, “Cross- Spectral Local Descriptors via Quadruplet Network,” Sensors, vol. 17, no. 4, p. 873, Apr. 2017

2017
[18]

Learning to Find Unpaired Cross-Spectral Correspondences,

S. Jeong, S. Kim, K. Park, and K. Sohn, “Learning to Find Unpaired Cross-Spectral Correspondences,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 5394–5406, Nov. 2019

2019
[19]

Infrared- to-Optical Image Translation for Keypoint-Based Image Regis- tration,

M. Elsaeidy, M. E. Erkol, B. K. G ¨unt¨urk, and H. F. Ates ¸, “Infrared- to-Optical Image Translation for Keypoint-Based Image Regis- tration,” in Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU), May 2022

2022
[20]

Swin Transformer based Siamese Network for Thermal and Optical Image Registration,

M. Elsaeidy, ˙I. C. Ya ˘gmur, H. F. Ates ¸, and B. K. G ¨unt¨urk, “Swin Transformer based Siamese Network for Thermal and Optical Image Registration,” in Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU) , Jul. 2023

2023
[21]

˙I. C. Ya ˘gmur, H. F. Ates ¸, and B. K. G ¨unt¨urk, XPoint: A Self- Supervised Visual-State-Space based Architecture for Multispectral Image Registration , Nov. 2024. [Online]. Available: http : / / arxiv.org/abs/2411.07430

2024
[22]

Keeping an Eye on Things: Deep Learned Features for Long-Term Visual Localization,

M. Gridseth and T. D. Barfoot, “Keeping an Eye on Things: Deep Learned Features for Long-Term Visual Localization,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1016–1023, Apr. 2022

2022
[23]

Simonyan and A

K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, V ery Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition , Apr. 2015. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1556

2015 arXiv
[24]

Understanding the Limitations of CNN-Based Absolute Camera Pose Regression,

T. Sattler, Q. Zhou, M. Pollefeys, and L. Leal-Taix ´e, “Understanding the Limitations of CNN-Based Absolute Camera Pose Regression,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR) , 2019, pp. 3297–3307

2019
[25]

Techniques for nonlinear least squares and robust regression,

J. E. Dennis Jr. and R. E. Welsch, “Techniques for nonlinear least squares and robust regression,” Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation , vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 345–359, Jan. 1978

1978
[26]

A General and Adaptive Robust Loss Function,

J. T. Barron, “A General and Adaptive Robust Loss Function,” 2019, pp. 4331–4339

2019
[27]

PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library,

A. Paszke et al. “PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library,” in Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2019

2019
[28]

Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimiza- tion,

D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimiza- tion,” in International Conference for Learning Representations , 2015

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A review on absolute visual localization for UA V,

A. Couturier and M. A. Akhloufi, “A review on absolute visual localization for UA V,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 135, Jan. 2021

work page 2021

[2] [2]

[Online]

Google Earth . [Online]. Available: https://earth.google. com/

work page

[3] [3]

SuperPoint: Self- Supervised Interest Point Detection and Description,

D. DeTone, T. Malisiewicz, and A. Rabinovich, “SuperPoint: Self- Supervised Interest Point Detection and Description,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), Jun. 2018, pp. 337–349

work page 2018

[4] [4]

D2-Net: A Trainable CNN for Joint Description and Detection of Local Features,

M. Dusmanu et al. “D2-Net: A Trainable CNN for Joint Description and Detection of Local Features,” in IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , Jun. 2019, pp. 8084–8093

work page 2019

[5] [5]

R2D2: Reliable and Repeatable Detector and Descriptor,

J. Revaud, C. De Souza, M. Humenberger, and P. Weinzaepfel, “R2D2: Reliable and Repeatable Detector and Descriptor,” in Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2019

work page 2019

[6] [6]

MultiPoint: Cross-spectral registration of ther- mal and optical aerial imagery,

F. Achermann et al. “MultiPoint: Cross-spectral registration of ther- mal and optical aerial imagery,” in Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

ReDFeat: Recoupling Detection and Descrip- tion for Multimodal Feature Learning,

Y . Deng and J. Ma, “ReDFeat: Recoupling Detection and Descrip- tion for Multimodal Feature Learning,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 32, pp. 591–602, 2022

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints,

D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 60, pp. 91–110, Nov. 2004

work page 2004