Multimodal Object Detection using Depth and Image Data for Manufacturing Parts

Nazanin Mahjourian; Vinh Nguyen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Multimodal Object Detection using Depth and Image Data for Manufacturing Parts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · 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 feeding a Faster R-CNN detector a four-channel RGB-D input—a camera image with a projected and normalized depth map appended as a fourth channel—outperforms the same network trained on RGB alone or depth alone…

desk verdict A clean but overclaimed early-fusion RGB-D study whose central comparison may be inflated by test-set leakage in the depth normalization; worth reviewing, but only after retraining with train-only statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09062 v3 pith:N3LKVGEA submitted 2024-11-13 cs.CV cs.AIcs.RO

Nazanin Mahjourian , Vinh Nguyen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.RO

keywords multimodalobjectdetectionRGB-DearlyfusionFasterR-CNNdepthmappointcloudprojectionsmartmanufacturingsensor

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

The paper proposes early sensor fusion for object detection in manufacturing: a 3D point cloud is projected onto the RGB camera image to make a depth map, the depth map is normalized and appended as a fourth channel, and a Faster R-CNN with a modified first convolutional layer processes the resulting four-channel input. On a 301-image dataset of a NIST-style assembly board with nine component classes, this RGB-D model reaches a mean mAP of 0.480 and mean precision of 0.474, compared with 0.425 and 0.424 for the RGB-only variant and 0.269 and 0.301 for the depth-only variant across ten training runs. The authors argue that depth supplies spatial structure that rescues detections of metallic objects with low color contrast, while RGB supplies texture and shape that point clouds lack for thin or small parts. The claim is that a single-backbone early fusion design is both more accurate and computationally simpler than two-branch fusion alternatives.

What carries the argument

The central object is the four-channel RGB-D input: a depth map produced by projecting each point cloud onto the camera image plane using calibrated intrinsic and extrinsic matrices, normalizing depth values to the range 0 to 255, and concatenating the result with the raw RGB image. The detection model is Faster R-CNN with a ResNet-50 backbone, modified only by replacing the first convolutional layer to accept four channels. This single-backbone early fusion is the mechanism that lets the network extract features which jointly encode color and texture from RGB and spatial structure from depth in one pass.

What would settle it

Retrain the three variants with depth normalization statistics (D_min, D_max, mean, standard deviation) computed only from the 226 training images, then evaluate on the held-out test set; if the RGB-D advantage over RGB-only falls clearly below the reported 13% mAP improvement, the multimodal gain was inflated by test-set leakage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that concatenating a projected depth map with an RGB image into a four-channel input lets a standard single-backbone Faster R-CNN detector exploit both modalities and beat either unimodal variant of the same architecture. The headline numbers are a 13% higher mean mAP (0.480 vs 0.425) and an 11.8% higher mean precision (0.474 vs 0.424) over the RGB-only baseline, and a 78% higher mAP (0.480 vs 0.269) and 57% higher precision over the depth-only baseline, averaged over ten random initializations. The benefit concentrates on metallic, reflective, and low-contrast objects that RGB-only misdetects, while the RGB channel compensates for depth's weakness on thin and small objects with sparse point coverage.

Load-bearing premise

The depth channel is normalized using minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation computed across the entire dataset, so if the test images are included in those statistics, the reported RGB-D improvement may be partly due to information leaking from the test set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On the tested task board, a four-channel RGB-D input yields higher mAP and mean precision than either RGB-only or depth-only under the same training setup.
Depth information specifically rescues objects that blend into the background by color, such as metallic pins and the nut.
RGB information compensates for depth-only failures on thin or small objects that receive few points in the point cloud.
Early fusion with a single backbone avoids the extra parameters and computation of two-branch designs, making the approach more viable for real-time factory deployment.
The advantage persists across ten training runs with random initialization, so it is not a fluke of one weight draw.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the paper computes depth normalization statistics over the entire dataset, the reported 13% mAP gain may overstate the true multimodal benefit; re-evaluating with train-split-only statistics is a concrete way to test this.
The same four-channel early fusion recipe could be tested on newer detection architectures, such as DETR or Mask R-CNN, to see whether the gain transfers beyond Faster R-CNN.
A head-to-head comparison against late fusion under equal compute would clarify whether the single-backbone advantage is primarily accuracy or primarily efficiency.
The 301-image, single-board dataset limits extrapolation to full production lines; varying lighting, occlusion, and board configurations would test whether the depth advantage is robust.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about arXiv:2411.09062. First, the actual contribution is not new: it is early fusion of RGB and depth as a four-channel input to a standard Faster R-CNN, a technique that the authors themselves cite in prior classification work (Garbouge et al.) and that is a well-known baseline in RGB-D detection. The claim that no existing method has explored four-channel RGB+D for detection is not supported and is likely false. Second, the central comparison—RGB-D beats RGB-only by 13% mAP—is plausibly correct but not reliably established, because the depth normalization in Eq. 1 uses dataset-wide min/max and renormalization statistics that almost certainly include test images. That gives the RGB-D model access to test-set depth statistics at inference, while the RGB-only baseline has no analogous leak. This is a load-bearing flaw, not a technicality, and it needs to be fixed by recomputing all depth statistics on the training split only and retraining. What the paper does well: it runs a disciplined ablation. Three variants of the same architecture, trained from scratch, 10 runs each, same train/validation/test split, early stopping on validation. The qualitative examples are consistent with the claim that depth helps for metallic, low-contrast parts. The writing is honest about the dataset being small and the accuracy still far from industrial deployment. The calibration procedure is described in enough detail to be replicable. Where it falls short, in proportion: beyond the normalization leak, no significance tests are reported, and the error bars in Figure 6 are not given numerically, so we cannot tell whether the 13% gap is meaningful across the 10 runs. The dataset is private and small (301 images), and no code is released, so the result is not independently checkable. These are standard reproducibility problems, not fatal ones, but they compound the normalization issue. My take: the paper is a competent engineering study that would be useful to researchers in manufacturing perception, but as it stands the headline result is not rigorously supported. The fix is straightforward, and the study design is otherwise clean enough that I would not desk reject it. I would send it to peer review with a clear request: retrain with train-only normalization statistics, report run-level results with significance tests, and release the data or code. If the 13% gap survives that retraining, the paper is a solid application note. If not, the claim collapses to a modest observation about a known technique on a small dataset. For my own work, I would not cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RGBD-Man, an early-fusion multimodal object detector for manufacturing parts. RGB images from a Basler camera and point clouds from an Intel RealSense camera are calibrated, the point clouds are projected into single-channel depth maps, and the depth map is concatenated with the RGB image to form a four-channel input to a Faster R-CNN with a ResNet-50 backbone. The authors compare RGBD-Man against RGB-only and Depth-only variants of the same architecture on a 301-image dataset derived from a modified NIST task board, training each variant 10 times. They report that RGBD-Man improves mean mAP by 13% over RGB-only and by 78% over Depth-only, and improves Mean Precision by 11.8% over RGB-only and by 57% over Depth-only. The paper also describes the sensor calibration procedure, depth-map generation, dataset labeling, and qualitative detection results.

Significance. If the comparison is clean, the paper provides a useful empirical result for RGB-D early fusion in manufacturing object detection. The strengths are the explicit calibration protocol, the controlled three-variant ablation on the same architecture, the use of 10 repeated runs, and the from-scratch training setup. The paper does not make parameter-free derivations; it is an empirical study. However, as reported, the quantitative evidence is not yet sufficient to support the central claim: the depth normalization appears to use test-set statistics, and no statistical significance testing is reported for the claimed improvements. These issues are load-bearing because the headline result is exactly the RGB-D improvement over RGB-only.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.3, Eq. (1)] The depth normalization in Eq. (1) uses D_min and D_max 'observed across the entire dataset,' and the subsequent renormalization mean and standard deviation are also described as computed across the dataset. Since the train/validation/test split is only introduced in Section 3.4, the normalization statistics as described include the test split. This gives the RGB-D variant, which is the only variant that uses a depth channel, access to test-set depth statistics; the RGB-only baseline has no analogous leakage. The reported 13% mAP improvement over RGB-only may therefore be biased by transductive normalization. Please recompute D_min, D_max, and the renormalization mean/std using only the training split, retrain all 10 runs, and report the updated Table 1. If the implementation already used train-only statistics, state this explicitly in Section 3.3.
[Section 4, Table 1 and Fig. 6] The central quantitative claim rests on mean mAP differences of 0.055 (0.480 vs. 0.425) and mean precision differences of 0.050 (0.474 vs. 0.424), but no statistical significance test is reported. The standard deviations are only shown as unreadable error bars in Fig. 6 and are not given numerically. With a test set of only 30 images and 10 training runs, the 13% relative improvement could be within run-to-run variability. Please report the per-run metrics, give the numerical standard deviations (or confidence intervals) for each model, and apply a paired significance test, such as a paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test over the 10 runs, for RGB-D vs. RGB-only. The sentence in Section 3.6 claiming that repeated training sessions 'confirmed' reproducibility is not supported without these numbers.
[Section 3.6, Table 1] The metric 'Mean Precision' is used as a headline result, but it is never defined. The cited reference [32] defines average precision for the Pascal VOC challenge, not 'mean precision.' The table reports values that are very close to the mAP values (e.g., 0.425 vs. 0.424 for RGB-only), so it is unclear whether 'Mean Precision' is a different metric or a slightly different computation of average precision. Please define the metric precisely, state its relationship to mAP at IoU 0.5, and explain why it is reported separately. Without this definition, the abstract's claim of an 11.8% improvement in Mean Precision cannot be evaluated.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Introduction] There are grammatical errors such as 'an red-green-blue (RGB) camera' and 'a established computer vision problem'; these should be corrected.
[Section 1, related-work claim] The statement that 'none of the existing methods have explored efficient four-channel RGB+D inputs in the context of object detection tasks' is too strong. Early-fusion RGB-D object detection approaches with four-channel inputs have appeared in the literature, and reference [25] is a survey of RGB-D salient object detection rather than generic object detection. Please cite relevant prior object detection work or soften the novelty claim.
[Section 3.5 and Section 4] The Depth-only variant is described as receiving 'single-channel depth maps' in Section 3.5, but Section 4 says the model is given 'depth values for every pixel in each image in the shape of a one dimensional array.' Please clarify the actual input shape used for the Depth-only variant.
[Fig. 6] The error bars in Fig. 6 are not legible and no numerical values are provided. Include the standard deviations in Table 1 or report them in the text.
[Section 3.6] The term 'Mean mAP' is used in Table 1, but it is not defined. If it means the mAP averaged over 10 runs, please say so explicitly to avoid confusion with class-averaged mAP.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular dependency: the RGB-D comparison is empirical, and the dataset-wide depth normalization is a leakage concern rather than a circularity.

full rationale

This paper makes an empirical engineering claim: a four-channel RGB+depth Faster R-CNN variant outperforms unimodal RGB-only and depth-only variants on a custom manufacturing-parts dataset. There is no derivation from first principles whose conclusion is hidden in its inputs. The depth normalization in Eq. (1) uses D_min and D_max 'observed across the entire dataset,' and Section 3.3 also describes dataset-wide mean and standard deviation renormalization; if those statistics include test images, the RGB-D preprocessing becomes transductive. That is a benchmark-integrity concern, not circularity, because the reported mAP values are not equal to the normalization by construction and the claim is decided by held-out evaluation of trained models. The paper does not invoke any self-citation as load-bearing: references [22]-[24] on prior RGB-D detectors are external, and the Faster R-CNN/ResNet-50 components are standard public architectures. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the three variants are trained from scratch with separate weights and evaluated on the same train/validation/test split. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the central claim retains independent empirical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or theoretical constructs. It relies on standard deep learning architectures, a custom dataset, and hand-chosen hyperparameters. The main data-dependent quantities are depth normalization statistics, which may be computed over the full dataset including the test split.

free parameters (5)

Depth normalization range (D_min, D_max) = Not disclosed
Computed over the entire dataset (Eq. 1), potentially including the test set; used to scale depth to [0,255].
Depth renormalization mean and standard deviation = Not disclosed
Dataset-wide statistics used inside the model to normalize the depth channel (Section 3.3).
Calibration acceptance thresholds = Max translation error 0.0045 m, max rotation error 4.5 degrees
Chosen by hand; image-point cloud pairs exceeding these errors were removed, affecting the fidelity of depth alignment.
Early stopping patience = 10 epochs
Chosen by hand; affects which checkpoint is evaluated on the test set.
Batch size = 4
Chosen as a memory and speed compromise; affects training dynamics.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Faster R-CNN with a ResNet-50 backbone provides a valid base for multimodal object detection when the first convolutional layer is modified to accept a four-channel input.
The paper builds on this architecture without re-deriving it; if the backbone cannot effectively fuse the fourth channel, the comparison would be compromised.
domain assumption The calibrated projection from the 3D point cloud to the 2D image plane using intrinsic and extrinsic matrices produces depth maps aligned with the RGB image.
Sections 3.2 and 3.3 rely on calibration to generate the depth map; errors here would degrade the fusion.
domain assumption The custom dataset of 301 images with a NIST-inspired task board is representative of manufacturing object detection scenarios.
Sections 3.1 and 3.4 describe the board and data; the paper uses it to draw general conclusions about depth fusion in manufacturing.
domain assumption The checkpoints selected by validation mAP with early stopping generalize to the held-out test set.
Section 3.6 describes early stopping on the 45-image validation set; with a small validation set, selection could be noisy.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multimodal Object Detection using Depth and Image Data for Manufacturing Parts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N3LKVGEA

@misc{pith2026241109062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multimodal Object Detection using Depth and Image Data for Manufacturing Parts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N3LKVGEA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09062}
}

read the original abstract

Manufacturing requires reliable object detection methods for precise picking and handling of diverse types of manufacturing parts and components. Traditional object detection methods utilize either only 2D images from cameras or 3D data from lidars or similar 3D sensors. However, each of these sensors have weaknesses and limitations. Cameras do not have depth perception and 3D sensors typically do not carry color information. These weaknesses can undermine the reliability and robustness of industrial manufacturing systems. To address these challenges, this work proposes a multi-sensor system combining an red-green-blue (RGB) camera and a 3D point cloud sensor. The two sensors are calibrated for precise alignment of the multimodal data captured from the two hardware devices. A novel multimodal object detection method is developed to process both RGB and depth data. This object detector is based on the Faster R-CNN baseline that was originally designed to process only camera images. The results show that the multimodal model significantly outperforms the depth-only and RGB-only baselines on established object detection metrics. More specifically, the multimodal model improves mAP by 13% and raises Mean Precision by 11.8% in comparison to the RGB-only baseline. Compared to the depth-only baseline, it improves mAP by 78% and raises Mean Precision by 57%. Hence, this method facilitates more reliable and robust object detection in service to smart manufacturing applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09062 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIGURE 2: Assembly board and the manufacturing components. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIGURE 4: MATLAB’s Lidar-Camera Calibration application output [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIGURE 5: The three variants of the object detection model used in experiments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIGURE 6: Comparison of the Depth-only, RGB-only, and RGB-D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIGURE 7: Qualitative comparison of the three model variants over two sample scenes from the test set. The RGB-only model tends to fail [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Multi-Modal Multi-Task Federated Foundation Models for Next-Generation Extended Reality Systems: Towards Privacy-Preserving Distributed Intelligence in AR/VR/MR
cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The paper proposes M3T federated foundation models (FedFMs) as a privacy-preserving architecture for XR and codifies the key challenges as the SHIFT dimensions.
Dual-Axis Beam-Steering OPA with purely Passive Phase Shifters
physics.optics 2024-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

An eight-layer silicon optical phased array uses passive delay lines and wavelength tuning to steer a beam in two orthogonal directions without grating couplers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[32]

The pascal visualobjectclasses(voc)challenge

Everingham, Mark, Van Gool, Luc, Williams, Christo- pher KI, Winn, John and Zisserman, Andrew. “The pascal visualobjectclasses(voc)challenge.” Internationaljournal of computer visionVol. 88 (2010): pp. 303–338

work page 2010
[1]

A review on AI for smart manufacturing: Deep learning challengesandsolutions

Xu, Jiawen, Kovatsch, Matthias, Mattern, Denny, Mazza, Filippo,Harasic,Marko,Paschke,AdrianandLucia,Sergio. “A review on AI for smart manufacturing: Deep learning challengesandsolutions.” AppliedSciences Vol.12No.16 (2022): p. 8239

work page 2022
[2]

A consecutive hybrid spiking-convolutional (CHSC) neural controller for sequential decision making in robots

Azimirad, Vahid, Ramezanlou, Mohammad Tayefe, Sotubadi, Saleh Valizadeh and Janabi-Sharifi, Farrokh. “A consecutive hybrid spiking-convolutional (CHSC) neural controller for sequential decision making in robots.” Neurocomputing Vol. 490 (2022): pp. 319–

work page 2022
[3]

Knowl- edge Constrained Deep Clustering for Melt Pool Anomaly Detection in Laser Powder Bed Fusion

Ziad, Erfan, Yang, Zhuo, Lu, Yan and Ju, Feng. “Knowl- edge Constrained Deep Clustering for Melt Pool Anomaly Detection in Laser Powder Bed Fusion.”2024 IEEE 20th InternationalConferenceonAutomationScienceandEngi- neering (CASE): pp. 670–675. 2024. IEEE

work page 2024
[4]

Deep learning for generic object detection: A survey

Liu, Li, Ouyang, Wanli, Wang, Xiaogang, Fieguth, Paul, Chen, Jie, Liu, Xinwang and Pietikäinen, Matti. “Deep learning for generic object detection: A survey.” Inter- national journal of computer visionVol. 128 (2020): pp. 261–318

work page 2020
[5]

A Framework and Cyber-Physical System Architecture for Cloud-Based Con- struction Monitoring with Autonomous Quadrupeds

Maqsoodi, Aras and Irizarry, Javier. “A Framework and Cyber-Physical System Architecture for Cloud-Based Con- struction Monitoring with Autonomous Quadrupeds.”IS- ARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Au- tomation and Robotics in Construction, Vol. 41: pp. 243–

work page
[6]

Pyra- mid Learning Based Part-to-Part Consistency Analysis in Laser Powder Bed Fusion

Ziad, Erfan, Ju, Feng, Yang, Zhuo and Lu, Yan. “Pyra- mid Learning Based Part-to-Part Consistency Analysis in Laser Powder Bed Fusion.” International Manufactur- ing Science and Engineering Conference, Vol. 88100: p. V001T01A024.2024.AmericanSocietyofMechanicalEn- gineers

work page 2024
[7]

Multi-Camera- BasedHumanActivityRecognitionforHuman–RobotCol- laborationinConstruction

Jang,Youjin,Jeong,Inbae,YounesiHeravi,Moein,Sarkar, Sajib, Shin, Hyunkyu and Ahn, Yonghan. “Multi-Camera- BasedHumanActivityRecognitionforHuman–RobotCol- laborationinConstruction.” SensorsVol.23No.15(2023). DOI 10.3390/s23156997. URL https://www.mdpi.com/ 1424-8220/23/15/6997

doi:10.3390/s23156997 2023

Show all 35 references

[8]

Computervision-based robotic arm for object color, shape, and size detection

Abdullah-Al-Noman, Md, Eva, Anika Nawer, Yeahyea, TabassumBinthandKhan,Riasat. “Computervision-based robotic arm for object color, shape, and size detection.” JournalofRoboticsandControl(JRC) Vol.3No.2(2022): pp. 180–186

2022
[9]

Blind image quality prediction for object detec- tion

Kong, Lingchao, Ikusan, Ademola, Dai, Rui and Zhu, Jingyi. “Blind image quality prediction for object detec- tion.” 2019 IEEE Conference on Multimedia Informa- 8 Copyright ©2025 by ASME tion Processing and Retrieval (MIPR): pp. 216–221. 2019. IEEE

2019
[10]

Object detection forsmartfactoryprocessesbymachinelearning

Malburg, Lukas, Rieder, Manfred-Peter, Seiger, Ronny, Klein, Patrick and Bergmann, Ralph. “Object detection forsmartfactoryprocessesbymachinelearning.” Procedia Computer ScienceVol. 184 (2021): pp. 581–588

2021
[11]

Making of night vision: Object detection under low-illumination

Xiao, Yuxuan, Jiang, Aiwen, Ye, Jihua and Wang, Ming- Wen. “Making of night vision: Object detection under low-illumination.”IEEEAccess Vol.8(2020): pp.123075– 123086

2020
[12]

Survey and performance analysis of deep learning based object detection in challenging environ- ments

Ahmed, Muhammad, Hashmi, Khurram Azeem, Pagani, Alain,Liwicki,Marcus,Stricker,DidierandAfzal,Muham- mad Zeshan. “Survey and performance analysis of deep learning based object detection in challenging environ- ments.” SensorsVol. 21 No. 15 (2021): p. 5116

2021
[13]

Photonic Inte- grated Circuits for an Optical Phased Array

Yi, Yasha, Wu, Dachuan, Kakdarvishi, Venus, Yu, Bowen, Zhuang, Yating and Khalilian, Alireza. “Photonic Inte- grated Circuits for an Optical Phased Array.”Photonics Vol. 11 No. 3 (2024). DOI 10.3390/photonics11030243. URL https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6732/11/3/243

2024 doi
[14]

Fast and robust multi- view 3d object recognition in point clouds

Pang, Guan and Neumann, Ulrich. “Fast and robust multi- view 3d object recognition in point clouds.”2015 Interna- tionalConferenceon3DVision : pp.171–179.2015.IEEE

2015
[15]

Training-based ob- ject recognition in cluttered 3d point clouds

Pang, Guan and Neumann, Ulrich. “Training-based ob- ject recognition in cluttered 3d point clouds.”2013 Inter- national Conference on 3D Vision-3DV 2013: pp. 87–94

2013
[16]

3D point cloud object detection with multi-view convolutional neural network

Pang, Guan and Neumann, Ulrich. “3D point cloud object detection with multi-view convolutional neural network.” 201623rdInternationalConferenceonPatternRecognition (ICPR): pp. 585–590. 2016. IEEE

2016
[17]

Mo- bile AR Depth Estimation: Challenges & Prospects

Ganj,Ashkan,Zhao,Yiqin,Su,HangandGuo,Tian. “Mo- bile AR Depth Estimation: Challenges & Prospects.”Pro- ceedings of the 25th International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications: p. 21–26. 2024. As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. DOI 10.114...

2024
[18]

Multimodaldeeplearn- ing

Ngiam,Jiquan,Khosla,Aditya,Kim,Mingyu,Nam,Juhan, Lee, HonglakandNg, AndrewY. “Multimodaldeeplearn- ing.” Proceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML-11): pp. 689–696. 2011

2011
[19]

Multimodal machine learning: A survey and taxonomy

Baltrušaitis, Tadas, Ahuja, Chaitanya and Morency, Louis- Philippe. “Multimodal machine learning: A survey and taxonomy.”IEEEtransactionsonpatternanalysisandma- chine intelligenceVol. 41 No. 2 (2018): pp. 423–443

2018
[20]

Deep multi-modal objectdetectionandsemanticsegmentationforautonomous driving: Datasets, methods, and challenges

Feng, Di, Haase-Schütz, Christian, Rosenbaum, Lars, Hertlein, Heinz, Glaeser, Claudius, Timm, Fabian, Wies- beck, Werner and Dietmayer, Klaus. “Deep multi-modal objectdetectionandsemanticsegmentationforautonomous driving: Datasets, methods, and challenges.”IEEE Trans- actions ...

2020
[21]

Earlyvslatefusioninmultimodalconvolutional neuralnetworks

Gadzicki, Konrad, Khamsehashari, Razieh and Zetzsche, Christoph.“Earlyvslatefusioninmultimodalconvolutional neuralnetworks.” 2020IEEE23rdinternationalconference on information fusion (FUSION): pp. 1–6. 2020. IEEE

2020
[22]

Multimodal con- volutional neural network for object detection using rgb-d images

Mocanu, Irina and Clapon, Cosmin. “Multimodal con- volutional neural network for object detection using rgb-d images.” 2018 41st International Conference on Telecom- munications and Signal Processing (TSP): pp. 1–5. 2018. IEEE

2018
[23]

Automatic recognition of lactating sow pos- turesbyrefinedtwo-streamRGB-DfasterR-CNN

Zhu, Xunmu, Chen, Changxin, Zheng, Bin, Yang, Xiaofan, Gan,Haiming,Zheng,Chan,Yang,Aqing,Mao,Liangand Xue, Yueju. “Automatic recognition of lactating sow pos- turesbyrefinedtwo-streamRGB-DfasterR-CNN.” Biosys- tems EngineeringVol. 189 (2020): pp. 116–132

2020
[24]

Enhancing the tracking of seedling growth using RGB- Depth fusion and deep learning

Garbouge, Hadhami, Rasti, Pejman and Rousseau, David. “Enhancing the tracking of seedling growth using RGB- Depth fusion and deep learning.”Sensors Vol. 21 No. 24 (2021): p. 8425

2021
[25]

RGB-D salient object detection: A survey

Zhou,Tao,Fan,Deng-Ping,Cheng,Ming-Ming,Shen,Jian- bing and Shao, Ling. “RGB-D salient object detection: A survey.” Computational Visual MediaVol. 7 (2021): pp. 37–69

2021
[26]

Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with re- gion proposal networks

Ren,Shaoqing,He,Kaiming,Girshick,RossandSun,Jian. “Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with re- gion proposal networks.”Advances in neural information processing systemsVol. 28 (2015)

2015
[27]

Camera calibration

Zhang, Yu-Jin. “Camera calibration.” 3-D Computer Vi- sion: Principles, Algorithms and Applications. Springer (2023): pp. 37–65

2023
[28]

LiDAR-Camera Calibration

“LiDAR-Camera Calibration.” https://www.mathworks. com/help/lidar/ug/lidar-and-camera-calibration.html (2022). [Online; accessed 15-April-2024]

2022
[29]

Survey on deep learning with class imbalance

Johnson, Justin M and Khoshgoftaar, Taghi M. “Survey on deep learning with class imbalance.”Journal of Big Data Vol. 6 No. 1 (2019): pp. 1–54

2019
[30]

Roboflow

Dwyer, B., Nelson, J., Solawetz, J. and et. al. “Roboflow.”
[31]

Deep residual learning for image recognition

He, Kaiming, Zhang, Xiangyu, Ren, Shaoqing and Sun, Jian. “Deep residual learning for image recognition.”Pro- ceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition: pp. 770–778. 2016

2016
[33]

Development of a Two-Finger Haptic Robotic Hand with Novel Stiffness De- tection and Impedance Control

Mohammadi, Vahid, Shahbad, Ramin, Hosseini, Mojtaba, Gholampour, Mohammad Hossein, Shiry Ghidary, Saeed, Najafi, Farshid and Behboodi, Ahad. “Development of a Two-Finger Haptic Robotic Hand with Novel Stiffness De- tection and Impedance Control.” Sensors Vol. 24 No. 8 (2024). ...

2024 doi
[250]

IAARC Publications

2024. IAARC Publications

2024
[336]

URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0925231221018075

DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2021.11.097. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0925231221018075

2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [32]

The pascal visualobjectclasses(voc)challenge

Everingham, Mark, Van Gool, Luc, Williams, Christo- pher KI, Winn, John and Zisserman, Andrew. “The pascal visualobjectclasses(voc)challenge.” Internationaljournal of computer visionVol. 88 (2010): pp. 303–338

work page 2010

[2] [1]

A review on AI for smart manufacturing: Deep learning challengesandsolutions

Xu, Jiawen, Kovatsch, Matthias, Mattern, Denny, Mazza, Filippo,Harasic,Marko,Paschke,AdrianandLucia,Sergio. “A review on AI for smart manufacturing: Deep learning challengesandsolutions.” AppliedSciences Vol.12No.16 (2022): p. 8239

work page 2022

[3] [2]

A consecutive hybrid spiking-convolutional (CHSC) neural controller for sequential decision making in robots

Azimirad, Vahid, Ramezanlou, Mohammad Tayefe, Sotubadi, Saleh Valizadeh and Janabi-Sharifi, Farrokh. “A consecutive hybrid spiking-convolutional (CHSC) neural controller for sequential decision making in robots.” Neurocomputing Vol. 490 (2022): pp. 319–

work page 2022

[4] [3]

Knowl- edge Constrained Deep Clustering for Melt Pool Anomaly Detection in Laser Powder Bed Fusion

Ziad, Erfan, Yang, Zhuo, Lu, Yan and Ju, Feng. “Knowl- edge Constrained Deep Clustering for Melt Pool Anomaly Detection in Laser Powder Bed Fusion.”2024 IEEE 20th InternationalConferenceonAutomationScienceandEngi- neering (CASE): pp. 670–675. 2024. IEEE

work page 2024

[5] [4]

Deep learning for generic object detection: A survey

Liu, Li, Ouyang, Wanli, Wang, Xiaogang, Fieguth, Paul, Chen, Jie, Liu, Xinwang and Pietikäinen, Matti. “Deep learning for generic object detection: A survey.” Inter- national journal of computer visionVol. 128 (2020): pp. 261–318

work page 2020

[6] [5]

A Framework and Cyber-Physical System Architecture for Cloud-Based Con- struction Monitoring with Autonomous Quadrupeds

Maqsoodi, Aras and Irizarry, Javier. “A Framework and Cyber-Physical System Architecture for Cloud-Based Con- struction Monitoring with Autonomous Quadrupeds.”IS- ARC. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Au- tomation and Robotics in Construction, Vol. 41: pp. 243–

work page

[7] [6]

Pyra- mid Learning Based Part-to-Part Consistency Analysis in Laser Powder Bed Fusion

Ziad, Erfan, Ju, Feng, Yang, Zhuo and Lu, Yan. “Pyra- mid Learning Based Part-to-Part Consistency Analysis in Laser Powder Bed Fusion.” International Manufactur- ing Science and Engineering Conference, Vol. 88100: p. V001T01A024.2024.AmericanSocietyofMechanicalEn- gineers

work page 2024

[8] [7]

Multi-Camera- BasedHumanActivityRecognitionforHuman–RobotCol- laborationinConstruction

Jang,Youjin,Jeong,Inbae,YounesiHeravi,Moein,Sarkar, Sajib, Shin, Hyunkyu and Ahn, Yonghan. “Multi-Camera- BasedHumanActivityRecognitionforHuman–RobotCol- laborationinConstruction.” SensorsVol.23No.15(2023). DOI 10.3390/s23156997. URL https://www.mdpi.com/ 1424-8220/23/15/6997

doi:10.3390/s23156997 2023