Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Efficient Learning on Point Clouds with Basis Point Sets

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A point cloud can be encoded as distances from a fixed set of basis points, letting simple networks match specialized architectures at a fraction of the compute.

desk verdict Useful practical encoding; the 'first single-pass registration' claim overreaches against the paper's own cited prior work, and the FLOPs accounting needs qualification, but the core contribution is sound. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09186 v1 pith:45RY3VCQ submitted 2019-08-24 cs.CV

Sergey Prokudin , Christoph Lassner , Javier Romero This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords basispointsetscloudencodingshapeclassificationmeshregistrationfixed-lengthrepresentationnearestneighbordistancescomputationalefficiencyfullyconnectednetworks
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 introduces basis point sets (BPS), a way to turn a point cloud of arbitrary size and ordering into a fixed-length vector: for each of $k$ fixed basis points, record the distance to the nearest point in the cloud. Because the resulting vector has a fixed length and a fixed order, it can be fed directly into ordinary fully connected networks, boosted trees, or other standard machine learning methods without specialized point-cloud layers. On the ModelNet40 shape classification benchmark, a simple MLP trained on BPS features matches PointNet's accuracy while using roughly three orders of magnitude fewer floating-point operations. For mesh registration, the same encoding lets a network predict a high-resolution registered mesh from a noisy 3D scan in a single forward pass, under one millisecond on a CPU, with no per-scan optimization. The paper argues that BPS is a general, efficient alternative to occupancy grids and direct point-cloud networks.

What carries the argument

The central object is the basis point set encoding: a fixed, arbitrary set of $k$ points sampled inside a ball, where each basis point $b$ contributes the minimal Euclidean distance from $b$ to any point in the normalized cloud (Eq. 4), optionally extended to the full delta vector to the nearest point (Eq. 5). The fixed basis gives the representation a fixed length and a fixed ordering even though the cloud is unordered, and the use of global, unsigned, non-truncated distances means every entry carries information about the whole shape while the vector varies smoothly under transformations. This carries the argument because it converts the core difficulties of point clouds - variable cardinality and lack of order - into a standard fixed-dimension input, so the efficiency gains come from replacing specialized networks with simple dense layers.

What would settle it

Take a trained BPS registration network and one clean test scan; compute the BPS vector once normally and once after appending a large cluster of far-away outlier points that shrink the body under Eq. 2 normalization. If the predicted mesh changes dramatically or the ModelNet40 classifier's accuracy drops, the robustness assumption collapses; conversely, if the output is stable, the main practical limitation the supplementary material concedes is resolved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a point cloud's geometry can be captured for learning purposes by a residual representation: minimal distances from each member of a fixed basis point set to the cloud, optionally with the full delta vector to the nearest point. This representation accepts an unordered point cloud of any size and returns an ordered, fixed-length feature vector, and it preserves surface details far better than occupancy grids of equivalent encoding length. Using these features, a plain fully connected network reaches PointNet-level classification accuracy on ModelNet40 with about $7.6\times10^5$ floating-point operations compared with PointNet's $4.4\times10^8$, and a similarly simple regressor maps noisy scans to FAUST-registered meshes in one pass, with errors of 2.327 mm intra-subject and 4.529 mm inter-subject and inference under 1 ms. The paper's position is that BPS is a preprocessing step that lets standard machine learning algorithms handle point clouds directly, sidestepping the need for custom permutation-invariant architectures.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Eq. 2 normalization - centering each cloud at its centroid and rescaling by the maximum distance - is stable, so a scan with a large cluster of distant outlier points does not produce a BPS vector far outside the training distribution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A point cloud can be processed by any machine learning algorithm that accepts fixed-length vectors, including fully connected networks, random forests, and gradient-boosted trees, without custom permutation-invariant layers.
  • On ModelNet40, BPS features with a simple MLP reach 89.0% accuracy, matching PointNet, while using about 0.2% of PointNet's floating-point operations; a BPS grid with 3D convolutions reaches 90.8%, matching PointNet++.
  • Mesh registration to noisy scans can be done in a single feed-forward pass in under 1 ms on a CPU, enabling real-time alignment without iterating per scan.
  • At the same encoding length, BPS reconstructs surface details with less than half the Chamfer error of occupancy grids, and its reconstruction quality is close to that of subsampled raw point clouds while remaining fixed-length and ordered.
  • Encoding complexity is $O(n\log n + k\log n)$ per cloud with ball-tree nearest-neighbor search, so real-time encoding is practical for clouds with $n < 10^5$ points and $k < 10^4$ basis points.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because BPS is a generic fixed-length representation, it could serve as a shared input layer for multi-task models that jointly classify, segment, and register scans, a combination the paper does not explore.
  • The revealed sensitivity to normalization suggests a testable extension: augmenting training with outlier-heavy point clouds or replacing maximum-distance rescaling with a robust scale estimator could make the method usable on raw scanner output with floor and background clutter.
  • The success of randomly placed basis points indicates that the specific geometry of the basis matters less than the distance-to-cloud statistic itself, so learned or adaptively placed basis points might further improve fidelity without changing the architecture.
  • The same encoding could be plugged into generative architectures such as denoising diffusion models for point cloud generation, an application beyond the discriminative and regression tasks demonstrated here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes basis point sets (BPS), a fixed-length representation of point clouds obtained by computing the distances from each point in a fixed, arbitrary basis set to the nearest point in the input cloud. The representation is invariant to point ordering by construction and can be fed to standard architectures such as MLPs, 3D convolutional networks, and tree ensembles. The paper evaluates BPS on ModelNet40 classification and FAUST mesh registration. For classification, a simple fully connected network on BPS features reaches 89.0% accuracy with 7.6e5 network FLOPs, compared with PointNet's 89.3% and 4.4e8 FLOPs. For registration, a dense network predicts SMPL vertex positions from the BPS input, achieving 2.327 mm intra-subject and 4.529 mm inter-subject error on FAUST, with inference under 1 ms. The paper claims this is the first single-pass high-resolution mesh registration method and emphasizes the efficiency and generality of the representation.

Significance. If the stated claims hold, BPS is a conceptually simple and broadly applicable representation: it is fixed-length, permutation-invariant, parameter-free at encoding time (aside from the hyperparameters k, r, and basis arrangement), and it works with off-the-shelf machine learning algorithms. The classification experiments are carefully controlled, with ablations over occupancy grids, truncated distance fields, and several basis selection strategies, and the reported accuracy is competitive with PointNet at substantially lower network cost. The registration system is fast and demonstrates a generative use of the encoding. However, the novelty claim of being the first single-pass registration method appears to conflict with the cited 3D-CODED method, and the FAUST accuracy is worse than several cited baselines. The classification efficiency claim also needs clarification, since the reported FLOPs exclude the cost of computing the BPS encoding itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 5.2] The claim of presenting 'the first method for single-pass high-resolution mesh registration' is not supported by the paper's own references. The cited 3D-CODED method of Groueix et al. [15] is a learned method that takes a raw point cloud, computes a global descriptor, and decodes a deformed template mesh in a single feed-forward pass without per-scan optimization, which is exactly a single-pass high-resolution mesh registration method. The statement in Sec. 5.2 that current solutions like [15] rely on 'multistage models with complex internal representations' does not establish that they perform iterative test-time optimization; 'multistage' may refer to training or internal architecture rather than runtime behavior. This priority claim should be removed or carefully qualified, and the contribution repositioned as an alternative single-pass approach with a particularly simple representation.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Table 3] The FAUST results are not just 'comparable but higher' than the state of the art: in the intra-subject challenge the method is worse than 3D-CODED (2.327 mm vs. 1.985 mm) and Stitched Puppets (1.568 mm), and in the inter-subject challenge it is worse than several methods including 3D-CODED, Stitched Puppets, FARM, and Deep Functional Maps. The speed advantage is real and should be the primary claim, but the accuracy comparison should be reported without the implication of near-state-of-the-art accuracy. Please state explicitly that the method trades accuracy for speed.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Table 2, and Supplementary Sec. 1] The headline 'three orders of magnitude less floating-point operations' refers only to the network forward pass, not to the full classification pipeline. The BPS encoding itself requires O(n log n + k log n) operations per cloud (or O(kn) in the direct GPU implementation), and the supplementary material reports encoding times that are real-time but not zero. Since Table 2 lists only network FLOPs, the efficiency comparison is incomplete for a user who must encode every test cloud before classification. Please report the encoding cost separately and state clearly whether the claimed orders-of-magnitude advantage holds end-to-end; if it does not, the abstract and conclusion should be reworded.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2) and Supplementary Sec. 4] The normalization in Eq. (2) re-centers each cloud by its centroid and rescales by the maximum distance; the supplementary material admits that large clusters of outlier points far from the body 'drastically change the representation due to the size normalization.' This is an acknowledged limitation, but it should be discussed in the main text as a scope restriction for the registration system, since real scans may contain such outliers.
  2. [Sec. 5.1, Table 2] The difference between BPS-MLP (89.0%) and PointNet (89.3%) is within the reported variance of similar models, so the phrase 'reaching the performance of PointNet' is appropriate, but the paper should avoid appearing to claim superiority on this comparison.
  3. [Supplementary Sec. 3] There is a typo in the training details: 'dropout (with probability 0.8 and 0.4 repsectively)' should be 'respectively'.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'ModelNe40' but should read 'ModelNet40'.
  5. [Sec. 3, Eq. (5)] The notation in Eq. (5) uses a set-builder expression with braces but the result is a matrix in R^{k x d}; please make the notation unambiguous, for example by writing the rows explicitly or using a vector of differences.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: BPS is a fixed parameter-free encoding and all empirical claims are benchmarked against external data and baselines.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the BPS representation is defined explicitly by Eq. 2 (centroid normalization and max-distance rescaling), Eq. 3 (fixed random basis points in a ball), and Eqs. 4-5 (nearest-neighbor distances or delta vectors to those basis points). No fitted parameters, learned constants, or accuracy numbers are used to define the representation, and no predicted quantity is recycled into the input definition. The classification experiment compares the resulting representation on ModelNet40 against independent methods such as PointNet, PointNet++, and VoxNet; the registration experiment is evaluated on FAUST against independent published methods. The paper does cite works co-authored by one of its authors (SMPL, FAUST, Dynamic FAUST), but those citations serve as data-generating models and standard benchmark datasets, not as the justification for the BPS encoding or as proof of the method's properties. Use of SMPL to synthesize training meshes is an external modeling choice, not a circular derivation of the registration result. The abstract's 'first method for single-pass high-resolution mesh registration' claim may be factually contestable in light of the cited 3D-CODED method, but that is a novelty/correctness concern, not a circularity of the kind where an input is equivalent to an output by construction. No derivation step, equation, or load-bearing citation reduces the paper's claims to its own inputs.

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

The method's central claim depends on the domain assumption that a fixed set of random basis points, combined with global unit-ball normalization, preserves enough information about the cloud for downstream tasks. This is empirically validated but not proven. The free parameters are k, r, and the point arrangement, all hyperparameters chosen by hand. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • k (number of basis points) = grid sizes 8^3=512, 16^3=4096, 32^3=32768; see Table 1 and Fig 4
    Controls the trade-off between encoding fidelity and computational cost; chosen by the authors per experiment, not derived.
  • r (basis sampling radius) = 1 (unit ball)
    All clouds normalized to unit ball (Eq. 2), so r=1; arbitrary normalization choice.
  • basis point arrangement = random uniform (primary), grid, ball grid, HCP
    Selection strategy is a hand-chosen hyperparameter; Table 1 shows it changes accuracy by about 1%.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Closest-point distances to a fixed set of basis points form a sufficient and stable summary of a normalized point cloud for classification and registration.
    The central premise of Sec. 3 and 4; validated empirically in Sec. 5 but not proven.
  • domain assumption Global normalization to the unit ball (centroid translation and max-distance scaling, Eq. 2) is stable under noise and outliers.
    Supplementary Sec. 4 acknowledges that large outlier regions 'drastically change the representation due to the size normalization'; if the normalization fails, the fixed basis is misaligned.
  • domain assumption Training on synthetic SMPL meshes with CMU/CAESAR poses transfers to real FAUST scans.
    Used in Sec. 5.2; the authors report qualitative generalization to Dynamic FAUST, but no formal domain-adaptation guarantee.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Learning on Point Clouds with Basis Point Sets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/45RY3VCQ

@misc{pith2026190809186,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Learning on Point Clouds with Basis Point Sets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/45RY3VCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09186}
}
read the original abstract

With the increased availability of 3D scanning technology, point clouds are moving into the focus of computer vision as a rich representation of everyday scenes. However, they are hard to handle for machine learning algorithms due to their unordered structure. One common approach is to apply occupancy grid mapping, which dramatically increases the amount of data stored and at the same time loses details through discretization. Recently, deep learning models were proposed to handle point clouds directly and achieve input permutation invariance. However, these architectures often use an increased number of parameters and are computationally inefficient. In this work, we propose basis point sets (BPS) as a highly efficient and fully general way to process point clouds with machine learning algorithms. The basis point set representation is a residual representation that can be computed efficiently and can be used with standard neural network architectures and other machine learning algorithms. Using the proposed representation as the input to a simple fully connected network allows us to match the performance of PointNet on a shape classification task while using three orders of magnitude less floating-point operations. In a second experiment, we show how the proposed representation can be used for registering high-resolution meshes to noisy 3D scans. Here, we present the first method for single-pass high-resolution mesh registration, avoiding time-consuming per-scan optimization and allowing real-time execution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09186 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Basis point set encoding for point clouds. The encod￾ing of a point cloud X = {x1, . . . , xn} is a fixed-length feature vector, computed as the minimal distances to a fixed set of points B = [b1, ..., bk] T . This representation can be used as input to arbitrary machine learning methods, in particular it can be used as input for off-the-shelf neural networks. This leads to substan￾tial performance gains as compared… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our proposed model for the task of mesh registration to a noisy scan. The computed minimal distances to the selected basis point set are provided as input to a simple dense network with two blocks of two fully connected layers. The model directly predicts mesh vertex positions, with a forward pass taking less than 1ms. We also propose a model for shape classification; see Sec. 5 for details. clouds have … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Surface encoding with occupancy grids (left) and basis point sets (right). With the same length of encoding N our method can capture surface details more accurately. Even when using only k ≈ 103 basis points, our method can capture details of a surface (bottom right). original cloud. We will now validate this intuition by comparing the aforementioned representations in terms of surface recon￾struction and actual lea… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Surface reconstruction quality vs. encoding length for different 3D data encoding methods. We measured the Chamfer distance on 103 encoded and reconstructed random shapes from the ModelNe40 dataset. The suggested representation is more accurate in representing surface …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Point clouds of the FAUST dataset and the predicted meshes. Blue: point cloud from a 3D scanner. Skin color: predicted mesh by our model through processing of its BPS representation. Note that the network produces the position of each output vertex; their coherent stru…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: BPS encoding time. We measure encoding time per point cloud with respect to the number of input points, basis points k and the implementation variant. Encoding can be done in real time for the main application cases considered in this paper (point clouds with n < 105 ,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    3d-coded : 3d correspondences by deep deformation

    Thibault Groueix, Matthew Fisher, Vladimir Kim , Bryan Russell, and Mathieu Aubry. 3d-coded : 3d correspondences by deep deformation. Sept. 07 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    http://mocap.cs.cmu.edu

    work page

  3. [2]

    Faust: Dataset and evaluation for 3d mesh registration

    Federica Bogo, Javier Romero, Matthew Loper, and Michael J Black. Faust: Dataset and evaluation for 3d mesh registration. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3794--3801, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [3]

    Federica Bogo, Javier Romero, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J. Black. Dynamic FAUST : Registering human bodies in motion. In Proceedings IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 2017 , Piscataway, NJ, USA, July 2017. IEEE

    work page 2017

  5. [4]

    Robust nonrigid registration by convex optimization

    Qifeng Chen and Vladlen Koltun. Robust nonrigid registration by convex optimization. In ICCV . IEEE Computer Society, 2015

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system

    Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages 785--794. ACM, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Spherical cnns

    Taco S Cohen, Mario Geiger, Jonas K \"o hler, and Max Welling. Spherical cnns. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.10130 , 2018

    arXiv 2018

  8. [7]

    Sphere packings, lattices and groups , volume 290

    John Horton Conway and Neil James Alexander Sloane. Sphere packings, lattices and groups , volume 290. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    A volumetric method for building complex models from range images

    Brian Curless and Marc Levoy. A volumetric method for building complex models from range images. 1996

    1996

  2. [9]

    Scan2mesh: From unstructured range scans to 3d meshes

    Angela Dai and Matthias Nie ner. Scan2mesh: From unstructured range scans to 3d meshes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.10464 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Learning so (3) equivariant representations with spherical cnns

    Carlos Esteves, Christine Allen-Blanchette, Ameesh Makadia, and Kostas Daniilidis. Learning so (3) equivariant representations with spherical cnns. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 52--68, 2018

    2018

  4. [11]

    Gvcnn: Group-view convolutional neural networks for 3d shape recognition

    Yifan Feng, Zizhao Zhang, Xibin Zhao, Rongrong Ji, and Yue Gao. Gvcnn: Group-view convolutional neural networks for 3d shape recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 264--272, 2018

    2018

  5. [12]

    Shape generation using spatially partitioned point clouds

    Matheus Gadelha, Subhransu Maji, and Rui Wang. Shape generation using spatially partitioned point clouds. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06267 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Extremely randomized trees

    Pierre Geurts, Damien Ernst, and Louis Wehenkel. Extremely randomized trees. Machine learning , 63(1):3--42, 2006

    2006

  7. [14]

    Submanifold sparse convolutional networks

    Benjamin Graham and Laurens van der Maaten. Submanifold sparse convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.01307 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A proof of the kepler conjecture

    Thomas C Hales. A proof of the kepler conjecture. Annals of mathematics , pages 1065--1185, 2005

    2005

  9. [17]

    On decompositional algorithms for uniform sampling from n-spheres and n-balls

    Radoslav Harman and Vladim \' r Lacko. On decompositional algorithms for uniform sampling from n-spheres and n-balls. Journal of Multivariate Analysis , 101(10):2297--2304, 2010

    2010

  10. [18]

    Coregistration: Simultaneous alignment and modeling of articulated 3d shape

    David A Hirshberg, Matthew Loper, Eric Rachlin, and Michael J Black. Coregistration: Simultaneous alignment and modeling of articulated 3d shape. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 242--255. Springer, 2012

    2012

  11. [19]

    Hexaconv

    Emiel Hoogeboom, Jorn WT Peters, Taco S Cohen, and Max Welling. Hexaconv. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.02108 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Densely connected convolutional networks

    Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Q Weinberger. Densely connected convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4700--4708, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Learning to remember rare events

    ukasz Kaiser, Ofir Nachum, Aurko Roy, and Samy Bengio. Learning to remember rare events. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.03129 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Rotationnet: Joint object categorization and pose estimation using multiviews from unsupervised viewpoints

    Asako Kanezaki, Yasuyuki Matsushita, and Yoshifumi Nishida. Rotationnet: Joint object categorization and pose estimation using multiviews from unsupervised viewpoints. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5010--5019, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Escape from cells: Deep kd-networks for the recognition of 3d point cloud models

    Roman Klokov and Victor Lempitsky. Escape from cells: Deep kd-networks for the recognition of 3d point cloud models. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 863--872, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Large-scale point cloud semantic segmentation with superpoint graphs

    Loic Landrieu and Martin Simonovsky. Large-scale point cloud semantic segmentation with superpoint graphs. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4558--4567, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

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

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

    2018

  18. [26]

    Bronstein, and Michael M

    Or Litany, Tal Remez, Emanuele Rodol \`a , Alexander M. Bronstein, and Michael M. Bronstein. Deep functional maps: Structured prediction for dense shape correspondence. CoRR , abs/1704.08686, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Smpl: A skinned multi-person linear model

    Matthew Loper, Naureen Mahmood, Javier Romero, Gerard Pons-Moll, and Michael J Black. Smpl: A skinned multi-person linear model. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG) , 34(6):248, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Farm: Functional automatic registration method for 3d human bodies

    Riccardo Marin, Simone Melzi, Emanuele Rodol \`a , and Umberto Castellani. Farm: Functional automatic registration method for 3d human bodies. CoRR , abs/1807.10517, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Voxnet: A 3d convolutional neural network for real-time object recognition

    Daniel Maturana and Sebastian Scherer. Voxnet: A 3d convolutional neural network for real-time object recognition. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages 922--928. IEEE, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    V2v-posenet: Voxel-to-voxel prediction network for accurate 3d hand and human pose estimation from a single depth map

    Gyeongsik Moon, Ju Yong Chang, and Kyoung Mu Lee. V2v-posenet: Voxel-to-voxel prediction network for accurate 3d hand and human pose estimation from a single depth map. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5079--5088, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Kinectfusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking

    Richard A Newcombe, Shahram Izadi, Otmar Hilliges, David Molyneaux, David Kim, Andrew J Davison, Pushmeet Kohi, Jamie Shotton, Steve Hodges, and Andrew Fitzgibbon. Kinectfusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking. In 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Aug...

    2011

  24. [32]

    Five balltree construction algorithms

    Stephen M Omohundro. Five balltree construction algorithms . International Computer Science Institute Berkeley, 1989

    1989

  25. [33]

    Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation

    Jeong Joon Park, Peter Florence, Julian Straub, Richard Newcombe, and Steven Lovegrove. Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.05103 , 2019

    1901 arXiv

  26. [34]

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

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. Proc. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), IEEE , 1(2):4, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Volumetric and multi-view cnns for object classification on 3d data

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Matthias Nie ner, Angela Dai, Mengyuan Yan, and Leonidas J Guibas. Volumetric and multi-view cnns for object classification on 3d data. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 5648--5656, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space

    Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 5099--5108, 2017

    2017

  29. [37]

    Octnet: Learning deep 3d representations at high resolutions

    Gernot Riegler, Ali Osman Ulusoy, and Andreas Geiger. Octnet: Learning deep 3d representations at high resolutions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3577--3586, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    Octnetfusion: Learning depth fusion from data

    Gernot Riegler, Ali Osman Ulusoy, Horst Bischof, and Andreas Geiger. Octnetfusion: Learning depth fusion from data. In 2017 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) , pages 57--66. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Robinette, Sherri Blackwell, Hein Daanen, Mark Boehmer, Scott Fleming, Tina Brill, D\ avid Hoeferlin, and Dennis Burnsides

    Kathleen M. Robinette, Sherri Blackwell, Hein Daanen, Mark Boehmer, Scott Fleming, Tina Brill, D\ avid Hoeferlin, and Dennis Burnsides. Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometric Resource (CAESAR) final report . Technical report, US Air Force Laboratory, 2002

    2002

  32. [40]

    Learning 3d shapes as multi-layered height-maps using 2d convolutional networks

    Kripasindhu Sarkar, Basavaraj Hampiholi, Kiran Varanasi, and Didier Stricker. Learning 3d shapes as multi-layered height-maps using 2d convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 71--86, 2018

    2018

  33. [41]

    Mining point cloud local structures by kernel correlation and graph pooling

    Yiru Shen, Chen Feng, Yaoqing Yang, and Dong Tian. Mining point cloud local structures by kernel correlation and graph pooling. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 4548--4557, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Semantic scene completion from a single depth image

    Shuran Song, Fisher Yu, Andy Zeng, Angel X Chang, Manolis Savva, and Thomas Funkhouser. Semantic scene completion from a single depth image. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1746--1754, 2017

    2017

  35. [43]

    Multi-view convolutional neural networks for 3d shape recognition

    Hang Su, Subhransu Maji, Evangelos Kalogerakis, and Erik Learned-Miller. Multi-view convolutional neural networks for 3d shape recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 945--953, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    Tangent convolutions for dense prediction in 3d

    Maxim Tatarchenko, Jaesik Park, Vladlen Koltun, and Qian-Yi Zhou. Tangent convolutions for dense prediction in 3d. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3887--3896, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    O-cnn: Octree-based convolutional neural networks for 3d shape analysis

    Peng-Shuai Wang, Yang Liu, Yu-Xiao Guo, Chun-Yu Sun, and Xin Tong. O-cnn: Octree-based convolutional neural networks for 3d shape analysis. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , 36(4):72, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes

    Zhirong Wu, Shuran Song, Aditya Khosla, Fisher Yu, Linguang Zhang, Xiaoou Tang, and Jianxiong Xiao. 3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 1912--1920, 2015

    1912

  39. [47]

    Deep sets

    Manzil Zaheer, Satwik Kottur, Siamak Ravanbakhsh, Barnabas Poczos, Ruslan R Salakhutdinov, and Alexander J Smola. Deep sets. In Advances in neural information processing systems , pages 3391--3401, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    3dmatch: Learning local geometric descriptors from rgb-d reconstructions

    Andy Zeng, Shuran Song, Matthias Nie ner, Matthew Fisher, Jianxiong Xiao, and Thomas Funkhouser. 3dmatch: Learning local geometric descriptors from rgb-d reconstructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 1802--1811, 2017

    2017

  41. [49]

    The stitched puppet: A graphical model of 3d human shape and pose

    Silvia Zuffi and Michael J Black. The stitched puppet: A graphical model of 3d human shape and pose. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 3537--3546, 2015

    2015

  42. [50]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.