Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

QuadricsReg: Large-Scale Point Cloud Registration using Quadric Primitives

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read QuadricsReg claims that entire large-scale LiDAR scenes can be registered from a compact set of quadric primitives—planes, lines, cylinders, ellipsoids—using type and scale for matching and a degeneracy-aware optimizer for pose, with…

desk verdict A competently built quadric-based registration pipeline with broad experiments, but the central assumption of viewpoint-stable quadric attributes is unvalidated and, for planes and lines, false by construction in the statistical fallback. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02998 v1 pith:LM2UIBRD submitted 2024-12-04 cs.RO cs.CVcs.GR

Ji Wu , Huai Yu , Shu Han , Xi-Meng Cai , Ming-Feng Wang , Wen Yang , Gui-Song Xia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CVcs.GR
keywords pointcloudregistrationquadricrepresentationgeometricprimitivesmaximumcliquefactorgraphoptimizationLiDARSLAMloopclosuredegeneracy-awaredistance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a whole large-scale LiDAR scene can be compressed into a handful of quadric primitives—planes, lines, cylinders, ellipsoids, cones—each described by 10 parameters plus a label, and that registration can be done entirely on this compact symbolic representation. The authors argue that quadrics capture the main geometry of a scene uniformly, so correspondences can be initialized by quadric type and scale, pruned by multi-level maximum-clique consistency checks, and refined by a factor-graph optimizer that respects each quadric's degenerate degrees of freedom. They report the highest registration success rates and lowest rotation/translation errors among the compared global methods on five public LiDAR datasets, and demonstrate loop-closure and multi-session mapping on their own heterogeneous dataset with different robot platforms and LiDAR sensors. If the claim holds, global registration becomes a small graph-matching problem rather than a dense point-matching problem, with large savings in storage and time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quadric representation $Q \in \mathbb{R}^{4\times 4}$, a 10-parameter symmetric matrix that describes 17 geometric primitives through the equation $x^T Q x = 0$; each primitive is decomposed into a canonical diagonal form $C$, a scale $\Lambda_q$, a rotation $R_q$, and a center $t_q$, with degeneracy indicators $I_S, I_R, I_T$ marking axes along which the geometry is unconstrained. This representation does double duty: its type and scale initialize correspondences (Eq. 12), its centers drive the multi-level compatibility graph whose maximum cliques prune outliers (Eq. 13), and its degenerate-aware distance $e = [e_R, e_t]^T$ (Eq. 15) serves as the error function in a factor graph optimized by Levenberg-Marquardt, so that planes constrain along their normals, lines along their perpendicular directions, and central quadrics in all three directions. The multi-level maximum-clique search (with thresholds relaxed from 0.2 to 0.8) supplies candidate inlier sets, and the final transformation is chosen as the candidate minimizing the same quadric distance over semantic nearest neighbors.

What would settle it

Take a pair of LiDAR scans with under 10% overlap from a corridor or highway scene that consists mostly of long planar walls and repeated identical structures, fit the quadrics with the paper's pipeline, and check whether the maximum-clique correspondences keep the true transformation; the claim that quadric attributes stay consistent across viewpoints predicts this will still register, so a dramatic success-rate drop on such low-overlap repetitive scenes would falsify the core assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that quadrics—implicit second-degree surfaces $x^T Q x = 0$ with only 10 coefficients—form a unified, viewpoint-robust scene representation for global point cloud registration. The paper shows that diverse primitives (planes, lines, cylinders, ellipsoids, cones, spheres) can be recovered from noisy partial scans by combining a learned quadric fitter with a statistical fallback, and that the intrinsic attributes of these quadrics (type, non-degenerate scale, center, and orientation) supply enough discriminative information to establish correspondences without dense descriptors. Outlier correspondences are removed by building multi-level compatibility graphs on translation-invariant center distances and taking maximum cliques at progressively relaxed thresholds; the transformation is then estimated from each clique by SVD and refined in a factor graph using a novel degeneracy-aware quadric distance that measures rotation error only along non-symmetric axes and translation error as point-to-point, point-to-line, or point-to-plane depending on the quadric's center type. The paper's experiments indicate that this pipeline maintains high registration success rates under large viewpoint differences, occlusions, sparse objects, and variation across LiDAR sensors, including reversed loop closures and cross-session heterogeneous platforms.

Load-bearing premise

The method works only if the same physical structure, seen from different viewpoints or by different LiDAR sensors, can be fitted to quadrics whose type, scale, center, and orientation remain similar enough to match; the paper itself acknowledges this can fail under very low overlap or strong point-distribution differences between sensors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, global LiDAR registration can be performed on a representation roughly one-twentieth the storage of a down-sampled point cloud, cutting memory and runtime for loop closure.
  • Registration robustness under large viewpoint gaps and reversed loop closures should improve for SLAM systems that currently rely on point-level or segment-level matching.
  • The same quadric pipeline can serve as a unified front-end for place recognition and pose-graph optimization, because the quadric distance already respects geometric degeneracy.
  • The method should generalize across heterogeneous LiDAR sensors—16-beam, 32-beam, 64-beam, and solid-state—without per-sensor retraining, as indicated by the authors' cross-session experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to fuse image texture or richer semantic priors into quadric fitting, which the authors themselves flag as a limitation; this could stabilize quadric attributes where geometry alone is ambiguous.
  • The degeneracy-aware quadric distance could be reused in other primitive-based SLAM backends, for instance replacing point-to-plane ICP residuals with quadric residuals so symmetric structures are not over-constrained.
  • The core assumption—that quadric fits stay consistent across viewpoints—could be tested in isolation on public benchmarks by measuring parameter drift of the same physical primitive across frames, before any registration is run.
  • The method's reliance on semantic labels implies a testable boundary: in scenes without reliable semantics, the geometric-only variant should show a measurable drop at hard difficulty levels, a trend the ablation experiments already hint at.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes QuadricsReg, a global point cloud registration pipeline that represents scenes as a compact set of quadric primitives, establishes putative correspondences through semantic and geometric similarity, prunes outliers with multi-level maximum-clique compatibility graphs, and estimates the 6-DoF transformation by SVD followed by factor-graph optimization with a degeneracy-aware quadric distance. The method is evaluated on five public datasets (KITTI, KITTI-360, Apollo-SouthBay, Waymo, nuScenes) under loop-closure and odometry settings, on a self-collected heterogeneous multi-LiDAR dataset, and inside LIO-SAM for loop closure and multi-session mapping. The reported results show success rates that are competitive with or better than FPFH/RANSAC, TEASER++, Quatro, 3DMAC, Segregator, G3Reg, and learning-based baselines, particularly at harder viewpoint differences.

Significance. If the claims hold, QuadricsReg is a worthwhile contribution: the unified 10-parameter quadric representation covering points, lines, planes, cylinders, spheres, and cones is elegant, and the degeneracy-aware distance in Eq. (15) provides a principled way to handle weakly constrained directions during optimization. The experimental scope is broad, spanning five public datasets and a real multi-robot, multi-sensor dataset, and the ablation study in Table 5 covers representation, matching, and optimization components. The paper also promises code and demo release, which would help reproducibility. However, the load-bearing assumption that fitted quadric attributes are viewpoint-invariant is not quantitatively validated, several key hyperparameters are selected on the same KITTI-LC test set used for the headline results, and the stochastic odometry protocol is reported without any uncertainty quantification. These gaps currently prevent the strong generalization claims from being fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2.2 and Eqs. (11)-(13)] The central assumption that quadrics fitted from noisy, partially observed point clouds have attributes that remain consistent across viewpoints is not validated. For non-central quadrics (planes, lines, cylinders), Eq. (11) sets the full center t_f to the statistics-based sample mean t_s whenever any component of I_t is zero, and Table 1 shows this is the case for all non-central quadrics in the paper. Similarly, the full scale s_f inherits the covariance-based s_s on degenerate axes. For a segmented patch of a plane or line, the sample mean and the covariance along the surface depend on which part of the structure is visible, so the quantities consumed by the compatibility check in Eq. (13) are viewpoint-dependent by construction. The paper provides no experiment measuring how t_s or s_s vary for the same physical primitive across overlapping frames, and Section 6 itself concedes fragility when point distributions differ due to low overlap or different LiDAR types. Because Eq. (13) is used to build the compatibility graph, this failure mode can remove true correspondences before maximum-clique pruning can recover them.
  2. [Section 5.7 and Table 5] The default hyperparameters in Section 5.2.1 (Ke=50, Ks=20, delta_m=[0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8], delta_a=60, Ka=10, va=0.5) are justified by ablations run on the KITTI-LC dataset, which is the same test set used for the headline numbers in Tables 3 and 4. This constitutes test-set parameter selection and makes the reported KITTI-LC success rates optimistically biased. The other datasets provide partial protection, since they use the same fixed parameters, but the paper should either report a separate validation split or explicitly quantify the selection effect. At minimum, the authors should state this limitation and provide a cross-validated or held-out evaluation of the parameter choices.
  3. [Section 5.4.2 and Fig. 11] The odometry experiment injects random yaw rotations in the range [-45 degrees, 45 degrees], but the paper reports no number of random trials, standard deviations, or confidence intervals. The success-rate curves in Fig. 11 are therefore single realizations of a stochastic protocol, and several differences between methods at the same distance are only a few percent (e.g., Apollo-SouthBay-ODE near 10 m). The same absence of variance information applies to the percentages in Tables 3 and 4. Repeated runs or interval estimates are needed to support the claim of superiority, especially when comparing methods with close success rates.
  4. [Section 6] The conclusion states that the method 'is not robust for all scenarios, particularly when significant disparities in point distribution arise due to notably low overlaps or differences in LiDAR types.' This directly narrows the abstract's claim of robust performance under large viewpoint differences and on the self-collected heterogeneous dataset. Since the Hetero-Reg experiments are the main evidence for cross-sensor generalization, the paper should quantify the degradation boundary (e.g., success rate as a function of overlap or sensor pair) and ensure the abstract and conclusion make consistent claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 6] The conclusion contains the typos 'QuaricsReg' and 'QuatricsReg'; both should read 'QuadricsReg'.
  2. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption says 'Left: RRE, right: RTE', but the panels are labelled 'TranslationError' and 'RotationError'; please resolve this mismatch.
  3. [Section 5.1.2 and Fig. 11] Section 5.1.2 lists KITTI-360-ODO among the generated odometry datasets, but Fig. 11 and Section 5.4.2 report only KITTI-ODE, Apollo-SouthBay-ODE, Waymo-ODE, and nuScenes-ODE; please clarify whether KITTI-360-ODO results were omitted and fix the ODE/ODO inconsistency.
  4. [Section 5.2.2, Eq. (20)] The inlier criterion in Eq. (20) uses point variables t_x and t_y, but for quadric correspondences it is not stated whether these refer to quadric centers, augmented points, or raw points; please define the notation.
  5. [Section 5.2.1] The sentence 'where the network configuration we follow (Wu et al. 2024)' is grammatically incomplete; please rephrase.
  6. [Abstract and Section 5.8] The abstract states that code and demos will be released, but no link or supplement is provided in the manuscript at review time; please include a working link or state the intended release timing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the registration success claims are measured against external benchmarks and ground-truth poses, and the quadric-fitting module is prior published work rather than a re-derivation of the target result.

full rationale

QuadricsReg's central claim is the registration success rate, defined by Eqs. 20-21 from ground-truth transforms, and evaluated on five public datasets plus a self-collected dataset against external baselines (FCGF, DGR, PointDSC, RANSAC, TEASER++, Quatro, 3DMAC, Segregator, G3Reg). The success metric is therefore not the paper's own quadric distance, so the result is not equivalent to the method's inputs by construction. The quadric fitting step relies on QuadricsNet (Wu et al. 2024), a same-author prior ICRA publication; this is a load-bearing dependency but not circular, because it is external prior work with its own training objective and evaluations, and the paper also provides a statistics-based fallback (Section 4.2.2). The viewpoint-consistency assumption in Section 4.2.2 is a genuine robustness limitation, explicitly acknowledged in the conclusion, but it is an empirical assumption about fitting quality, not a step that reduces to its own inputs. The choice of consistency thresholds [0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8] is ablated on KITTI-LC and may raise generalization concerns, but that is hyperparameter selection, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is merely renamed. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

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

All free parameters are hand-chosen configuration values in Section 5.2.1 or heuristic values in Section 4.2.2; none are learned from a held-out split, and several are justified by ablations on the same KITTI-LC benchmark used for headline results. The axioms are standard quadric linear algebra, the domain assumption that partial LiDAR observations yield viewpoint-consistent quadric fits, and design assumptions about semantic labels and maximum-clique inlier recovery. No new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • statistical scale factor k_s = 1.645
    Set in Section 4.2.2 to include 90% of points under a Gaussian assumption; converts covariance standard deviation into quadric scale.
  • quadric density K_e = 50 per semantic type
    Section 5.2.1; top-Ke largest quadrics are retained per semantic type, and ablation Table 5 shows performance depends on this value.
  • augmentation trigger delta_a, top-K_a, voxel size v_a = delta_a=60, K_a=10, v_a=0.5 m
    Section 5.2.1; when fewer than 60 quadrics remain, the top 10 large elements per semantic type are downsampled as augmented point correspondences.
  • putative correspondence bound K_s = 20 per quadric
    Section 5.2.1; upper limit on initial correspondences for each quadric; Table 3 shows K_s affects the number of matches and success rate modestly.
  • compatibility thresholds delta_m = [0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8] m
    Section 5.2.1; four-level compatibility graph thresholds; ablation shows single-level thresholds degrade success rates.
  • fitting switch threshold delta_p = 0.5
    Section 5.2.1; if the Taubin distance of the learning-based fit exceeds delta_p, the statistics-based fit is selected instead.
  • irregular-structure threshold delta_g^r = 5 degrees
    Section 5.2.1; removes structures that are not parallel or perpendicular to the ground before adding factors to the optimization.
  • augmented sample counts for non-central quadrics = 2 for linear, 4 for planar
    Section 4.4.1; handpicked sampling counts used to compensate for degenerate translation axes during factor graph optimization.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Symmetric quadrics can be decomposed into pose and canonical diagonal form, and geometric attributes can be read from eigenvalues and eigenvectors after normalization.
    Used throughout Section 4.1.3 to infer scale, rotation, and center. This is standard linear algebra, but the sign and degeneracy conventions are chosen by the paper.
  • domain assumption Key scene elements extracted from partial LiDAR can be fitted as quadrics whose geometric attributes stay consistent across viewpoints.
    Section 4.2 states the fitting goal as maintaining consistency of the quadric representation under viewpoint variation. This is the load-bearing premise for correspondence initialization and matching.
  • domain assumption Semantic labels are reliable enough to restrict correspondence search to shared semantic types.
    Section 4.3.1 initializes correspondences separately for each semantic type. The paper acknowledges that in Apollo-SouthBay semantic prediction is unreliable and falls back to geometric clustering categories.
  • domain assumption The maximum clique in a multi-level compatibility graph corresponds to the largest set of inlier correspondences.
    Section 4.3.2 adopts TEASER-style translation invariance and multi-level thresholds; this is a standard robust matching assumption but is not proven for quadric centers under viewpoint-dependent fitting noise.
  • ad hoc to paper Only non-degenerate directions of quadrics provide valid constraints in transformation optimization.
    Equation 15 and Figure 8 remove degenerate rotation and translation components based on quadric degeneracy indicators. This is a reasonable geometric principle, but its convergence behavior in the factor graph is assumed rather than analyzed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QuadricsReg: Large-Scale Point Cloud Registration using Quadric Primitives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LM2UIBRD

@misc{pith2026241202998,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QuadricsReg: Large-Scale Point Cloud Registration using Quadric Primitives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LM2UIBRD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02998}
}
read the original abstract

In the realm of large-scale point cloud registration, designing a compact symbolic representation is crucial for efficiently processing vast amounts of data, ensuring registration robustness against significant viewpoint variations and occlusions. This paper introduces a novel point cloud registration method, i.e., QuadricsReg, which leverages concise quadrics primitives to represent scenes and utilizes their geometric characteristics to establish correspondences for 6-DoF transformation estimation. As a symbolic feature, the quadric representation fully captures the primary geometric characteristics of scenes, which can efficiently handle the complexity of large-scale point clouds. The intrinsic characteristics of quadrics, such as types and scales, are employed to initialize correspondences. Then we build a multi-level compatibility graph set to find the correspondences using the maximum clique on the geometric consistency between quadrics. Finally, we estimate the 6-DoF transformation using the quadric correspondences, which is further optimized based on the quadric degeneracy-aware distance in a factor graph, ensuring high registration accuracy and robustness against degenerate structures. We test on 5 public datasets and the self-collected heterogeneous dataset across different LiDAR sensors and robot platforms. The exceptional registration success rates and minimal registration errors demonstrate the effectiveness of QuadricsReg in large-scale point cloud registration scenarios. Furthermore, the real-world registration testing on our self-collected heterogeneous dataset shows the robustness and generalization ability of QuadricsReg on different LiDAR sensors and robot platforms. The codes and demos will be released at \url{https://levenberg.github.io/QuadricsReg}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02998 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Global point cloud registration using QuadricsReg. The raw point clouds are collected by an Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV), Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), and handheld platform equipped with different LiDAR sensors in a roof garden. Accurate map integration results demonstrate the effectiveness of QuadricsReg. the complete point cloud features. Consequently, even points belonging to the same region may exhibit low si… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The pipeline of QuadricsReg mainly consists of three parts: Quadric-based scene representation, quadric matching, and quadric￾based 6-DoF transformation estimation. the point cloud Px and Py, respectively. The scene repre￾sentations are then generated from key elements, denoted as Rx = {r 1 x , r 2 x , . . . , r Nx x } and Ry = {r 1 y , r 2 y , . . . , r Ny y }, where r is the mathematical representation of an eleme… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of quadric derivation and degeneracy. Ellipsoid Q1, cylinder Q2, line Q3, and plane Q4 are transformed from canonical quadrics C1, C2, C3, and C4. For Q1, rotation around axis a is degenerate due to symmetry along axes b and c. For Q2, scale and translation along axis c, and rotation around it, are degenerate due to openness along c and symmetry on axes a, b. The other quadrics can be similarly analyzed… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Quadric-based representation for LiDAR scans from KITTI dataset. The point scans are represented compactly using quadrics. Road structures like the ground, buildings, and poles can be modeled as planes and lines, while objects such as vehicles and trunks are treated as…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The quadric fitting strategy of point clouds. From a partially observed quadric point cloud, we first fit the canonical C and the pose Pq, define the type and scale. Then we combine these attributes to form the quadric parameter Q. representation is highly compact, whe…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The quadric modeling of Pantheon in Italy. The raw 6 million point clouds are concisely represented by 33 cylinders, 25 planes, 3 spheres, and 1 cone in quadric format. from e can be decomposed to obtain scale ˆsq, rotation Rˆ q and center ˆtq that are robust to viewpo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quadric matching using multi-level compatibility graphs. We first establish quadric correspondences I1−5 within the shared semantics based on quadric similarity. Among them, I1,2,3,5 are inliers, while I4 is an outlier. By progressively relaxing threshold δm, we constr…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distance between quadrics is composed of translational and rotational components. Leveraging the degeneracy of quadrics, we compute quadric distance among diverse geometric primitives in a unified manner. The translational distances for central, linear-center, and …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Point clouds collected by different LiDAR sensors in the datasets. We select LiDAR sensors of spinning-state, semi￾solid-state, and solid-state types, with the collected point clouds exhibiting differences in spatial arrangement, density, and FOV. large-scale SLAM data…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Global point cloud registration results on different datasets. QuadricsReg demonstrates robust performance across diverse datasets, which encompass a variety of scenes and are collected using different LiDAR sensors. Even in cases with considerable viewpoint differenc…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Evaluation of the global registration success rate in LiDAR odometry test on KITTI-ODE, Apollo-SouthBay-ODE, Waymo-ODE, and nuScenes-ODE datasets. (Yang et al. 2021), Quatro (Lim et al. 2022), and 3DMAC (Zhang et al. 2023) on the FPFH-based matching results. We compar…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Evaluation of transformation estimation on KITTI-LC dataset (Left: RRE, right:RTE). the learning-based methods DGR and PointDSC, the handcraft methods TEASER++ and Quatro, and the high￾level representation-based methods G3Reg and QuadricsReg for comparison. The result…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Efficiency evaluation of scene representation on the hard level of the KITTI-LC sequence 08. The storage results are measured by uniformly storing the point-based or quadric-based scene representation data in text format. In terms of storage overhead, the quadric-base…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Localization and mapping results on the self-collected Hetero-Reg dataset with QuadricsReg as the loop closure module. We collect four sessions, totaling approximately 2.8 kilometers within a campus environment using a UGV, UAV, and handheld platform, each equipped wi…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Evaluation of loop closure on session 1 and session 2 of Hetero-Reg dataset. The black lines represent the trajectories, elevated for clarity in loop visualization. Sub-figure (i) depicts the complete trajectory of sessions, with blue lines indicating loop frames iden…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Real-world global registration results on point clouds scanned by different LiDAR sensors. QuadricsReg robustly conducts quadric-based representation, matching, and transformation estimation across various viewpoints, densities, and FOVs. approximately 2.8 kilometers …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Multi-session mapping on Hetero-Reg dataset. QuadricsReg is utilized for global point cloud registration within the same session for the same LiDAR and across sessions for different LiDARs. Accurate map merging results demonstrate the effectiveness of QuadricsReg. Fur…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. TurboReg: TurboClique for Robust and Efficient Point Cloud Registration

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TurboReg estimates 3D transformations from fixed-size three-match cliques in a tightly constrained compatibility graph, found by a linear-time pivot-guided search, matching or beating maximal clique methods at far hig...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Agarwal P, Tipaldi GD, Spinello L, Stachniss C and Burgard W (2013) Robust map optimization using dynamic covariance scaling. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 62--69

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Ao S, Hu Q, Yang B, Markham A and Guo Y (2021) Spinnet: Learning a general surface descriptor for 3d point cloud registration. In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 11748--11757

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 9(5): 698--700

    Arun KS, Huang TS and Blostein SD (1987) Least-squares fitting of two 3-d point sets. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 9(5): 698--700

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Bai X, Luo Z, Zhou L, Chen H, Li L, Hu Z, Fu H and Tai CL (2021) Pointdsc: Robust point cloud registration using deep spatial consistency. In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 15859--15869

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Bai X, Luo Z, Zhou L, Fu H, Quan L and Tai CL (2020) D3feat: Joint learning of dense detection and description of 3d local features. In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 6358--6366

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (CVPR)

    Behley J, Garbade M, Milioto A, Quenzel J, Behnke S, Stachniss C and Gall J (2019) SemanticKITTI: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of LiDAR sequences . In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (CVPR). pp. 9297--9307

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 14(2): 239--256

    Besl P and McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3-d shapes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 14(2): 239--256

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    In: IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR)

    Caesar H, Bankiti V, Lang AH, Vora S, Liong VE, Xu Q, Krishnan A, Pan Y, Baldan G and Beijbom O (2020) nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In: IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). pp. 11621--11631

    work page 2020

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 38(4): 2074--2093

    Cattaneo D, Vaghi M and Valada A (2022) LCDNet: Deep loop closure detection and point cloud registration for LiDAR SLAM . IEEE Transactions on Robotics 38(4): 2074--2093

    2022

  2. [10]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Censi A (2008) An icp variant using a point-to-line metric. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 19--25

    2008

  3. [11]

    In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Chen D, Wang S, Xie W, Zhai S, Wang N, Bao H and Zhang G (2022) Vip-slam: An efficient tightly-coupled rgb-d visual inertial planar slam. In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 5615--5621

    2022

  4. [12]

    IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 58(4): 2530--2540

    Chen S, Nan L, Xia R, Zhao J and Wonka P (2020 a ) Plade: A plane-based descriptor for point cloud registration with small overlap. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 58(4): 2530--2540

    2020

  5. [13]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5(2): 612--619

    Chen SW, Nardari GV, Lee ES, Qu C, Liu X, Romero RAF and Kumar V (2020 b ) Sloam: Semantic lidar odometry and mapping for forest inventory. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5(2): 612--619

    2020

  6. [14]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Chen X, Milioto A, Palazzolo E, Giguère P, Behley J and Stachniss C (2019) SuMa++: Efficient LiDAR-based Semantic SLAM . In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 4530--4537

    2019

  7. [15]

    In: IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR)

    Choy C, Dong W and Koltun V (2020) Deep global registration. In: IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). pp. 2514--2523

    2020

  8. [16]

    In: IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision (CVPR)

    Choy C, Park J and Koltun V (2019) Fully convolutional geometric features. In: IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision (CVPR). pp. 8958--8966

    2019

  9. [17]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Cramariuc A, Tschopp F, Alatur N, Benz S, Falck T, Brühlmeier M, Hahn B, Nieto J and Siegwart R (2021) Semsegmap – 3d segment-based semantic localization. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 1183--1190

    2021

  10. [18]

    ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 144: 61--79

    Dong Z, Yang B, Liang F, Huang R and Scherer S (2018) Hierarchical registration of unordered tls point clouds based on binary shape context descriptor. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 144: 61--79

    2018

  11. [19]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Dubé R, Dugas D, Stumm E, Nieto J, Siegwart R and Cadena C (2017) Segmatch: Segment based place recognition in 3d point clouds. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 5266--5272

    2017

  12. [20]

    Communications of the ACM 24(6): 381–395

    Fischler MA and Bolles RC (1981) Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Communications of the ACM 24(6): 381–395

    1981

  13. [21]

    In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Geiger A, Lenz P and Urtasun R (2012) Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 3354--3361

    2012

  14. [22]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Geneva P, Eckenhoff K, Yang Y and Huang G (2018) Lips: Lidar-inertial 3d plane slam. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 123--130

    2018

  15. [23]

    Journal of the Optical Society A 4: 629--642

    Horn B (1987) Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions. Journal of the Optical Society A 4: 629--642

    1987

  16. [24]

    Autonomous robots 34: 189--206

    Hornung A, Wurm KM, Bennewitz M, Stachniss C and Burgard W (2013) Octomap: An efficient probabilistic 3d mapping framework based on octrees. Autonomous robots 34: 189--206

    2013

  17. [25]

    In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Hou Y, Zhu X, Ma Y, Loy CC and Li Y (2022) Point-to-voxel knowledge distillation for lidar semantic segmentation. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 8479--8488

    2022

  18. [26]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Kong X, Yang X, Zhai G, Zhao X, Zeng X, Wang M, Liu Y, Li W and Wen F (2020) Semantic graph based place recognition for 3d point clouds. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 8216--8223

    2020

  19. [27]

    In: IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Li L, Sung M, Dubrovina A, Yi L and Guibas LJ (2019) Supervised fitting of geometric primitives to 3d point clouds. In: IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 2652--2660

    2019

  20. [28]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45(3): 3292--3310

    Liao Y, Xie J and Geiger A (2022) KITTI -360: A novel dataset and benchmarks for urban scene understanding in 2d and 3d. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45(3): 3292--3310

    2022

  21. [29]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 43(5): 685--715

    Lim H, Kim B, Kim D, Mason Lee E and Myung H (2024) Quatro++: Robust global registration exploiting ground segmentation for loop closing in lidar slam. The International Journal of Robotics Research 43(5): 685--715

    2024

  22. [30]

    In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Lim H, Yeon S, Ryu S, Lee Y, Kim Y, Yun J, Jung E, Lee D and Myung H (2022) A single correspondence is enough: Robust global registration to avoid degeneracy in urban environments. In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 8010--8017

    2022

  23. [31]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 39(6): 4312--4331

    Lin J, Yuan C, Cai Y, Li H, Ren Y, Zou Y, Hong X and Zhang F (2023) Immesh: An immediate lidar localization and meshing framework. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 39(6): 4312--4331

    2023

  24. [32]

    Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina 4(10): 1--3

    Low KL (2004) Linear least-squares optimization for point-to-plane icp surface registration. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina 4(10): 1--3

    2004

  25. [33]

    In: IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR)

    Lu W, Zhou Y, Wan G, Hou S and Song S (2019) L3-net: Towards learning based lidar localization for autonomous driving. In: IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). pp. 6389--6398

    2019

  26. [34]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Lusk PC, Fathian K and How JP (2021) Clipper: A graph-theoretic framework for robust data association. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp. 13828--13834

    2021

  27. [35]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 4(1): 1--8

    Nicholson L, Milford M and S \"u nderhauf N (2018) Quadricslam: Dual quadrics from object detections as landmarks in object-oriented slam. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 4(1): 1--8

    2018

  28. [36]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(3): 7255--7262

    Oh M, Jung E, Lim H, Song W, Hu S, Lee EM, Park J, Kim J, Lee J and Myung H (2022) Travel: Traversable ground and above-ground object segmentation using graph representation of 3d lidar scans. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(3): 7255--7262

    2022

  29. [37]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 31(5): 783--794

    Olsson C, Kahl F and Oskarsson M (2009) Branch-and-bound methods for euclidean registration problems. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 31(5): 783--794

    2009

  30. [38]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 31(4): 538--553

    Papazov C, Haddadin S, Parusel S, Krieger K and Burschka D (2012) Rigid 3d geometry matching for grasping of known objects in cluttered scenes. The International Journal of Robotics Research 31(4): 538--553

    2012

  31. [39]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45(3): 3979--3985

    Poiesi F and Boscaini D (2023) Learning general and distinctive 3d local deep descriptors for point cloud registration. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45(3): 3979--3985

    2023

  32. [40]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Pramatarov G, De Martini D, Gadd M and Newman P (2022) Boxgraph: Semantic place recognition and pose estimation from 3d lidar. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 7004--7011

    2022

  33. [41]

    Remote Sensing 12(1)

    Prokop M, Shaikh SA and Kim KS (2020) Low overlapping point cloud registration using line features detection. Remote Sensing 12(1)

    2020

  34. [42]

    IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering : 1--17

    Qiao Z, Yu Z, Jiang B, Yin H and Shen S (2024) G3reg: Pyramid graph-based global registration using gaussian ellipsoid model. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering : 1--17

    2024

  35. [43]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Qiao Z, Yu Z, Yin H and Shen S (2023) Pyramid semantic graph-based global point cloud registration with low overlap. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 11202--11209

    2023

  36. [44]

    The International Journal of Robotics Research 40(12-14): 1510--1546

    Rosinol A, Violette A, Abate M, Hughes N, Chang Y, Shi J, Gupta A and Carlone L (2021) Kimera: From slam to spatial perception with 3d dynamic scene graphs. The International Journal of Robotics Research 40(12-14): 1510--1546

    2021

  37. [45]

    SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 37(5): C589--C616

    Rossi RA, Gleich DF and Gebremedhin AH (2015) Parallel maximum clique algorithms with applications to network analysis. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 37(5): C589--C616

    2015

  38. [46]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Ruan J, Li B, Wang Y and Sun Y (2023) Slamesh: Real-time lidar simultaneous localization and meshing. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 3546--3552

    2023

  39. [47]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Rusu RB, Blodow N and Beetz M (2009) Fast point feature histograms (fpfh) for 3d registration. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 3212--3217

    2009

  40. [48]

    In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS)

    Rusu RB, Blodow N, Marton ZC and Beetz M (2008) Aligning point cloud views using persistent feature histograms. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 3384--3391

    2008

  41. [49]

    Computer Vision and Image Understanding 125: 251--264

    Salti S, Tombari F and Di Stefano L (2014) Shot: Unique signatures of histograms for surface and texture description. Computer Vision and Image Understanding 125: 251--264

    2014

  42. [50]

    In: Computer graphics forum, volume 26

    Schnabel R, Wahl R and Klein R (2007) Efficient ransac for point-cloud shape detection. In: Computer graphics forum, volume 26. pp. 214--226

    2007

  43. [51]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Shan T, Englot B, Meyers D, Wang W, Ratti C and Daniela R (2020) Lio-sam: Tightly-coupled lidar inertial odometry via smoothing and mapping. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 5135--5142

    2020

  44. [52]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), volume 12352

    Sharma G, Liu D, Maji S, Kalogerakis E, Chaudhuri S and Mech R (2020) Parsenet: A parametric surface fitting network for 3d point clouds. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), volume 12352. pp. 261--276

    2020

  45. [53]

    In: International Conference on 3D Vision

    Shiratori T, Berclaz J, Harville M, Shah C, Li T, Matsushita Y and Shiller S (2015) Efficient large-scale point cloud registration using loop closures. In: International Conference on 3D Vision. pp. 232--240

    2015

  46. [54]

    (2020) Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset

    Sun P, Kretzschmar H, Dotiwalla X, Chouard A, Patnaik V, Tsui P, Guo J, Zhou Y, Chai Y, Caine B et al. (2020) Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset. In: IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). pp. 2446--2454

    2020

  47. [55]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 13(11): 1115--1138

    Taubin G (1991) Estimation of planar curves, surfaces, and nonplanar space curves defined by implicit equations with applications to edge and range image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 13(11): 1115--1138

    1991

  48. [56]

    In: ACM Workshop on 3D Object Retrieval

    Tombari F, Salti S and Di Stefano L (2010) Unique shape context for 3d data description. In: ACM Workshop on 3D Object Retrieval. p. 57–62

    2010

  49. [57]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45(8): 10376--10393

    Wang H, Liu Y, Hu Q, Wang B, Chen J, Dong Z, Guo Y, Wang W and Yang B (2023) Roreg: Pairwise point cloud registration with oriented descriptors and local rotations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45(8): 10376--10393

    2023

  50. [58]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Wu J, Yu H, Yang W and Xia GS (2024) Quadricsnet: Learning concise representation for geometric primitives in point clouds. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 4060--4066

    2024

  51. [59]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8(8): 5023--5030

    Xia C, Xu C, Rim P, Ding M, Zheng N, Keutzer K, Tomizuka M and Zhan W (2023) Quadric representations for lidar odometry, mapping and localization. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8(8): 5023--5030

    2023

  52. [60]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 38(4): 2053--2073

    Xu W, Cai Y, He D, Lin J and Zhang F (2022) Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar-inertial odometry. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 38(4): 2053--2073

    2022

  53. [61]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5(2): 1127--1134

    Yang H, Antonante P, Tzoumas V and Carlone L (2020) Graduated non-convexity for robust spatial perception: From non-minimal solvers to global outlier rejection. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5(2): 1127--1134

    2020

  54. [62]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 37(2): 314--333

    Yang H, Shi J and Carlone L (2021) Teaser: Fast and certifiable point cloud registration. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 37(2): 314--333

    2021

  55. [63]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 46(12): 10645--10662

    Yang J, Zhang X, Wang P, Guo Y, Sun K, Wu Q, Zhang S and Zhang Y (2024) Mac: Maximal cliques for 3d registration. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 46(12): 10645--10662

    2024

  56. [64]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 35(4): 925--938

    Yang S and Scherer S (2019) Cubeslam: Monocular 3-d object slam. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 35(4): 925--938

    2019

  57. [65]

    In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Yew ZJ and Lee GH (2020) Rpm-net: Robust point matching using learned features. In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 11821--11830

    2020

  58. [66]

    International Journal of Computer Vision 132: 3139--3171

    Yin H, Xu X, Lu S, Chen X, Xiong R, Shen S, Stachniss C and Wang Y (2024) A survey on global lidar localization: Challenges, advances and open problems. International Journal of Computer Vision 132: 3139--3171

    2024

  59. [67]

    In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Yin P, Yuan S, Cao H, Ji X, Zhang S and Xie L (2023) Segregator: Global point cloud registration with semantic and geometric cues. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 2848--2854

    2023

  60. [68]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Yu H, Zhen W, Yang W, Zhang J and Scherer S (2020) Monocular camera localization in prior lidar maps with 2d-3d line correspondences. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 4588--4594

    2020

  61. [69]

    In: Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), volume 2

    Zhang J and Singh S (2014) Loam: Lidar odometry and mapping in real-time. In: Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), volume 2. pp. 1--9

    2014

  62. [70]

    In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Zhang X, Yang J, Zhang S and Zhang Y (2023) 3d registration with maximal cliques. In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 17745--17754

    2023

  63. [71]

    In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Zhen W, Yu H, Hu Y and Scherer S (2022) Unified representation of geometric primitives for graph-slam optimization using decomposed quadrics. In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 5636--5642

    2022

  64. [72]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(3): 7163--7170

    Zhou L, Huang G, Mao Y, Yu J, Wang S and Kaess M (2022) PLC -lislam: Lidar slam with planes, lines, and cylinders. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(3): 7163--7170

    2022

  65. [73]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    Zhou QY, Park J and Koltun V (2016) Fast global registration. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). pp. 766--782

    2016

  66. [74]

    arXiv:1801.09847

    Zhou QY, Park J and Koltun V (2018) Open3D : A modern library for 3D data processing. arXiv:1801.09847

    2018 arXiv

  67. [75]

    IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles

    Zhou Z, Feng X, Di S and Zhou X (2023) A lidar mapping system for robot navigation in dynamic environments. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles

    2023

  68. [76]

    In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Zuo X, Xie X, Liu Y and Huang G (2017) Robust visual slam with point and line features. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp. 1775--1782

    2017

  69. [77]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence...

  70. [78]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  71. [79]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence aft...

  72. [80]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.