Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

The Devil is in the Details: Simple Remedies for Image-to-LiDAR Representation Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simple fixes to voxelization and data pairing, not new loss functions, set a new state of the art in image-to-LiDAR representation learning.

desk verdict The Cartesian-coordinate fix is real and valuable; the unsynced-data story is weaker than the paper claims, and its own keyframe-only control shows it. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09485 v1 pith:SAGVB3FK submitted 2025-01-16 cs.CV

Wonjun Jo , Kwon Byung-Ki , Kim Ji-Yeon , Hawook Jeong , Kyungdon Joo , Tae-Hyun Oh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords image-to-LiDARdistillationself-supervisedrepresentationlearningLipointcloudpre-trainingvoxelizationcoordinatesystemquantizationerrorunsynchronizedsensordatapositivepairmining3Dsemanticsegmentation
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 claims that in self-supervised image-to-LiDAR distillation, the parts of the pipeline everyone treated as settled—the coordinate system used to voxelize point clouds, the voxel size, and the choice to use only temporally synchronized image-LiDAR pairs—matter more than the contrastive loss function. Two simple changes are proposed: voxelize in Cartesian coordinates with smaller voxels instead of cylindrical bins, and train on unsynchronized frames by first correcting moving-object misalignment with a Positive Pair Mining module. The authors report that these changes outperform prior distillation methods by 16% relative in nuScenes 3D semantic segmentation (45.2 vs 38.8 mIoU) and by 13% relative in KITTI few-shot 3D object detection, while also transferring to SemanticKITTI. A careful reader would care because it suggests that a large share of the progress in this area was left on the table in the input interface and data budget, not in the loss.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two mechanisms. First, the quantization interface: prior pipelines converted raw Cartesian LiDAR points into cylindrical voxel bins ($\delta\rho=10$ cm, $\delta\phi=1^\circ$, $\delta z=10$ cm) before feeding a sparse convolution network; the paper instead feeds a Cartesian voxel grid ($\delta x=\delta y=\delta z=10$ or $5$ cm), which holds quantization error constant with distance and reduces its average size. Second, Positive Pair Mining (PPM): to use an unsynced LiDAR frame with a keyframe image, PPM aggregates nearby frames in a global coordinate frame, removes ground points, clusters the rest, tracks cluster centers across time to flag moving clusters, and registers each moving cluster to the keyframe with cluster-wise ICP; the resulting 3D transform $Z$ is composed with the camera projection $T$ to build the pixel-point matching index used in the contrastive loss.

What would settle it

Ablate the two treatments with a controlled experiment: keep the same loss, batch size, and compute, but pre-train four variants—cylindrical/synced, Cartesian/synced, cylindrical/PPM-unsynced, and Cartesian/PPM-unsynced—on nuScenes. The paper's account predicts the gain decomposes almost additively (Cartesian alone about +2 to +3 mIoU, PPM alone about +3.7 mIoU); a replication that finds the whole gain comes only from the PPM term, or that PPM's contribution vanishes on a scene subset dominated by pedestrians or articulated vehicles, would falsify the claimed mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that two design choices, not the loss function, determine the quality of image-to-LiDAR distillation. First, it argues that the cylindrical voxelization inherited from LiDAR-only segmentation enlarges voxels with range and inflates quantization error (average 229.2 mm at the standard 10 cm setting), degrading far-field resolution; switching to a Cartesian grid with 5 cm voxels cuts the error to 48.2 mm and raises nuScenes linear-probing mIoU from 38.8 to 41.2 with the same loss. Second, it argues that synchronized-only data curation discards most of the dataset, and that unsynchronized frames can be used safely if moving points are registered back to the keyframe; its Positive Pair Mining module does this with clustering, moving-cluster tracking, and cluster-wise ICP, adding 3.7 points over the synced-only Cartesian baseline to reach 45.2. With the unchanged SLidR loss, the combined treatments outperform previous distillation methods by about 16% relative on nuScenes semantic segmentation and 13% relative on KITTI few-shot object detection, establishing that the input interface and data utilization, rather than the loss design, are the bottleneck.

Load-bearing premise

The gain from unsynced data assumes PPM can reliably identify moving objects and rigidly move them back into the keyframe; in scenes with many articulated or partially moving objects, the paper's own error tables show its alignment degrades sharply, so the +3.7% could reverse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adopting Cartesian voxelization with smaller voxels cuts average quantization error roughly in half (from 229 mm to 96 mm at 10 cm voxels) and improves downstream mIoU by about 2–3 points even without any loss change.
  • Unsynchronized frames are usable for distillation without labels by registering moving objects to the keyframe time; this roughly doubles the pre-training data and adds about 3.7 points mIoU over the synced-only Cartesian baseline.
  • The two treatments together reach 45.2 linear-probe mIoU on nuScenes, beating prior methods including a variant using a foundation-model segmenter; simple input-interface fixes can therefore outperform more elaborate loss-function design.
  • The improvements transfer across tasks and datasets: the same nuScenes-pre-trained representation improves few-shot 3D object detection on KITTI, with relative gains above 13% in the moderate setting, and improves SemanticKITTI segmentation with 1% labels by more than 10 points.
  • The gains hold across different 2D backbones (MoCov2 and DINO) and across voxel-based backbones, so the remedies are not tied to one architecture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's decomposition implies that previously published comparisons of distillation losses were likely confounded: if every baseline shared the cylindrical voxelizer, their loss differences were evaluated on a suboptimal input interface, so re-running those losses on a Cartesian grid could reshuffle their rankings.
  • Because PPM is unsupervised but its dynamic-foreground registration is markedly weaker than supervised scene flow (the paper reports EPE 0.992 and 49.5% outliers for moving objects), the unsynced-data gain is probably a lower bound; plugging in a stronger registration method should push the 45.2 mIoU higher without touching the loss.
  • A direct test of the quantization story: if the benefit of Cartesian coordinates is really uniform error, then a cylindrical voxelizer whose bin sizes shrink with inverse range should recover most of the same gain; that experiment would isolate the error-geometry mechanism from incidental implementation details.
  • The recipe (Cartesian voxelization plus mining unsynced pairs) is sensor-generic and should transfer to other camera-LiDAR rigs beyond driving, but only if the PPM clustering threshold and ICP reference-frame choice are re-tuned, since the paper demonstrates only driving datasets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper identifies two overlooked design decisions in image-to-LiDAR self-supervised distillation: the voxelization coordinate system and the use of temporally unsynced sensor data. Treatment 1 replaces cylindrical voxelization with Cartesian voxelization at a smaller voxel size, arguing that cylindrical coordinates produce distance-dependent quantization errors when combined with sparse-convolution input interfaces. Treatment 2 proposes Positive Pair Mining (PPM), an unsupervised pipeline of ground removal, clustering, moving-object tracking, and cluster-wise ICP, to build point-pixel positive pairs from unsynced LiDAR and image frames. Using the SLidR contrastive loss essentially unchanged, the authors report large gains over prior image-to-LiDAR distillation methods on nuScenes semantic segmentation and KITTI few-shot detection, together with transfer results on SemanticKITTI, and they include ablations of both treatments, resource measurements, multiple 2D backbones, and additional runs for Treatment 1.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper is significant because it shows that basic input-interface and data-utilization choices can dominate loss-function design in image-to-LiDAR distillation, and it offers a simple new baseline for the field. The use of a fixed distillation loss helps isolate the effect of the proposed treatments; the geometric quantization-error argument for Cartesian coordinates is clear and convincing; and the experiments span two datasets, two downstream tasks, multiple backbones, and a resource comparison. The main weakness is that the temporal contribution is internally weakened by the authors' own keyframe-only result, and PPM's quantitative performance on dynamic foreground is much worse than the supervised alternatives. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's two-pillar narrative and need to be reconciled before the central claims can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main-text Table S2 vs. Supplementary Table S1 (Supplementary Sec. 2.1)] Table S2 presents (A) synced-only at 41.6 LP, (B) synced+unsynced with nearest alignment at 41.5, and Ours (synced+unsynced with PPM) at 45.2, and the text attributes the +3.7% gain to PPM-based use of unsynced data. However, Supplementary Table S1 reports Ours-Keyframe, which uses only keyframe data and no inter-frame LiDAR, at 46.3 LP—1.1 points above the full method and 4.7 points above the synced-only row. Because the full method adds inter-frame LiDAR on top of a keyframe-based pipeline, this comparison shows that on linear probing the inter-frame data actually lowers performance; the only setting where full Ours beats Ours-Keyframe is 1%-labeled fine-tuning (42.7 vs. 41.6). The main ablation therefore omits a stronger condition and conflates the benefit of PPM-corrected unsynced keyframe pairs with the benefit of inter-frame data. The authors should include Ours-Keyframe in the main ablation and either reframe Treatment 2 as using unsynced keyframe pairs or provide direct evidence that inter-frame data is beneficial in the regimes claimed.
  2. [Supplementary Sec. 4, Table S4] Supplementary Table S4 shows that PPM's dynamic-foreground alignment remains much weaker than the weakly supervised and supervised baselines (EPE 0.992 and ROutlier 49.5%, versus 0.539/32.0 for WsRSF and 0.301/12.1 for PCAccumulation). Since moving objects are precisely the regions where unsynced projection is unreliable, the statement that PPM 'corrects inaccurate point-pixel matching caused by moving objects' is only partially supported by the paper's own quantitative evaluation of PPM. A concrete test would be to report distillation performance with PPM replaced by a supervised accumulation method such as PCAccumulation, or with dynamic foreground points excluded from the positive pairs; this would determine whether the observed gains come from dynamic-region correction or from other properties of the proposed pipeline.
  3. [Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 4.3] Hyperparameters are selected on the 100-scene mini-validation split (Sec. 4.1), and the reported downstream segmentation numbers are measured on that same mini-validation set (Sec. 4.3). This means the final tables may reflect selection on the evaluation set, and the baselines are not guaranteed to have been tuned under the identical protocol. The authors should either evaluate on an untouched test split, use cross-validation for choices such as voxel size and PPM thresholds, or explicitly quantify sensitivity to these choices on a separate split.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Table numbering is confusing: the main-text tables are labeled S1–S5 and the supplementary material reuses labels S1–S8; the main-text tables should be renumbered as Tables 1–5.
  2. [Sec. 4.4] The text contains typos, including 'archives' for 'achieves' and inconsistent spellings 'SLiDR'/'SLidR' and 'unsynched'/'unsynced'.
  3. [Supplementary Algorithm 1] In the pseudo-code, the ppm function takes x_i_t as an argument but the function body does not use it; the signature should be cleaned up or the unused argument should be documented.
  4. [References] References [11] and [12] are the same Geiger et al. paper and should be consolidated.
  5. [Experimental protocol] Except for Supplementary Table S5, which covers Treatment 1, the main results are single runs; for a claim of state-of-the-art performance, the authors should report mean and standard deviation over multiple seeds for the full pipeline, especially where margins in the few-shot regimes are smaller.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: downstream comparisons are external and no predicted quantity reduces to a fitted input; the sole caveats are same-dataset hyperparameter selection and a keyframe-only ablation that complicates the temporal attribution, which are correctness concerns rather than circular steps.

full rationale

I find no circular step in the paper's derivation chain. Treatment 1's quantization-error numbers are geometric computations of voxelization (cylindrical 229.2 mm vs Cartesian 96.5 mm / 48.2 mm, main-text Table S1), not outputs of the downstream evaluation, and the downstream mIoU/mAP values are compared against external baselines (SLidR, ST-SLidR, TriCC, Seal) under a fixed SLidR distillation loss. Treatment 2/PPM is an empirical preprocessing module: its claimed +3.7% gain over nearest-alignment (main-text Table S2) is not forced by construction because the alignment method is not derived from the downstream metric. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; the SLidR loss is used as a fixed baseline rather than as evidence that the treatments must work. Two passages do warrant explicit flagging as limitations, though neither amounts to circularity: (i) Supp. Sec. 2.1, Table S1 reports Ours-Keyframe at LP 46.3, above the full Ours 45.2, which undercuts the paper's attribution of the linear-probing gain to PPM-corrected inter-frame data; (ii) Supp. Sec. 2.4, Table S4 shows PPM's dynamic-foreground EPE (0.992) and ROutlier (49.5%) are much worse than supervised accumulation methods, and the text concedes PPM 'has room for improvement in handling dynamic parts.' These inconsistencies and limitations deserve reconciliation but do not make any predicted quantity equal to an input by definition. Same-dataset hyperparameter selection (voxel size, PPM threshold c=0.5m) modestly inflates confidence in the nuScenes numbers, while KITTI and SemanticKITTI evaluations are held-out, so this is not definitional circularity. Score 1 reflects these caveats rather than a found circular step.

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

The central claim rests on two hand-set preprocessing choices (5 cm voxel, 0.5 m moving threshold) and several domain assumptions about object rigidity and the transferability of image features. No fundamentally new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Cartesian voxel size = 5 cm
    Selected as best on mini-validation; 5 cm gives 41.2 vs 10 cm 40.8 and 1 cm 31.3 LP mIoU (Supp. Table S2).
  • Moving cluster tracking threshold c = 0.5 m
    Hand-set in Supp. Sec. 4; clusters whose consecutive center L1 distance exceeds 0.5 m are treated as moving.
  • HDBSCAN min cluster size = 50
    Hand-set in Supp. Sec. 4; affects object clustering for PPM.
  • Number of inter-frame LiDAR samples = 1
    Supp. Table S3: 1 vs 2 samples gives 45.2 vs 45.3, so one sample is chosen.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Quantization error, not point density, is the dominant factor in image-to-LiDAR distillation.
    Section 3.1 states 'We postulate that small and uniform quantization error is more critical than the emphasis on uniform density.' This is the mechanism assumed for Treatment 1.
  • domain assumption HDBSCAN clusters correspond to rigid objects, and cluster-center displacement identifies moving objects.
    PPM relies on this to build the positive-pair matching index (Supp. Sec. 4).
  • domain assumption Frozen 2D image features provide a valid supervision signal for 3D point features.
    Inherited from SLidR/PPKT; the contrastive loss (Eq. 3) assumes pixel-point feature similarity corresponds to semantic correspondence.
  • domain assumption Cluster-wise ICP can rigidly register each moving cluster to the keyframe.
    PPM uses ICP to compute Z; non-rigid or articulated motion violates this (Supp. Table S4 shows high dynamic foreground errors).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Devil is in the Details: Simple Remedies for Image-to-LiDAR Representation Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SAGVB3FK

@misc{pith2026250109485,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Devil is in the Details: Simple Remedies for Image-to-LiDAR Representation Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SAGVB3FK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09485}
}
read the original abstract

LiDAR is a crucial sensor in autonomous driving, commonly used alongside cameras. By exploiting this camera-LiDAR setup and recent advances in image representation learning, prior studies have shown the promising potential of image-to-LiDAR distillation. These prior arts focus on the designs of their own losses to effectively distill the pre-trained 2D image representations into a 3D model. However, the other parts of the designs have been surprisingly unexplored. We find that fundamental design elements, e.g., the LiDAR coordinate system, quantization according to the existing input interface, and data utilization, are more critical than developing loss functions, which have been overlooked in prior works. In this work, we show that simple fixes to these designs notably outperform existing methods by 16% in 3D semantic segmentation on the nuScenes dataset and 13% in 3D object detection on the KITTI dataset in downstream task performance. We focus on overlooked design choices along the spatial and temporal axes. Spatially, prior work has used cylindrical coordinate and voxel sizes without considering their side effects yielded with a commonly deployed sparse convolution layer input interface, leading to spatial quantization errors in 3D models. Temporally, existing work has avoided cumbersome data curation by discarding unsynced data, limiting the use to only the small portion of data that is temporally synced across sensors. We analyze these effects and propose simple solutions for each overlooked aspect.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI)34(11), 2274–2282 (2012)

    Achanta, R., Shaji, A., Smith, K., Lucchi, A., Fua, P., Süsstrunk, S.: Slic superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (TPAMI)34(11), 2274–2282 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04906 (2021)

    Bardes, A., Ponce, J., LeCun, Y.: Vicreg: Variance-invariance-covariance regulariza- tion for self-supervised learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.04906 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    Behley, J., Garbade, M., Milioto, A., Quenzel, J., Behnke, S., Stachniss, C., Gall, J.: Semantickitti: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of lidar sequences. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 9297–9307 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

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

    Caesar, H., Bankiti, V., Lang, A.H., Vora, S., Liong, V.E., Xu, Q., Krishnan, A., Pan, Y., Baldan, G., Beijbom, O.: nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 11621–11631 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    In: Pacific-Asia conference on knowledge discovery and data mining

    Campello, R.J., Moulavi, D., Sander, J.: Density-based clustering based on hierar- chical density estimates. In: Pacific-Asia conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. pp. 160–172. Springer (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M., Hinton, G.: A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In: International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). pp. 1597–1607. PMLR (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04297 (2020)

    Chen, X., Fan, H., Girshick, R., He, K.: Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04297 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Chen, Y., Liu, J., Ni, B., Wang, H., Yang, J., Liu, N., Li, T., Tian, Q.: Shape self-correction for unsupervised point cloud understanding. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 8382–8391 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Cheng, R., Razani, R., Taghavi, E., Li, E., Liu, B.: 2-s3net: Attentive feature fusion with adaptive feature selection for sparse semantic segmentation network. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 12547–12556 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

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

    Choy, C., Gwak, J., Savarese, S.: 4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convo- lutional neural networks. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 3075–3084 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    In: Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2012)

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

    2012

  4. [12]

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

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

    2012

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Gojcic, Z., Litany, O., Wieser, A., Guibas, L.J., Birdal, T.: Weakly supervised learning of rigid 3d scene flow. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 5692–5703 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    In: 2006 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR’06)

    Hadsell, R., Chopra, S., LeCun, Y.: Dimensionality reduction by learning an invariant mapping. In: 2006 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR’06). vol. 2, pp. 1735–1742. IEEE (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    He, K., Fan, H., Wu, Y., Xie, S., Girshick, R.: Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 9729–9738 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770–778 (2016) 16 W. Jo et al

    2016

  9. [17]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Henaff, O.: Data-efficient image recognition with contrastive predictive coding. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 4182–4192. PMLR (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Hou, J., Graham, B., Nießner, M., Xie, S.: Exploring data-efficient 3d scene un- derstanding with contrastive scene contexts. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 15587–15597 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Huang, S., Gojcic, Z., Huang, J., Wieser, A., Schindler, K.: Dynamic 3d scene analysis by point cloud accumulation. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 674–690. Springer (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Huang, S., Xie, Y., Zhu, S.C., Zhu, Y.: Spatio-temporal self-supervised representa- tion learning for 3d point clouds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 6535–6545 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02643 (2023)

    Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A.C., Lo, W.Y., et al.: Segment anything. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02643 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    In: 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    Lee, S., Lim, H., Myung, H.: Patchwork++: Fast and robust ground segmentation solving partial under-segmentation using 3d point cloud. In: 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). pp. 13276– 13283. IEEE (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09347 (2023)

    Liu, Y., Kong, L., Cen, J., Chen, R., Zhang, W., Pan, L., Chen, K., Liu, Z.: Segment any point cloud sequences by distilling vision foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09347 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.04687 (2021)

    Liu, Y.C., Huang, Y.K., Chiang, H.Y., Su, H.T., Liu, Z.Y., Chen, C.T., Tseng, C.Y., Hsu, W.H.: Learning from 2d: Contrastive pixel-to-point knowledge transfer for 3d pretraining. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.04687 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

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

    Mahmoud, A., Hu, J.S., Kuai, T., Harakeh, A., Paull, L., Waslander, S.L.: Self- supervised image-to-point distillation via semantically tolerant contrastive loss. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 7102–7110 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Misra, I., Maaten, L.v.d.: Self-supervised learning of pretext-invariant representa- tions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 6707–6717 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters7(2), 2116–2123 (2022)

    Nunes, L., Marcuzzi, R., Chen, X., Behley, J., Stachniss, C.: Segcontrast: 3d point cloud feature representation learning through self-supervised segment discrimination. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters7(2), 2116–2123 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

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

    Nunes, L., Wiesmann, L., Marcuzzi, R., Chen, X., Behley, J., Stachniss, C.: Temporal consistent 3d lidar representation learning for semantic perception in autonomous driving. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 5217–5228 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748 (2018)

    Oord, A.v.d., Li, Y., Vinyals, O.: Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03748 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Pan, T.Y., Ma, C., Chen, T., Phoo, C.P., Luo, K.Z., You, Y., Campbell, M., Weinberger, K.Q., Hariharan, B., Chao, W.L.: Pre-training lidar-based 3d object detectors through colorization (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

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

    Pang, B., Xia, H., Lu, C.: Unsupervised 3d point cloud representation learning by triangle constrained contrast for autonomous driving. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 5229–5239 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Puy, G., Gidaris, S., Boulch, A., Siméoni, O., Sautier, C., Pérez, P., Bursuc, A., Marlet, R.: Three pillars improving vision foundation model distillation for lidar. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 21519–21529 (2024) ...

    2024

  25. [33]

    In: Proceedings third international conference on 3-D digital imaging and modeling

    Rusinkiewicz, S., Levoy, M.: Efficient variants of the icp algorithm. In: Proceedings third international conference on 3-D digital imaging and modeling. pp. 145–152. IEEE (2001)

    2001

  26. [34]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems32 (2019)

    Sauder, J., Sievers, B.: Self-supervised deep learning on point clouds by reconstruct- ing space. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems32 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

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

    Sautier, C., Puy, G., Gidaris, S., Boulch, A., Bursuc, A., Marlet, R.: Image-to-lidar self-supervised distillation for autonomous driving data. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 9891–9901 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

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

    Sun, P., Kretzschmar, H., Dotiwalla, X., Chouard, A., Patnaik, V., Tsui, P., Guo, J., Zhou, Y., Chai, Y., Caine, B., et al.: Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 2446–24...

    2020

  29. [37]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    Tang, H., Liu, Z., Zhao, S., Lin, Y., Lin, J., Wang, H., Han, S.: Searching efficient 3d architectures with sparse point-voxel convolution. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). pp. 685–702. Springer (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10699 (2019)

    Tian, Y., Krishnan, D., Isola, P.: Contrastive representation distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.10699 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Wang, H., Liu, Q., Yue, X., Lasenby, J., Kusner, M.J.: Unsupervised point cloud pre- training via occlusion completion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 9782–9792 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

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

    Wu, Y., Zhang, T., Ke, W., Süsstrunk, S., Salzmann, M.: Spatiotemporal self- supervised learning for point clouds in the wild. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 5251–5260 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Wu, Z., Xiong, Y., Yu, S.X., Lin, D.: Unsupervised feature learning via non- parametric instance discrimination. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 3733–3742 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV)

    Xie, S., Gu, J., Guo, D., Qi, C.R., Guibas, L., Litany, O.: Pointcontrast: Unsuper- vised pre-training for 3d point cloud understanding. In: European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). pp. 574–591. Springer (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    In: European Conference on Computer Vision

    Yin, J., Zhou, D., Zhang, L., Fang, J., Xu, C.Z., Shen, J., Wang, W.: Proposalcon- trast: Unsupervised pre-training for lidar-based 3d object detection. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 17–33. Springer (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learn- ing

    Zbontar, J., Jing, L., Misra, I., LeCun, Y., Deny, S.: Barlow twins: Self-supervised learning via redundancy reduction. In: International Conference on Machine Learn- ing. pp. 12310–12320. PMLR (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Zhang, H., Li, F., Zou, X., Liu, S., Li, C., Yang, J., Zhang, L.: A simple framework for open-vocabulary segmentation and detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 1020–1031 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    Zhang, Z., Girdhar, R., Joulin, A., Misra, I.: Self-supervised pretraining of 3d features on any point-cloud. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). pp. 10252–10263 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

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

    Zhu, X., Zhou, H., Wang, T., Hong, F., Ma, Y., Li, W., Li, H., Lin, D.: Cylindri- cal and asymmetrical 3d convolution networks for lidar segmentation. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 9939–9948 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Zou, X., Dou, Z.Y., Yang, J., Gan, Z., Li, L., Li, C., Dai, X., Behl, H., Wang, J., Yuan, L., et al.: Generalized decoding for pixel, image, and language. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 15116–15127 (2023) 18 W. Jo et al

    2023

  41. [49]

    Zou, X., Yang, J., Zhang, H., Li, F., Li, L., Wang, J., Wang, L., Gao, J., Lee, Y.J.: Segment everything everywhere all at once. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2024) The Devil is in the Details: Simple Remedies for Image-to-LiDAR Representation Learning —...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.