Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Unpaired Translation of Point Clouds for Modeling Detector Response

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper models detector response as unpaired point-cloud translation, swapping diffusion decoders so simulated events gain noise and experimental events are denoised.

desk verdict A reasonable adaptation of CycleDiffusion to point clouds with useful synthetic validation, but the AT-TPC detector-response claim is not yet supported by the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18674 v1 pith:PYLTTXTQ submitted 2025-01-30 cs.CV cs.LGnucl-ex

Mingyang Li , Michelle Kuchera , Raghuram Ramanujan , Adam Anthony , Curtis Hunt , Yassid Ayyad This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LGnucl-ex
keywords unpairedpointcloudtranslationdiffusionprobabilisticmodelsdetectorresponsemodelingtimeprojectionchamberAT-TPCCyclenoiserejectiondenoising
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

Time projection chambers reconstruct particle tracks as point clouds, but their detector response is hard to simulate, and experimental data require unfolding before use. This paper argues that both problems are one unpaired translation task: move simulated events into the experimental domain to model detector response, and move experimental events into the simulated domain to subtract noise, with no paired events needed. The framework trains two point-cloud diffusion probabilistic models independently, one per domain, then at inference swaps their decoders so a source event's diffusion latent is decoded by the target model. On synthetic lines and shapes and on fission events from the Active-Target Time Projection Chamber, translated events have distributions close to in-domain data and round-trip reconstructions with small Chamfer distances. If the argument holds, detector simulation and data cleaning can be built from pooled datasets alone.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the cross-decoder swap at inference time. A DPM-Encoder turns a source point cloud into a deterministic latent made of the final noisy point cloud $X(T)$ and the concatenated noise trajectory $\epsilon_X = \epsilon_T \oplus \dots \oplus \epsilon_1$; a PointNet encoder supplies a permutation-invariant shape latent $z_Y$ for the target domain; and the target decoder runs the reverse step $Y'(t-1) = \mu_Y(Y'(t), t, z_Y) + \sigma_t \epsilon_t$, re-using the source noise while following the target model's learned mean. The mechanism's job is to preserve the identity of the physical event while changing its domain statistics.

What would settle it

Train the two models on domains with no overlapping topology—for example, only 'Y'-shaped events in the simulated domain and only straight tracks in the experimental domain—then translate a 'Y' event and check whether the output keeps two prongs. If it becomes a straight track, the cross-domain latent alignment is not preserving the event. A calibration-based version of the same test is to use AT-TPC events with known track geometry and require round-trip translation to reproduce those tracks within the reported Chamfer-distance error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's terms, is that the image-domain CycleDiffusion procedure survives transplantation to permutation-invariant point clouds and thereby solves detector-response modeling. The paper asserts that diffusion models give uniquely identifiable encodings—the same noise trajectory identifies the same content—and that these encodings stay semantically aligned across models trained on different datasets; therefore a simulated event encoded with its own model can be decoded with the experimental model to yield the same event with detector effects, and an experimental event can be denoised by the reverse swap. The evidence is that on the AT-TPC fission data the simulated-to-experimental translation has Jensen-Shannon divergence 0.044 against an in-domain reference of 0.005, the experimental-to-simulated translation has 0.005 against 0.004, and round-trip reconstruction removes most added noise, with about 1% extreme outliers excluded from the reported reconstruction error.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that two independently trained point-cloud diffusion models place the same physical event at compatible points in their latent spaces, so decoding a source latent with the target decoder preserves the event instead of generating an unrelated but plausible target sample.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detector-response simulator can be built from pooled simulated and experimental event sets; no per-event ground-truth pairing is required.
  • Experimental events can be denoised into simulator-like tracks, so downstream analyses can run on data that resemble simulation.
  • The translation is symmetric, so one trained pair of models provides both noise addition and noise subtraction.
  • The line-segment experiments show that a position-dependent noise law such as $0.1y$ is recovered from data rather than prescribed by hand.
  • The geometry experiments show the framework handles multi-class domains without class labels, translating both triangular prisms and cuboids in one model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not explore this, but the same cross-decoder swap should transfer to other point-cloud-producing detectors, provided both domains can be modeled by point-cloud diffusion; a direct check is whether the Jensen-Shannon gap between translated and in-domain events stays small when the domains differ in topology rather than only in noise.
  • The relative contribution of the PointNet shape latent is unquantified in the paper; an ablation that translates with and without $z_Y$ would reveal how much event identity is carried by the diffusion noise trajectory versus the shape code.
  • A physics-level test is left implicit: feed translated simulated events into the fission analysis and compare extracted observables, such as fission angles, with those from experimental events; distribution-level similarity is the paper's evidence, and whether that suffices for scientific use is an open question.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an unpaired point-cloud translation framework for modeling detector response in time projection chambers. It adapts CycleDiffusion to point clouds by combining a Luo-Hu diffusion model with a PointNet shape latent to address permutation invariance. Two domain-specific diffusion models are trained independently, and translation is performed by encoding a source event, running the forward diffusion process, and decoding with the other domain's decoder. The authors evaluate on synthetic line and shape datasets and on AT-TPC fission events, reporting conditional noise standard deviations, Jensen-Shannon divergence, and Chamfer Distance.

Significance. If the per-event identity claim is substantiated, the framework offers a practical way to build detector-response models and denoise experimental events without paired data, which is valuable for gas TPC experiments. The paper includes a code repository, a clean conditional-noise toy experiment, and an application to real AT-TPC fission data. However, the empirical support is currently at the distribution level; the per-event correspondence that is essential for detector-response modeling is not directly measured.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (1)] The central claim that G models detector response for a given simulated event requires that decoding a source latent with DecY preserves the physical identity of the event. No per-event identity metric is reported anywhere. Table 2 verifies only that the standard deviation of added noise increases with y; it does not show that the translated line retains the input's y0. Table 3 reports JSD on marginal batches and reconstruction CD, neither of which detects a failure mode where the output is a plausible but different event. Since zX and zY come from two independently trained PointNet encoders with no alignment or cycle-consistency objective, the cross-domain latent-alignment assumption from image diffusion models is asserted rather than demonstrated for point clouds. Please add per-event metrics (e.g., y0 error for LX→LY; fission angle, vertex position, and limb lengths for AX→AY) to support the detector-response interpretation.
  2. [Section 3.3] Section 3.3 gives dataset sizes but no train/test split. All evaluation metrics in Tables 2 and 3 appear to be computed on the same data distributions the models were trained on, and possibly the same events. Without a held-out split, the reported JSD and CD values do not establish that the translation works for unseen events, which is exactly the requirement for detector-response modeling. Add an explicit random split and report all metrics on the held-out portion.
  3. [Table 3] The AX→AY result (JSD(trans)=0.044 vs. JSD(in-domain)=0.005) is called 'comparable' in the text, but the gap is roughly a factor of 9 and no error bars or uncertainty are reported. Moreover, CD(reco) is computed after removing ~1% extreme outliers with no stated criterion, and CD(clean) is not reported for AX→AY. This weakens the quantitative support for the main AT-TPC claim. Provide error bars on JSD (e.g., bootstrap), define the outlier-removal rule, and report CD with and without outlier removal for both translation directions.
  4. [Section 3.1, Eq. (1)] The text says the decoder is 'guided by zY and εX', but Eq. (1) draws εt as fresh Gaussian noise at every step, so the role of εX is unclear. If εX is not used in decoding, the statement is inaccurate; if it is used, the equation should define εt as one of the stored components of εX. This ambiguity affects the reproducibility of the proposed algorithm and should be resolved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References [42]-[43]] The citation for 'uniquely identifiable encodings' appears incorrect: ref. [42] is Song et al. (score-based SDEs), while the supporting property is described in refs. [28] and [43]. Please correct the citation and verify the claim in the point-cloud setting.
  2. [Table 2] In Table 2, σT ± σT/√N is not a standard error for the estimated standard deviation; the uncertainty on σT should be computed (e.g., via bootstrap or chi-square) to support the comparison to σ(y).
  3. [Section 3.3] The datasets are described only by event counts; please specify the number of points per event, the coordinate normalization, and which datasets are 3-D versus 4-D.
  4. [Table 3] The 'randomly generated point clouds' used for JSD(rand) are not defined; describe their generation procedure.
  5. [Figure 3] The qualitative figures would be more informative with a paired overlay before/after translation or a per-event example with quantified vertex and angle errors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the method's outputs are not defined by its inputs, and the main risk (cross-domain latent alignment) is an empirical validity concern rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The forward map G and inverse H are implemented by rewiring independently trained point-cloud diffusion models (Section 3.1); no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation defines the output in terms of the quantity being claimed. The LX-to-LY conditional noise benchmark has external ground truth sigma(y) = 0.1y (Section 3.3, Table 2), so the reported MAE is a genuine external check rather than a self-referential metric. The authors' self-citations ([6], [38], [41]) concern the AT-TPC instrument, the fission data, and the beam particle identification system; they do not carry the translation argument. The central reliance on 'uniquely identifiable encodings' cites external prior work [42,43]; whether that property transfers to point clouds is a correctness and generalization risk, not a circular step, because the paper does not define its target quantity by that property. Evaluating translations with JSD on in-domain distributions is standard practice for generative models and does not make the claim true by construction; it merely leaves per-event content preservation unverified. No specific equation or fitted-parameter reduction can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mainly on standard diffusion theory plus an unvalidated transfer of image-domain latent alignment to point clouds. No new physical entities are introduced; the shape-latent DPM-Encoder is an architecture component. The only hand-chosen post hoc element affecting the reported result is the outlier cutoff used in reconstruction scoring, which is listed as a red flag rather than a model parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • outlier removal cutoff for reconstruction evaluation = ~1% of reconstructed events
    In Section 4, CD(reco) is computed after removing extreme outliers to create a clean reconstruction subdataset; the cutoff is chosen post hoc and affects the reported reconstruction quality.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Diffusion probabilistic models reverse a Gaussian forward process to generate samples from the training distribution.
    Used throughout Section 3; relies on Ho et al. and Luo and Hu.
  • domain assumption Independently trained diffusion models produce aligned latent codes, so the same latent carries the same semantics across domains.
    Section 3 relies on the uniquely identifiable encodings property from references 42 and 43; this is an empirical property demonstrated on images, not proven for permutation-invariant point cloud DPMs.
  • ad hoc to paper The PointNet shape latent added to the DPM-Encoder preserves the topological and physical content of a point cloud during translation.
    Section 3.2 states the augmentation is needed because point clouds are permutation invariant, but no experiment isolates whether this latent is what preserves structure.
  • domain assumption Jensen-Shannon divergence over point cloud batches and Chamfer Distance are sufficient proxies for physics fidelity of detector response.
    Section 4 uses JSD and CD as the only quantitative validation; no physics observables such as angles, energy loss, or track length are checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unpaired Translation of Point Clouds for Modeling Detector Response." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PYLTTXTQ

@misc{pith2026250118674,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unpaired Translation of Point Clouds for Modeling Detector Response},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PYLTTXTQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18674}
}
read the original abstract

Modeling detector response is a key challenge in time projection chambers. We cast this problem as an unpaired point cloud translation task, between data collected from simulations and from experimental runs. Effective translation can assist with both noise rejection and the construction of high-fidelity simulators. Building on recent work in diffusion probabilistic models, we present a novel framework for performing this mapping. We demonstrate the success of our approach in both synthetic domains and in data sourced from the Active-Target Time Projection Chamber.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18674 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic depicting our unpaired trans￾lation model at inference time. Arrows in red denote our modifications to the standard CycleD￾iffusion architecture to incorporate a point cloud diffusion model. Hyperparameter Value Initial Learning Rate 0.001 Final Learning Rate 0.0001 Optimization Algorithm Adam [45] Batch Size 128 Number of Training Iterations 1,000,000 Latent Dimension Size 256 Diffusion Steps 256 [PITH_F… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Samples of translation results on on the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Translation and reconstruction results on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Generative Networks for LHC Events , chapter Chapter 7, pages 191–

    Anja Butter and Tilman Plehn. Generative Networks for LHC Events , chapter Chapter 7, pages 191–

    work page

  2. [2]

    A survey of machine learning-based physics event generation

    Yasir Alanazi, Nobuo Sato, Pawel Ambrozewicz, Astrid Hiller-Blin, Wally Melnitchouk, Marco Battaglieri, Tianbo Liu, and Yaohang Li. A survey of machine learning-based physics event generation. In Zhi-Hua Zhou, editor, Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI- 21, pages 4286–4293. International Joint Con...

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/588 2021

  3. [3]

    Anja Butter, Tilman Plehn, Steffen Schumann, Simon Badger, Sascha Caron, Kyle Cranmer, Francesco Armando Di Bello, Etienne Dreyer, Stefano Forte, Sanmay Ganguly, Dorival Gonçalves, Eilam Gross, Theo Heimel, Gudrun Heinrich, Lukas Heinrich, Alexander Held, Stefan Höche, Jessica N. Howard, Philip Ilten, Joshua Isaacson, Timo Janßen, Stephen Jones, Marumi Ka...

    2023

  4. [4]

    Deep generative models for detector signature simulation: A taxonomic review

    Baran Hashemi and Claudius Krause. Deep generative models for detector signature simulation: A taxonomic review. Reviews in Physics , 12:100092, 2024. ISSN 2405-4283. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.revip.2024.100092. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2405428324000029

    work page arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    A comprehensive evaluation of generative models in calorimeter shower simulation, 2024

    Farzana Yasmin Ahmad, Vanamala Venkataswamy, and Geoffrey Fox. A comprehensive evaluation of generative models in calorimeter shower simulation, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406. 12898

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Bradt, D

    J. Bradt, D. Bazin, F. Abu-Nimeh, T. Ahn, Y . Ayyad, S. Beceiro Novo, L. Carpenter, M. Cortesi, M.P. Kuchera, W.G. Lynch, W. Mittig, S. Rost, N. Watwood, and J. Yurkon. Commissioning of the active-target time projection chamber. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment ,...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2017.09.013 2017

  7. [7]

    Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models, 2022

    Alex Nichol, Prafulla Dhariwal, Aditya Ramesh, Pranav Shyam, Pamela Mishkin, Bob McGrew, Ilya Sutskever, and Mark Chen. Glide: Towards photorealistic image generation and editing with text-guided diffusion models, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.10741

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models, 2021

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models, 2021

    2021

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’20, Red Hook, NY , USA, 2020. Curran Associates Inc. ISBN 9781713829546

    2020

  2. [10]

    Hashimoto

    Xiang Lisa Li, John Thickstun, Ishaan Gulrajani, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. Diffusion-lm improves controllable text generation. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’22, Red Hook, NY , USA, 2024. Curra...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Discrete diffusion modeling by estimating the ratios of the data distribution

    Aaron Lou, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Discrete diffusion modeling by estimating the ratios of the data distribution. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2023. URL https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:264451832

    2023

  4. [12]

    PC-JeDi: Diffusion for particle cloud generation in high energy physics

    Matthew Leigh, Debajyoti Sengupta, Guillaume Quétant, John Andrew Raine, Knut Zoch, and Tobias Golling. PC-JeDi: Diffusion for particle cloud generation in high energy physics. SciPost Phys., 16:018,

  5. [13]

    Caloclouds: fast geometry-independent highly- granular calorimeter simulation

    Erik Buhmann, Sascha Diefenbacher, Engin Eren, Frank Gaede, Gregor Kasicezka, Anatolii Korol, William Korcari, Katja Krüger, and Peter McKeown. Caloclouds: fast geometry-independent highly- granular calorimeter simulation. Journal of Instrumentation, 18(11):P11025, nov 2023. d...

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Caloclouds ii: ultra-fast geometry-independent highly-granular calorimeter simulation

    Erik Buhmann, Frank Gaede, Gregor Kasieczka, Anatolii Korol, William Korcari, Katja Krüger, and Peter McKeown. Caloclouds ii: ultra-fast geometry-independent highly-granular calorimeter simulation. Journal of Instrumentation, 19(04):P04020, apr 2024. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/19/...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Faster diffusion model with improved quality for particle cloud generation

    Matthew Leigh, Debajyoti Sengupta, John Andrew Raine, Guillaume Quétant, and Tobias Golling. Faster diffusion model with improved quality for particle cloud generation. Phys. Rev. D, 109:012010, Jan 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.012010. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/P...

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Comparison of point cloud and image-based models for calorimeter fast simulation

    Fernando Torales Acosta, Vinicius Mikuni, Benjamin Nachman, Miguel Arratia, Bishnu Karki, Ryan Milton, Piyush Karande, and Aaron Angerami. Comparison of point cloud and image-based models for calorimeter fast simulation. Journal of Instrumentation, 19(05):P05003, may 2024. doi...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Faroughy, Tobias Golling, Gregor Kasieczka, Matthew Leigh, Guillaume Quétant, John Andrew Raine, Debajyoti Sengupta, and David Shih

    Erik Buhmann, Cedric Ewen, Darius A. Faroughy, Tobias Golling, Gregor Kasieczka, Matthew Leigh, Guillaume Quétant, John Andrew Raine, Debajyoti Sengupta, and David Shih. Epic-ly fast particle cloud generation with flow-matching and diffusion, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.00049

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Choose your diffusion: Efficient and flexible ways to accelerate the diffusion model in fast high energy physics simulation, 2024

    Cheng Jiang, Sitian Qian, and Huilin Qu. Choose your diffusion: Efficient and flexible ways to accelerate the diffusion model in fast high energy physics simulation, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401. 13162

    2024

  11. [19]

    Pippin: Generating variable length full events from partons, 2024

    Guillaume Quétant, John Andrew Raine, Matthew Leigh, Debajyoti Sengupta, and Tobias Golling. Pippin: Generating variable length full events from partons, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13074

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Score-based diffusion models for generating liquid argon time projection chamber images

    Zeviel Imani, Taritree Wongjirad, and Shuchin Aeron. Score-based diffusion models for generating liquid argon time projection chamber images. Phys. Rev. D, 109:072011, Apr 2024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109. 072011. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.072011

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation

    Shitong Luo and Wei Hu. Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2837–2845, June 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Phillip Isola, Jun-Yan Zhu, Tinghui Zhou, and Alexei A. Efros. Image-to-image translation with conditional adversarial networks. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5967–5976, 2017. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017.632

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A. Efros. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 2242–2251, 2017. doi: 10.1109/ICCV .2017.244

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Jun-Yan Zhu, Taesung Park, Phillip Isola, and Alexei A. Efros. Unpaired image-to-image translation using cycle-consistent adversarial networks, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    XGAN: Unsupervised Image-to-Image Translation for Many-to-Many Mappings , pages 33–49

    Amélie Royer, Konstantinos Bousmalis, Stephan Gouws, Fred Bertsch, Inbar Mosseri, Forrester Cole, and Kevin Murphy. XGAN: Unsupervised Image-to-Image Translation for Many-to-Many Mappings , pages 33–49. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020. ISBN 978-3-030-30671-7. doi...

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Willcocks, and Toby P

    Hiroshi Sasaki, Chris G. Willcocks, and Toby P. Breckon. Unit-ddpm: Unpaired image translation with denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Egsde: Unpaired image-to-image translation via energy-guided stochastic differential equations

    Min Zhao, Fan Bao, Chongxuan Li, and Jun Zhu. Egsde: Unpaired image-to-image translation via energy-guided stochastic differential equations. ArXiv, abs/2207.06635, 2022. URL https://api. semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:250526607

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A latent space of stochastic diffusion models for zero-shot image editing and guidance

    Chen Henry Wu and Fernando De la Torre. A latent space of stochastic diffusion models for zero-shot image editing and guidance. In ICCV, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Huang, and Bryan K

    Abid Khan, Chia-Hao Lee, Pinshane Y . Huang, and Bryan K. Clark. Leveraging generative adversarial networks to create realistic scanning transmission electron microscopy images. npj Computational Materials, 9(1), 5 2023. doi: 10.1038/s41524-023-01042-3

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Holographic reconstruction enhancement via unpaired image-to-image translation

    Romane Scherrer, Thomas Quiniou, Thierry Jauffrais, Hugues Lemonnier, Sophie Bonnet, and Nazha Selmaoui-Folcher. Holographic reconstruction enhancement via unpaired image-to-image translation. Appl. Opt., 61(33):9807–9816, Nov 2022. doi: 10.1364/AO.471131. URL https://opg.opti...

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Stefano Carrazza and Frédéric A. Dreyer. Lund jet images from generative and cycle-consistent adversarial networks. Eur. Phys. J., C79(11):979, 2019. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7501-1

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Torbunov, Y

    D. Torbunov, Y . Huang, H. Yu, J. Huang, S. Yoo, M. Lin, B. Viren, and Y . Ren. Uvcgan: Unet vi- sion transformer cycle-consistent gan for unpaired image-to-image translation. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , pages 702–712, Los Ala...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Unpaired image translation to mitigate domain shift in liquid argon time projection chamber detector responses,

    Yi Huang, Dmitrii Torbunov, Brett Viren, Haiwang Yu, Jin Huang, Meifeng Lin, and Yihui Ren. Unpaired image translation to mitigate domain shift in liquid argon time projection chamber detector responses,

  26. [34]

    Cycle4completion: Unpaired point cloud completion using cycle transformation with missing region coding

    Xin Wen, Zhizhong Han, Yan-Pei Cao, Pengfei Wan, Wen Zheng, and Yu-Shen Liu. Cycle4completion: Unpaired point cloud completion using cycle transformation with missing region coding. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Reverse2complete: Unpaired multimodal point cloud completion via guided diffusion

    Wenxiao Zhang, Hossein Rahmani, Xun Yang, and Jun Liu. Reverse2complete: Unpaired multimodal point cloud completion via guided diffusion. In ACM Multimedia 2024, 2024. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=fheUSqLh7J

    2024

  28. [36]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.12858

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Unpaired translation of 3d point clouds with multi-part shape representation

    Chih-Chia Li and I-Chen Lin. Unpaired translation of 3d point clouds with multi-part shape representation. Proc. ACM Comput. Graph. Interact. Tech. , 6(1), may 2023. doi: 10.1145/3585508. URL https: //doi.org/10.1145/3585508

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Fission in the Lead Region

    Adam K Anthony. Fission in the Lead Region. PhD thesis, Michigan State University, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Characteristic-preserving latent space for unpaired cross-domain translation of 3d point clouds

    Jia-Wen Zheng, Jhen-Yung Hsu, Chih-Chia Li, and I-Chen Lin. Characteristic-preserving latent space for unpaired cross-domain translation of 3d point clouds. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(8):5212–5226, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3287923

    2024

  32. [40]

    NSCL and FRIB at Michigan State University: Nuclear science at the limits of stability

    A Gade and BM Sherrill. NSCL and FRIB at Michigan State University: Nuclear science at the limits of stability. Physica Scripta, 91(5):053003, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    A. K. Anthony, C. Y . Niu, R. S. Wang, J. Wieske, K. W. Brown, Z. Chajecki, W. G. Lynch, Y . Ayyad, J. Barney, T. Baumann, D. Bazin, S. Beceiro-Novo, J. Boza, J. Chen, K. J. Cook, M. Cortesi, T. Ginter, W. Mittig, A. Pype, M. K. Smith, C. Soto, C. Sumithrarachchi, J. Swaim, S....

    2022

  34. [42]

    Commissioning the A1900 projectile fragment separator

    DJ Morrissey, BM Sherrill, M Steiner, A Stolz, and I Wiedenhoever. Commissioning the A1900 projectile fragment separator. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 204:90–96, 2003

    2003

  35. [43]

    Understanding ddpm latent codes through optimal transport

    Valentin Khrulkov, Gleb Ryzhakov, Andrei Chertkov, and Ivan Oseledets. Understanding ddpm latent codes through optimal transport. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07477, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Qi Charles, Hao Su, Mo Kaichun, and Leonidas J

    R. Qi Charles, Hao Su, Mo Kaichun, and Leonidas J. Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 77–85, 2017. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017.16

    2017 doi

  37. [45]

    Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P. Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-...

    2021

  38. [48]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun, editors, 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-9, 2015, Conference Track Proceedings, 2015. URL http://arxiv.o...

    2015

  39. [240]

    doi: 10.1142/9789811234033_0007

    World Scientific Publishing Company, 2022. doi: 10.1142/9789811234033_0007. URL https: //www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811234033_0007

    2022 doi

  40. [2024]

    URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys

    doi: 10.21468/SciPostPhys.16.1.018. URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhys. 16.1.018

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.