Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 27 references

IndoorBEV: Joint Detection and Footprint Completion of Objects via Mask-based Prediction in Indoor Scenarios for Bird's-Eye View Perception

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that indoor lidar perception can be reframed as mask prediction in bird's-eye view, producing exact object footprints instead of bounding boxes.

desk verdict A useful indoor BEV detection demo undermined by an unsupported arbitrary-shape claim—all ground-truth masks are box-derived rectangles. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17445 v1 pith:MN3EC3YI submitted 2025-07-23 cs.RO cs.AI

Haichuan Li , Changda Tian , Panos Trahanias , Tomi Westerlund This is my paper
classification cs.ROcs.AI
keywords bird's-eyeviewlidarpointcloudindoorrobotperceptioninstancemaskpredictionfootprintcompletionquery-baseddecoderobjectdetectionmobilerobots
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

IndoorBEV aims to give an indoor mobile robot a single bird's-eye-view (BEV) perception module: given raw lidar point clouds, it outputs for every detected object its class, 3D pose attributes, and a dense footprint mask instead of a bounding box. The paper's rationale is that bounding boxes, which suit outdoor road vehicles, distort irregular indoor objects, whereas masks preserve the shape needed for collision avoidance and planning. It claims to be the first BEV perception framework designed specifically for indoor mobile robots and reports 78.4% AP@0.25, 63.7% AP@0.50, 67.2% mIoU, and 64.5% PQ on a real-world test set from its custom hybrid dataset. If the claim holds, robots could build top-down scene understanding in a form directly usable by navigation and planning stacks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the query-based mask decoder (SimpleMaskHead), which converts each refined object query into a mask embedding and computes mask logits as the dot product of that embedding with the projected BEV feature map, so every query specializes to one instance's footprint. This replaces bounding-box regression and is trained with set-based bipartite matching between queries and ground-truth instances, so the network learns masks directly instead of fitting boxes. A second mechanism is the axis-compact cluster encoder (AF-PCCN), which fuses X-Z and Y-Z axis features of lidar clusters and scatters them to the BEV grid, marking empty clusters as noise instead of padding them with zeros. The shape prior that makes footprint completion possible comes from ground-truth masks, rasterized as filled polygons by the MaskRasterizer utility.

What would settle it

Collect an evaluation set of indoor objects with genuinely irregular footprints (curved benches, L-shaped shelves, sprawled cables) whose BEV masks are hand-annotated rather than rasterized from 3D boxes, then measure IndoorBEV's mask IoU against the same model retrained with box-regression; if the mask model's advantage over boxes disappears on this set, the central claim of shape-agnostic footprint completion is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that detection and footprint completion can be performed jointly as mask prediction in BEV space, and that this mask-centric formulation captures the footprint of static and dynamic objects regardless of shape, offering a robust alternative to bounding-box regression. The architecture projects clustered lidar points onto a BEV grid, enriches the grid with a windowed self-attention backbone, and lets learned object queries interact with the BEV features; each query then predicts a class, dimensions, position, yaw, and a per-pixel mask computed by multiplying the query's mask embedding with the projected feature map. The predicted masks are said to show full object edges even when the raw BEV projection is sparse, because the ground-truth mask annotations provide a shape prior. The paper presents this as the first BEV pipeline aimed at indoor mobile-robot perception, evaluated on a dataset that mixes simulated and real-world lidar frames.

Load-bearing premise

The system is trained and evaluated on masks that are generated by rasterizing 3D bounding boxes, so arbitrary-shape capture is only demonstrated for box-shaped footprints; if a robot meets genuinely non-rectangular annotated objects, the claimed advantage over bounding boxes is unproven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each detected object arrives with a pixel-level footprint, so downstream costmaps and planners can reason about exact occupied extents rather than inflated boxes.
  • Static furniture and dynamic agents are handled by the same mask head, so a single model can feed both collision checking and motion prediction.
  • Because masks, classes, positions, and yaw are produced in one forward pass, the BEV output can be connected directly to navigation without a separate detection-to-map stage.
  • The claimed real-time operation implies the framework can support closed-loop onboard perception on a mobile robot.
  • The mask output supports future extensions to temporal tracking and instance-level reasoning, since each query consistently targets an object.

Reading between the lines

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

  • In the paper's setup every training and evaluation mask is rasterized from a 3D bounding box, so the arbitrary-shape claim is verified only against rectangular footprints; the next test is to train on hand-annotated masks for curved or L-shaped objects to see whether the mask head truly generalizes beyond box priors.
  • The same encoder-decoder design could be reused for BEV panoptic mapping, where a temporal memory merges per-frame masks into a persistent top-down map without a separate clustering stage.
  • The axis-compact encoding that labels empty clusters as noise is a transferable idea for any sparse lidar processing, indoor or outdoor, and could be measured in isolation by ablating it against standard pillar padding.
  • Performance against a bounding-box baseline on the same architecture is not reported, so a controlled comparison would reveal how much of the stated accuracy comes from the mask head and how much from the encoder and backbone.
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 IndoorBEV, a lidar-based bird's-eye-view (BEV) perception framework for indoor mobile robots. The method projects raw 3D point clouds into a BEV grid via an axis-fusion encoder, processes the BEV feature map with a window-based Swin-style backbone, and uses a query-based transformer decoder to jointly predict object class, 3D attributes (position, dimensions, yaw), and an instance-level footprint mask. The authors claim that this mask-centric formulation captures object footprints 'regardless of their shape' and provides a robust alternative to bounding-box regression. They evaluate on a custom hybrid dataset of simulated and real-world indoor lidar scans, reporting AP@0.25 of 78.4%, AP@0.50 of 63.7%, mIoU of 67.2%, and PQ of 64.5% on the real-world test set.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, IndoorBEV would be a useful contribution to indoor robotic perception, since a unified detection-and-footprint module operating directly on lidar in BEV space could benefit navigation, collision checking, and planning. The manuscript also provides a concrete algorithm description, a pseudocode specification, and an analytic ray-tracing simulator in the appendix, which are helpful for reproducibility. However, the main novelty as stated—arbitrary-shape footprint completion—is not established by the experiments, because all ground-truth masks are rasterized from 3D bounding boxes. The lack of baselines and ablations further prevents the reader from assessing whether the mask-based head is actually superior to bounding-box regression. The idea is promising and the core architecture is sound, but the evidence currently does not support the paper's strongest claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1, "Data Format and Preprocessing"] The ground-truth masks used for both training and evaluation are generated by the MaskRasterizer from KITTI-style labels containing 3D dimensions, location, and yaw. Such labels produce filled oriented rectangles on the BEV grid. Since both the simulated and real-world annotations follow this format, every mask in the dataset is rectangular. Consequently, the claims in the Abstract, Section 3, and Section 5 that the method captures footprints 'regardless of their shape' or handles 'arbitrary shapes' are not supported by the evidence. The metrics in Section 4.6 measure rectangle-mask accuracy, not arbitrary-shape footprint completion. To substantiate the central novelty, the authors must either introduce non-rectangular ground-truth masks (e.g., from mesh geometry or manual polygon annotation) or substantially rephrase the claims to describe rectangle-derived mask prediction and completion.
  2. [Section 4.6, "Results"] The experimental section reports only absolute numbers for IndoorBEV and contains no comparisons with any baseline, nor any ablation of the main components. Without an oriented-bounding-box BEV detector or a mask-based BEV method adapted to indoor scenes, the statements 'offering a robust alternative to bounding box regression' (Abstract) and 'capture object shapes more faithfully than traditional bounding boxes' (Section 4.6, Qualitative) are assertions rather than demonstrated conclusions. Please add at least one bounding-box regression baseline and one ablation that replaces the mask head with a box head, so that the benefit of mask-based prediction can be directly measured.
  3. [Section 3.3 and Figure 2] The term 'footprint completion' is used in the title, the Introduction, and Figure 2, but the paper does not define what 'completion' means beyond mask prediction. The mask head in Section 3.3 computes mask logits as the inner product of mask embeddings with projected BEV features; there is no explicit mechanism for inferring occluded or truncated object regions. The evaluation metrics in Section 4.5 (mask IoU, mIoU, PQ) only measure overlap with the full ground-truth mask and cannot distinguish completion of partially observed objects from simple mask fitting. Please provide a precise definition of footprint completion and add an experiment that evaluates it, for example by artificially truncating lidar points and measuring how much of the full footprint is recovered, or remove the completion terminology.
  4. [Introduction and Section 5] The paper repeatedly claims that IndoorBEV 'operates in real-time' and is suitable for mobile robot deployment, but no runtime or latency measurements are reported anywhere in Section 4. The only timing-related statement concerns the simulator in Section 3.4, not the inference of the perception model. Since real-time performance is presented as a key advantage for robotics, please report inference time (e.g., milliseconds per frame, or frames per second) on the target hardware, including the computational environment used for the experiments. Without these numbers, the real-time claim is unsupported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.4, "Implementation Details"] The text states that the mask-based decoder uses '256 attention heads' while the hidden dimension is Chid = 64. In a standard Transformer, the model dimension should equal the number of heads times the head dimension, so 256 heads with a 64-dimensional model is dimensionally inconsistent. Please clarify whether this is a typo (e.g., 4 or 8 heads) or whether a different attention construction is used.
  2. [Section 3.2 and Reference [15]] The backbone is described as modified from 'SwinTransformer [15]', but reference [15] is the Tutel paper on mixture-of-experts, not the Swin Transformer paper. Please cite the correct Swin Transformer source, and ensure all references are checked for consistency.
  3. [Section 4.4, "Implementation Details"] The training setup is described as 'five nodes each equips with two Intel Xeon processors ... and contains four Nvidia A100 GPUs'. It is unclear whether this means five nodes with four GPUs per node (20 GPUs total) or five nodes sharing four GPUs. Please clarify the total number of GPUs used for training.
  4. [Equations (2) and (3)] The matching cost in Equation (2) uses coefficients αcls, αdice, αfoc, and αreg, while the final loss in Equation (3) uses λcls, λdice, λmask, λdim, λpos, and λyaw. The relationship between these two sets of weights is not stated. Please specify how the α values are set and how they relate to the λ weights listed in Section 4.3.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical issues, including 'handles naturally occlusions' in the Abstract, 'each secnes' in Figure 1 and Figure 5 captions, and 'the algorithm were trained' in Section 4.4. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No derivational circularity: IndoorBEV's mask predictions are supervised by standard losses and are not equivalent to its inputs by construction; the 'arbitrary shape' claim is a soundness gap, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is a supervised deep-learning pipeline (axis fusion encoder, Swin backbone, query-based mask decoder). The losses in Eqs. (2)-(3) are standard supervised objectives, and the mask prediction M_j = m_j · F_proj is a free-form linear combination of learned mask embeddings and BEV features, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; references to DETR, Mask2Former, and PIMAE are external and do not smuggle in the conclusion. The one substantive caveat is in Section 4.1, where ground-truth masks are rasterized from 3D box parameters: the paper says each object is projected using its '3D dimensions, location, and yaw' and the MaskRasterizer 'maps the object footprint to the BEV grid as a filled polygon.' This means the training and test masks are box-shaped, so the abstract's claim of capturing footprints 'regardless of their shape' is not demonstrated by the experiments. However, this is an experimental-design and soundness limitation, not a circular derivation: the mask head is still trained to predict arbitrary masks and would be capable of non-rectangular predictions if such labels existed. The reported metrics are not derived from inputs by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities, mediators, or conserved quantities. Its free parameters are standard training and architecture hyperparameters, and its key load-bearing axioms are the box-derived mask assumption and the sim-to-real assumption. The absence of a public dataset or code means these axioms cannot currently be independently checked.

free parameters (4)
  • Cluster size v = 0.02 m
    Chosen in Section 4.4 to define the BEV grid resolution and point cloud clustering. It directly affects the spatial resolution of all BEV features and masks.
  • Number of object queries Nq = 30
    Set in Section 4.4 as the capacity of the decoder head. It determines how many objects can be predicted in a frame.
  • Class probability threshold = 0.8
    Used during inference (Section 4.4) to filter predictions. The choice affects precision and recall but is not tuned or justified.
  • Loss weights = (2.0, 5.0, 2.0, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1)
    Hand-set weights in the loss function (Eq. 3) in Section 4.3. These balance classification, mask, and regression terms and influence the final performance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ground-truth BEV masks generated by rasterizing 3D bounding box parameters accurately represent object footprints and shapes.
    Invoked in Section 4.1, where MaskRasterizer maps dimensions, location, and yaw to filled BEV polygons. The central arbitrary-shape claim depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption MuJoCo and Taichi analytic ray-casting produces lidar point clouds realistic enough to train models that transfer to real indoor scans.
    The simulator (Sections 3.4 and 4.2) is used to generate training data, and the paper assumes sim-to-real transfer without direct evidence beyond mixed training.
  • domain assumption A query-based decoder with bipartite matching can jointly learn detection and mask segmentation from BEV features.
    The architecture inherits this from DETR and Mask2Former; the paper applies it rather than proving it, which is standard practice for deep learning systems.
  • standard math Analytic ray-object intersection formulas for planes, spheres, boxes, cylinders, ellipsoids, and capsules are correct and sufficient for lidar simulation.
    Listed in Appendix 8.2 and used in the simulator; these are standard geometric results and not introduced by the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of IndoorBEV: Joint Detection and Footprint Completion of Objects via Mask-based Prediction in Indoor Scenarios for Bird's-Eye View Perception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MN3EC3YI

@misc{pith2026250717445,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: IndoorBEV: Joint Detection and Footprint Completion of Objects via Mask-based Prediction in Indoor Scenarios for Bird's-Eye View Perception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MN3EC3YI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17445}
}
read the original abstract

Detecting diverse objects within complex indoor 3D point clouds presents significant challenges for robotic perception, particularly with varied object shapes, clutter, and the co-existence of static and dynamic elements where traditional bounding box methods falter. To address these limitations, we propose IndoorBEV, a novel mask-based Bird's-Eye View (BEV) method for indoor mobile robots. In a BEV method, a 3D scene is projected into a 2D BEV grid which handles naturally occlusions and provides a consistent top-down view aiding to distinguish static obstacles from dynamic agents. The obtained 2D BEV results is directly usable to downstream robotic tasks like navigation, motion prediction, and planning. Our architecture utilizes an axis compact encoder and a window-based backbone to extract rich spatial features from this BEV map. A query-based decoder head then employs learned object queries to concurrently predict object classes and instance masks in the BEV space. This mask-centric formulation effectively captures the footprint of both static and dynamic objects regardless of their shape, offering a robust alternative to bounding box regression. We demonstrate the effectiveness of IndoorBEV on a custom indoor dataset featuring diverse object classes including static objects and dynamic elements like robots and miscellaneous items, showcasing its potential for robust indoor scene understanding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17445 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A unified high-performance IndoorBEV framework generates BEV representations and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From left to right: Original point cloud. BEV point cloud without complete boundaries. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the IndoorBEV framework. Lidar point clouds are divided into clusters then fused with the axis information features and projected to a BEV map. The BEV features are processed by a window-based backbone to capture spatial context. Learnable object queries interact with the BEV features through a mask-based decoder to predict object classes, positions, dimensions and dense BEV masks. 3 Method Our proposed … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a): Simulated indoor environment in MuJoCo. (b): 3D point cloud rendered from ray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results of IndoorBEV: The first column represents the raw 3D point clouds as each input. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. Xu, A. Tao, H. Thomas, J. Zhang, and T. D. Barfoot. Makeway: Object-aware costmaps for proactive indoor navigation using lidar, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2408.17034

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Z. Xu, H. Shen, X. Han, H. Jin, K. Ye, and K. Shimada. Lv-dot: Lidar-visual dynamic obstacle detection and tracking for autonomous robot navigation, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2502.20607. 11

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Z. Li, W. Wang, H. Li, E. Xie, C. Sima, T. Lu, Y . Qiao, and J. Dai. Bevformer: Learning bird’s-eye-view representation from multi-camera images via spatiotemporal transformers. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part IX , page 1–18, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2022. Springer-Verlag. ISBN ...

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-20077-9 2022

  4. [4]

    H. Li, C. Sima, J. Dai, W. Wang, L. Lu, H. Wang, J. Zeng, Z. Li, J. Yang, H. Deng, H. Tian, E. Xie, J. Xie, L. Chen, T. Li, Y . Li, Y . Gao, X. Jia, S. Liu, J. Shi, D. Lin, and Y . Qiao. Delving into the devils of bird’s-eye-view perception: A review, evaluation and recipe. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(4):2151–2170, 2...

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Z. Lin, Y . Wang, S. Qi, N. Dong, and M.-H. Yang. Bev-mae: Bird’s eye view masked autoencoders for point cloud pre-training in autonomous driving scenarios. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.05758, 2022

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Mohapatra, S

    S. Mohapatra, S. Yogamani, H. Gotzig, S. Milz, and P. Mader. Bevdetnet: bird’s eye view lidar point cloud based real-time 3d object detection for autonomous driving. In 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), pages 2809–2815. IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    R. Ma, C. Chen, B. Yang, D. Li, H. Wang, Y . Cong, and Z. Hu. Cg-ssd: Corner guided single stage 3d object detection from lidar point cloud. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 191:33–48, 09 2022. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2022.07.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2022.07.006 2022

  8. [8]

    End-to-End 3D Object Detection using LiDAR Point Cloud

    G. Raut and A. Patole. End-to-end 3d object detection using lidar point cloud, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.15377

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Barrera, C

    A. Barrera, C. Guindel, J. Beltr ´an, and F. Garc´ıa. Birdnet+: End-to-end 3d object detection in lidar bird’s eye view. In 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems (ITSC) , page 1–6. IEEE Press, 2020. doi:10.1109/ITSC45102.2020.9294293. ...

    2020

  2. [10]

    X. Zhao, X. Zhang, D. Yang, M. Sun, M. Li, S. Wang, and L. Zhang. Maskbev: Towards a unified framework for bev detection and map segmentation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 2652–2661, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Y . Wang, T. Meinhardt, O. Cetintas, C.-Y . Yang, S. S. Pusegaonkar, B. Missaoui, S. Biswas, Z. Tang, and L. Leal-Taix´e. Bev-sushi: Multi-target multi-camera 3d detection and tracking in bird’s-eye view. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00692, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. Chen, K. Zhang, R. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y . Lu, Y . Guo, and S. Zhang. Pimae: Point cloud and image interactive masked autoencoders for 3d object detection, 2023. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2303.08129

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Zhou and O

    Y . Zhou and O. Tuzel. V oxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR),

  6. [14]

    C. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d clas- sification and segmentation. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Hwang, W

    C. Hwang, W. Cui, Y . Xiong, Z. Yang, Z. Liu, H. Hu, Z. Wang, R. Salas, J. Jose, P. Ram, J. Chau, P. Cheng, F. Yang, M. Yang, and Y . Xiong. Tutel: Adaptive mixture-of-experts at scale, 2022. 12

    2022

  8. [16]

    Carion, F

    N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko. End-to-end object detection with transformers. In A. Vedaldi, H. Bischof, T. Brox, and J.-M. Frahm, editors, Computer Vision – ECCV 2020 , pages 213–229, Cham, 2020. Springer International Publishing....

    2020

  9. [17]

    Cheng, I

    B. Cheng, I. Misra, A. G. Schwing, A. Kirillov, and R. Girdhar. Masked-attention mask trans- former for universal image segmentation. 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Todorov, T

    E. Todorov, T. Erez, and Y . Tassa. Mujoco: A physics engine for model-based control. In 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , pages 5026–

    2012

  11. [19]

    Hu, T.-M

    Y . Hu, T.-M. Li, L. Anderson, J. Ragan-Kelley, and F. Durand. Taichi: a language for high- performance computation on spatially sparse data structures. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 38(6):1–16, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    E. Li, S. Wang, C. Li, D. Li, X. Wu, and Q. Hao. Sustech points: A portable 3d point cloud interactive annotation platform system. In 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) , pages 1108–1115, 2020. doi:10.1109/IV47402.2020.9304562

    2020

  13. [21]

    Geiger, P

    A. Geiger, P. Lenz, and R. Urtasun. Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset. International Journal of Robotics Research, 32(11):1231–1237, 2013

    2013

  14. [22]

    Robotics

    O. Robotics. Robot operating system 2 (ros2). https://docs.ros.org/en/rolling/, 2017–present. Accessed: 2025-04-27

    2017

  15. [23]

    H. W. Kuhn. The Hungarian Method for the Assignment Problem. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 2(1–2):83–97, March 1955. doi:10.1002/nav.3800020109

    1955 doi

  16. [24]

    Loshchilov and F

    I. Loshchilov and F. Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In International Con- ference on Learning Representations , 2019. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= Bkg6RiCqY7

    2019

  17. [25]

    Kirillov, K

    A. Kirillov, K. He, R. Girshick, C. Rother, and P. Doll ´ar. Panoptic segmentation. In 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 9396– 9405, 2019. doi:10.1109/CVPR.2019.00963. 13

    2019

  18. [2018]

    doi:10.1109/CVPR.2018.00472

    2018

  19. [5033]

    doi:10.1109/IROS.2012.6386109

    IEEE, 2012. doi:10.1109/IROS.2012.6386109

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.