Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 39 references

A Large Catalog of DA White Dwarf Characteristics Using SDSS and Gaia Observations

T0 review · 2 major / 1 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 SDSS-V measurements of DA white dwarfs are systematically offset from earlier SDSS data—radial velocities average 11.5 km/s higher and surface gravities 0.015 dex lower—and the accompanying catalog of 27,802 hydrogen-atmosphere white…

desk verdict The submission is the wrong paper—robotics text under an astro title—so the white dwarf catalog claims are unverifiable from this file; the abstract looks worthwhile, but the real manuscript is needed before any referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00818 v1 pith:HA75XJFV submitted 2025-08-01 astro-ph.SR

Nicole R. Crumpler , Vedant Chandra , Nadia L. Zakamska , Gautham Adamane Pallathadka , Stefan Arseneau , Nicola Gentile Fusillo , J. J. Hermes , Carles Badenes
show 7 more authors
Priyanka Chakraborty Boris T. Gänsicke Sean Morrison Hans-Walter Rix Stephen P. Schmidt Axel Schwope Keivan G. Stassun
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords DAwhitedwarfsSDSSDataRelease19SDSS-VradialvelocitysurfacegravityeffectivetemperatureGaiaphotometrysurveycalibration
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 assembles the largest catalog to date of DA white dwarfs—hydrogen-atmosphere white dwarfs—with measurements from SDSS Data Release 19 and earlier SDSS releases: 8,545 and 19,257 unique objects respectively, 27,802 total. For every object it provides apparent radial velocity, spectroscopic effective temperature and surface gravity, and photometric effective temperature and radius from Gaia photometry, with the catalog and code made public. The measurements are validated against published catalogs: at signal-to-noise above 50, velocities agree within 7.5 km/s, surface gravities within 0.060 dex, and spectroscopic temperatures within 2.4%; Gaia-based radii and temperatures agree within $0.0005\,R_\odot$ and 3%. Using stars observed in both SDSS-V and earlier SDSS generations, the paper finds a systematic offset: SDSS-V parameters give radial velocities 11.5 km/s larger and surface gravities 0.015 dex smaller on average, which it suggests may result from wavelength-solution changes between survey generations.

What carries the argument

The analysis is carried by the overlapping-sample comparison: DA white dwarfs that were observed by both SDSS-V and earlier SDSS generations are re-measured so that any systematic difference between parameter sets must come from the input spectra rather than from the stars. The catalog itself is the other load-bearing product: homogeneous spectroscopic and photometric parameter measurements for 27,802 unique DA white dwarfs, with Gaia photometry supplying independent radius and temperature checks.

What would settle it

Take the same overlapping sample of DA white dwarfs and re-derive radial velocities and surface gravities with an independent method that is insensitive to the assumed wavelength solution—for example, fitting only relative Balmer line positions or using telluric or arc calibration—and check whether the 11.5 km/s and 0.015 dex offsets between SDSS-V and earlier data persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a calibration discontinuity between SDSS survey generations, uncovered while building the catalog. For DA white dwarfs observed in both SDSS-V and previous SDSS releases, measuring the same spectra through the same analysis yields apparent radial velocities that are on average 11.5 km/s larger and surface gravities 0.015 dex smaller when the SDSS-V data are used. The paper argues the offset is a property of the survey data—possibly changes in the wavelength solution—rather than a property of the stars, since the same objects give different values depending on which dataset is used.

Load-bearing premise

The offset claim depends on the assumption that the analysis pipeline treats SDSS-V and earlier SDSS spectra identically and that the stars observed in both generations are representative; if the pipeline is affected by resolution or signal-to-noise differences between the datasets, the 11.5 km/s and 0.015 dex offsets could be artifacts rather than survey calibration changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any analysis that combines SDSS-V spectra with earlier SDSS data must correct for the roughly 11.5 km/s radial velocity and 0.015 dex surface gravity offsets before pooling measurements.
  • The catalog provides 27,802 DA white dwarfs with homogeneous parameters, a resource for white dwarf luminosity, mass, and kinematic studies.
  • The overlap method—stars observed in both survey generations—can serve as an ongoing calibration check as SDSS-V continues.
  • If the offset comes from the wavelength solution, it should also appear for other stellar types observed in both generations, which can be tested directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue: using stars with independent high-resolution radial velocities to decide which survey generation is closer to the truth, turning the differential offset into an absolute calibration.
  • The same 11.5 km/s offset, if uncorrected, could bias binary white dwarf searches or kinematical samples that mix SDSS generations, because the effect is larger than many published radial velocity uncertainties.
  • The overlap strategy generalizes: any instrument upgrade that re-observes targets can be audited for parameter offsets by this same 'same stars, two epochs' design.
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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript abstract describes a large catalog of 8,545 and 19,257 DA white dwarfs from SDSS DR19 and earlier releases, with measured radial velocities, temperatures, surface gravities, and radii, plus a survey-generation offset in radial velocity and surface gravity. However, the supplied full text is a completely different paper, titled "IGL-Nav: Incremental 3D Gaussian Localization for Image-goal Navigation," a computer-vision and robotics paper with no overlap in title, authors, subject matter, or results. None of the methods, data tables, validation details, or analyses referenced in the abstract appear in the manuscript. The central claims of the abstract are therefore entirely unsupported by the submitted text.

Significance. If the abstract's claims were backed by a proper manuscript, the catalog would be a substantial reusable resource for white dwarf research, and the reported 11.5 km/s radial-velocity offset and 0.015 dex surface-gravity offset between SDSS-V and earlier survey data would be an important calibration caution for the community. However, the submitted manuscript provides no evidence for these claims; the body is an unrelated navigation paper. As a result, the scientific significance cannot be evaluated, and the submission in its current form does not constitute a refereable paper on DA white dwarfs.

major comments (2)
  1. [Full text (entire manuscript)] The supplied full text is "IGL-Nav: Incremental 3D Gaussian Localization for Image-goal Navigation" (arXiv:2508.00823v1), a computer-vision paper. It contains no discussion of white dwarfs, SDSS, spectroscopy, Gaia, or catalogs, and its authors, methods, and results have no connection to the abstract's claims. Because the manuscript body is entirely unrelated, the abstract's assertions about a 8,545-object SDSS DR19 catalog, a 19,257-object earlier-release catalog, measurement validations, and the 11.5 km/s and 0.015 dex survey-generation offsets cannot be checked against any presented evidence. This is a load-bearing failure: the central claim of the paper is unsupported by the submitted text.
  2. [Abstract (claims)] Even taken on its own, the abstract reports the headline offsets (11.5 km/s and 0.015 dex) without any uncertainties, significance levels, or description of the overlap sample's size and selection. The abstract also attributes the offsets to 'changes in the wavelength solution across survey generations' without providing evidence that the fitting pipeline treats SDSS-V and earlier spectra symmetrically. These omissions would require attention in any revised version, but they are secondary to the absence of the manuscript body.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Title and abstract] The title of the manuscript, the abstract, and the submitted PDF are inconsistent: the abstract describes a white dwarf catalog while the PDF is a navigation paper. The header of the PDF identifies it as arXiv:2508.00823v1, whereas the abstract corresponds to a different arXiv identifier (2508.00818). This is likely a submission or upload error, but it must be corrected before any review can proceed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Manuscript body mismatch: no derivation chain available; no circularity identifiable.

full rationale

The supplied full text is not the DA white dwarf catalog paper described in the abstract; it is IGL-Nav (arXiv:2508.00823), a computer vision paper on image-goal navigation. None of the claimed derivation chain—catalog construction, spectroscopic fitting, photometric fitting, validation against published catalogs and Gaia, or the survey-generation offset analysis—is present in the submitted manuscript. Circularity analysis requires exhibiting a specific reduction by the paper's own equations or self-citations (e.g., a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or a uniqueness theorem imported from self-citation). With no methods, equations, tables, or self-citations from the white dwarf paper available, no such reduction can be identified. The mismatch is a serious completeness/support problem, but it is not evidence of circularity. The abstract alone cannot be used to infer circularity because it does not specify the fitting procedure, and therefore we cannot show that any claimed prediction is equivalent by construction to its input. Accordingly, the honest finding is no significant circularity, with score 0.

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

The visible claims rest on three upstream inputs: the DA model atmosphere grid used for spectral fitting, the attribution of the cross-generation offsets to survey calibration rather than pipeline behavior, and the Gaia distance and photometry scale for radii. All three are standard domain assumptions for this field rather than ad hoc inventions, but the abstract provides no quantitative justification for any of them, and the methods sections could not be audited because the supplied full text belongs to a different paper. No free parameters or invented entities are described in the abstract.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption DA white dwarfs are well described by the adopted pure-hydrogen model atmosphere grid
    All spectroscopic Teff and log g values, and therefore the reported 0.015 dex surface gravity offset, come from fitting SDSS spectra to DA model grids. The abstract does not state the grid choices, line-profile physics, or how non-DA contaminants were excluded; any mismatch between models and data would propagate into the measurements.
  • domain assumption The cross-generation offset is attributed to survey calibration, not to the fitting pipeline
    The abstract says the differences 'may be due to changes in the wavelength solution across survey generations'. This presumes the pipeline treats SDSS-V and older SDSS spectra symmetrically and that the stars observed in both generations are representative; if the pipeline interacts differently with the two data sets, the 11.5 km/s and 0.015 dex offsets would be artifacts of the analysis.
  • domain assumption Gaia astrometry and photometry provide an unbiased distance and brightness scale
    Photometric radii and temperatures are anchored to Gaia parallaxes and photometry, and the validation quote of 0.0005 Rsun and 3 percent assumes Gaia systematics are smaller than those tolerances. The abstract treats Gaia as ground truth rather than as a quantity with its own uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Large Catalog of DA White Dwarf Characteristics Using SDSS and Gaia Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HA75XJFV

@misc{pith2026250800818,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Large Catalog of DA White Dwarf Characteristics Using SDSS and Gaia Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HA75XJFV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00818}
}
abstract

We present a catalog of 8545 and 19,257 unique DA white dwarfs observed in SDSS Data Release 19 and previous SDSS data releases, respectively. This is the largest catalog of both spectroscopic and photometric measurements of DA white dwarfs available to date, and we make this catalog and all code used to create it publicly available. We measure the apparent radial velocity, spectroscopic effective temperature and surface gravity, and photometric effective temperature and radius for all objects in our catalog. We validate our measurements against other published white dwarf catalogs. For apparent radial velocities, surface gravities, and effective temperatures measured from spectra with signal-to-noise ratios $>50$, our measurements agree with published SDSS white dwarf catalogs to within 7.5 km/s, 0.060 dex, and $2.4\%$, respectively. For radii and effective temperatures measured with Gaia photometry, our measurements agree with other published Gaia datasets to within $0.0005$ $R_\odot$ and $3\%$, respectively. We use this catalog to investigate systematic discrepancies between white dwarfs observed in SDSS-V and previous generations of SDSS. For objects observed in both SDSS-V and previous generations, we uncover systematic differences between measured spectroscopic parameters depending on which set of survey data is used. On average, the measured apparent radial velocity of a DA white dwarf is $11.5$ km/s larger and the surface gravity is $0.015$ dex smaller when a white dwarf's spectroscopic parameters are measured using SDSS-V data compared to using data from previous generations of SDSS. These differences may be due to changes in the wavelength solution across survey generations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zero experience required: Plug & play modular transfer learning for semantic visual navigation

    Ziad Al-Halah, Santhosh Kumar Ramakrishnan, and Kristen Grauman. Zero experience required: Plug & play modular transfer learning for semantic visual navigation. In CVPR, pages 17031–17041, 2022. 2, 6

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Object goal naviga- tion using goal-oriented semantic exploration

    Devendra Singh Chaplot, Dhiraj Prakashchand Gandhi, Ab- hinav Gupta, and Russ R Salakhutdinov. Object goal naviga- tion using goal-oriented semantic exploration. In NeurIPS, pages 4247–4258, 2020. 1

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Neural topological slam for vi- sual navigation

    Devendra Singh Chaplot, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Abhinav Gupta, and Saurabh Gupta. Neural topological slam for vi- sual navigation. In CVPR, pages 12875–12884, 2020. 1, 2

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    pixelsplat: 3d gaussian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction

    David Charatan, Sizhe Lester Li, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Vincent Sitzmann. pixelsplat: 3d gaussian splats from image pairs for scalable generalizable 3d reconstruction. In CVPR, pages 19457–19467, 2024. 2, 3

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Lara: Efficient large-baseline radiance fields

    Anpei Chen, Haofei Xu, Stefano Esposito, Siyu Tang, and Andreas Geiger. Lara: Efficient large-baseline radiance fields. In ECCV, pages 338–355. Springer, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images

    Yuedong Chen, Haofei Xu, Chuanxia Zheng, Bohan Zhuang, Marc Pollefeys, Andreas Geiger, Tat-Jen Cham, and Jianfei Cai. Mvsplat: Efficient 3d gaussian splatting from sparse multi-view images. In ECCV, pages 370–386. Springer,

    work page

  7. [7]

    No rl, no simulation: Learning to navigate without navigating

    Meera Hahn, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Shubham Tulsiani, Mustafa Mukadam, James M Rehg, and Abhinav Gupta. No rl, no simulation: Learning to navigate without navigating. NeurIPS, 34:26661–26673, 2021. 1, 3, 6, 7

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Feudal Networks for Visual Navigation

    Faith Johnson, Bryan Bo Cao, Ashwin Ashok, Shubham Jain, and Kristin Dana. Feudal networks for visual naviga- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12498, 2024. 6

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Splatam: Splat track & map 3d gaussians for dense rgb-d slam

    Nikhil Keetha, Jay Karhade, Krishna Murthy Jatavallabhula, Gengshan Yang, Sebastian Scherer, Deva Ramanan, and Jonathon Luiten. Splatam: Splat track & map 3d gaussians for dense rgb-d slam. In CVPR, pages 21357–21366, 2024. 5

    2024

  2. [10]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. TOG, 42(4):139–1, 2023. 2

    2023

  3. [11]

    Topological semantic graph mem- ory for image-goal navigation

    Nuri Kim, Obin Kwon, Hwiyeon Yoo, Yunho Choi, Jeongho Park, and Songhwai Oh. Topological semantic graph mem- ory for image-goal navigation. In CoRL, pages 393–402. PMLR, 2023. 2

    2023

  4. [12]

    Instance-specific image goal nav- igation: Training embodied agents to find object instances

    Jacob Krantz, Stefan Lee, Jitendra Malik, Dhruv Batra, and Devendra Singh Chaplot. Instance-specific image goal nav- igation: Training embodied agents to find object instances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15876, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Nav- igating to objects specified by images

    Jacob Krantz, Theophile Gervet, Karmesh Yadav, Austin Wang, Chris Paxton, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Dhruv Batra, Jiten- dra Malik, Stefan Lee, and Devendra Singh Chaplot. Nav- igating to objects specified by images. In ICCV, pages 10916–10925, 2023. 3

    2023

  6. [14]

    Renderable neural radiance map for visual navigation

    Obin Kwon, Jeongho Park, and Songhwai Oh. Renderable neural radiance map for visual navigation. In CVPR, pages 9099–9108, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7

    2023

  7. [15]

    Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds

    Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Holger Caesar, Lubing Zhou, Jiong Yang, and Oscar Beijbom. Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds. In CVPR, pages 12697–12705, 2019. 5

    2019

  8. [16]

    Gaussnav: Gaussian splatting for visual navigation

    Xiaohan Lei, Min Wang, Wengang Zhou, and Houqiang Li. Gaussnav: Gaussian splatting for visual navigation. T-PAMI,

  9. [17]

    Focal loss for dense object detection

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Doll´ar. Focal loss for dense object detection. In ICCV, pages 2980–2988, 2017. 5

    2017

  10. [18]

    Robo-gs: A physics consistent spatial- temporal model for robotic arm with hybrid representation

    Haozhe Lou, Yurong Liu, Yike Pan, Yiran Geng, Jianteng Chen, Wenlong Ma, Chenglong Li, Lin Wang, Hengzhen Feng, Lu Shi, et al. Robo-gs: A physics consistent spatial- temporal model for robotic arm with hybrid representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14873, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Manigaussian: Dynamic gaus- sian splatting for multi-task robotic manipulation

    Guanxing Lu, Shiyi Zhang, Ziwei Wang, Changliu Liu, Ji- wen Lu, and Yansong Tang. Manigaussian: Dynamic gaus- sian splatting for multi-task robotic manipulation. In ECCV, pages 349–366. Springer, 2024. 2

    2024

  12. [20]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. In ECCV, pages 405–421. Springer, 2020. 1

    2020

  13. [21]

    Unidepth: Universal monocular metric depth estimation

    Luigi Piccinelli, Yung-Hsu Yang, Christos Sakaridis, Mattia Segu, Siyuan Li, Luc Van Gool, and Fisher Yu. Unidepth: Universal monocular metric depth estimation. In CVPR, pages 10106–10116, 2024. 3, 5, 7, 8

    2024

  14. [22]

    Splatsim: Zero-shot sim2real transfer of rgb manipula- tion policies using gaussian splatting

    Mohammad Nomaan Qureshi, Sparsh Garg, Francisco Yan- dun, David Held, George Kantor, and Abhisesh Silwal. Splatsim: Zero-shot sim2real transfer of rgb manipula- tion policies using gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10161, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Poni: Potential functions for objectgoal navigation with interaction-free learning

    Santhosh Kumar Ramakrishnan, Devendra Singh Chap- lot, Ziad Al-Halah, Jitendra Malik, and Kristen Grauman. Poni: Potential functions for objectgoal navigation with interaction-free learning. In CVPR, pages 18890–18900,

  16. [24]

    Semi-parametric topological memory for navigation

    Nikolay Savinov, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Vladlen Koltun. Semi-parametric topological memory for navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.00653, 2018. 2

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Habitat: A plat- form for embodied ai research

    Manolis Savva, Abhishek Kadian, Oleksandr Maksymets, Yili Zhao, Erik Wijmans, Bhavana Jain, Julian Straub, Jia Liu, Vladlen Koltun, Jitendra Malik, et al. Habitat: A plat- form for embodied ai research. In ICCV, pages 9339–9347,

  18. [26]

    Fast marching methods

    James A Sethian. Fast marching methods. SIAM review, 41 (2):199–235, 1999. 6

    1999

  19. [27]

    Loftr: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers

    Jiaming Sun, Zehong Shen, Yuang Wang, Hujun Bao, and Xiaowei Zhou. Loftr: Detector-free local feature matching with transformers. In CVPR, pages 8922–8931, 2021. 5

    2021

  20. [28]

    icomma: Inverting 3d gaus- sians splatting for camera pose estimation via comparing and matching

    Yuan Sun, Xuan Wang, Yunfan Zhang, Jie Zhang, Caigui Jiang, Yu Guo, and Fei Wang. icomma: Inverting 3d gaus- sians splatting for camera pose estimation via comparing and matching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09031, 2023. 5

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Last-mile embodied visual navigation

    Justin Wasserman, Karmesh Yadav, Girish Chowdhary, Ab- hinav Gupta, and Unnat Jain. Last-mile embodied visual navigation. In CoRL, pages 666–678. PMLR, 2023. 2, 6, 7, 8

    2023

  22. [30]

    Dd-ppo: Learning near-perfect pointgoal navigators from 2.5 billion frames

    Erik Wijmans, Abhishek Kadian, Ari Morcos, Stefan Lee, Irfan Essa, Devi Parikh, Manolis Savva, and Dhruv Batra. Dd-ppo: Learning near-perfect pointgoal navigators from 2.5 billion frames. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00357, 2019. 6, 7

    1911 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gibson env: Real-world percep- tion for embodied agents

    Fei Xia, Amir R Zamir, Zhiyang He, Alexander Sax, Jitendra Malik, and Silvio Savarese. Gibson env: Real-world percep- tion for embodied agents. In CVPR, pages 9068–9079, 2018. 6

    2018

  24. [32]

    Ovrl-v2: A simple state- of-art baseline for imagenav and objectnav

    Karmesh Yadav, Arjun Majumdar, Ram Ramrakhya, Naoki Yokoyama, Alexei Baevski, Zsolt Kira, Oleksandr Maksymets, and Dhruv Batra. Ovrl-v2: A simple state- of-art baseline for imagenav and objectnav. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07798, 2023. 1, 2

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Offline visual represen- tation learning for embodied navigation

    Karmesh Yadav, Ram Ramrakhya, Arjun Majumdar, Vincent-Pierre Berges, Sachit Kuhar, Dhruv Batra, Alexei Baevski, and Oleksandr Maksymets. Offline visual represen- tation learning for embodied navigation. In ICLRW, 2023. 2, 6, 7

    2023

  26. [34]

    Sg-nav: Online 3d scene graph prompting for llm-based zero-shot object navigation

    Hang Yin, Xiuwei Xu, Zhenyu Wu, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Sg-nav: Online 3d scene graph prompting for llm-based zero-shot object navigation. In NeurIPS, 2024. 1

    2024

  27. [35]

    Unigoal: Towards universal zero-shot goal- oriented navigation

    Hang Yin, Xiuwei Xu, Linqing Zhao, Ziwei Wang, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Unigoal: Towards universal zero-shot goal- oriented navigation. In CVPR, pages 19057–19066, 2025. 1

    2025

  28. [36]

    Center- based 3d object detection and tracking

    Tianwei Yin, Xingyi Zhou, and Philipp Krahenbuhl. Center- based 3d object detection and tracking. In CVPR, pages 11784–11793, 2021. 5

    2021

  29. [37]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In CVPR, pages 586–595,

  30. [38]

    Gaussiangrasper: 3d language gaussian splatting for open-vocabulary robotic grasping.RA- L, 2024

    Yuhang Zheng, Xiangyu Chen, Yupeng Zheng, Songen Gu, Runyi Yang, Bu Jin, Pengfei Li, Chengliang Zhong, Zeng- mao Wang, Lina Liu, et al. Gaussiangrasper: 3d language gaussian splatting for open-vocabulary robotic grasping.RA- L, 2024. 2

    2024

  31. [39]

    Target-driven vi- sual navigation in indoor scenes using deep reinforcement learning

    Yuke Zhu, Roozbeh Mottaghi, Eric Kolve, Joseph J Lim, Ab- hinav Gupta, Li Fei-Fei, and Ali Farhadi. Target-driven vi- sual navigation in indoor scenes using deep reinforcement learning. In ICRA, pages 3357–3364. IEEE, 2017. 1, 2

    2017

Pith tools

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