Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 46 references

Robotic Strawberry Harvesting with Robust Vision and Deep Reinforcement Learning based Sim-to-Real Control

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-25 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A robot arm harvests strawberries at 84.3 percent overall success after its control policy is trained only in simulation.

desk verdict Greenhouse results show workable sim-to-real control for strawberry picking, but the transfer relies on an unverified simulation match. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.23863 v1 pith:XZEOGGBZ submitted 2026-05-22 cs.RO

Al Bashir , Shao-Yang Chang , Partho Ghose , Prem Raj , Chen-Kang Huang , Azlan Zahid This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords strawberryharvestingroboticmanipulationdeepreinforcementlearningsim-to-realtransferinstancesegmentationPPOcontrolgreenhouseroboticsUR10emanipulator
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 builds a complete harvesting pipeline that pairs a custom vision model for locating fruit in clutter with a reinforcement learning controller that learns reaching and grasping motions entirely inside a simulator. The controller then runs directly on a physical UR10e arm inside real greenhouses, producing joint commands without any real-world policy updates or traditional motion planners. Across 281 strawberries the system reached 96.6 percent success on the reach phase, 91.3 percent on grasp-and-pull, and 84.3 percent end-to-end. A reader should care because the approach replaces costly physical trial-and-error with cheaper simulation training while still delivering usable performance in unstructured agricultural scenes.

What carries the argument

The target-conditioned PPO policy trained in Isaac Lab that maps fruit location observations to smooth joint-position commands for the UR10e arm.

What would settle it

Deploy the same PPO policy on the UR10e in the greenhouse and record whether the combined reaching-plus-grasp success rate falls materially below the reported 91.3 percent because of unmodeled contact forces or lighting changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper shows that a target-conditioned PPO policy trained in Isaac Lab to output joint-position commands, when combined with the HRAttnEdge-YOLO26-seg perception model, produces stable closed-loop harvesting on a UR10e manipulator that reaches 84.3 percent overall success on 281 strawberries in greenhouse conditions, outperforming an inverse-kinematics MoveIt baseline in motion smoothness and eliminating the need for exhaustive real-robot data collection before deployment.

Load-bearing premise

The Isaac Lab simulator reproduces real greenhouse lighting, fruit dynamics, and robot contact forces closely enough that a policy trained only inside it transfers to the physical robot without extra fine-tuning or new failure modes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The vision model raises segmentation accuracy by 10 to 14 percent over baseline YOLO variants on both in-house and public datasets.
  • The PPO controller produces smoother joint trajectories than the MoveIt IK baseline in controlled lab tests.
  • The full pipeline reduces hardware dependency by training the controller exclusively in simulation before direct real-robot deployment.
  • The integrated system achieves 84.3 percent end-to-end success on 281 strawberries without planner-dependent reaching.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same simulation-trained policy structure could be reused for other soft or clustered fruits if the contact-force model in simulation is adjusted accordingly.
  • Adding camera calibration drift detection at runtime would test whether the reported success rates remain stable across multiple days of greenhouse operation.
  • The approach implies that scaling the number of simulated environments could reduce the remaining 15.7 percent failure rate without collecting new real-robot failures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a closed-loop robotic strawberry harvesting system that integrates a modified YOLO26-seg architecture (HRAttnEdge-YOLO26-seg) with high-resolution P2 branch, attention, and edge-supervised learning for instance segmentation in cluttered scenes, together with a target-conditioned PPO policy trained in Isaac Lab to generate joint-position commands for a UR10e arm. The policy is deployed zero-shot on physical hardware; greenhouse trials on 281 strawberries yield 96.6% reaching success, 91.3% grasp-and-pull success, and 84.3% overall harvesting success, with the vision model showing 10-14% segmentation gains on self-collected and public datasets and the controller producing smoother motion than an IK-based MoveIt baseline.

Significance. If the sim-to-real transfer is substantiated, the work supplies concrete empirical evidence that a simulation-trained PPO policy can deliver high success rates on a physically deployed agricultural manipulator without real-world fine-tuning, together with a task-specific perception module that improves segmentation in occlusion-heavy scenes. The scale of the greenhouse evaluation (281 strawberries) and the direct baseline comparison constitute a tangible data point for sim-to-real manipulation in unstructured environments.

major comments (1)
  1. [Control and deployment description (greenhouse trials paragraph)] The central claim that the reported greenhouse performance demonstrates successful zero-shot sim-to-real transfer of the PPO policy rests on the unverified assumption that Isaac Lab reproduces the relevant contact forces, stem detachment dynamics, and lighting statistics. No domain-randomization parameter ranges, force-torque trajectory matching metrics, or sensitivity analysis of policy performance to simulation-reality mismatch are supplied, leaving the 84.3% overall success rate consistent with transfer but unable to rule out condition-specific alignment.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states success percentages without accompanying trial counts per metric, error bars, or statistical tests; these details appear only later in the greenhouse trials paragraph and should be summarized upfront for clarity.
  2. [Perception results] The claim of '10 to 14% improvement in segmentation performance' is stated without naming the exact metrics (mAP, IoU, etc.) or the precise baseline models against which the gain is measured.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback. We address the single major comment below and indicate the planned revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the reported greenhouse performance demonstrates successful zero-shot sim-to-real transfer of the PPO policy rests on the unverified assumption that Isaac Lab reproduces the relevant contact forces, stem detachment dynamics, and lighting statistics. No domain-randomization parameter ranges, force-torque trajectory matching metrics, or sensitivity analysis of policy performance to simulation-reality mismatch are supplied, leaving the 84.3% overall success rate consistent with transfer but unable to rule out condition-specific alignment.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript does not report the specific domain-randomization parameter ranges, force-torque matching metrics, or a sensitivity analysis. In the revised version we will add the exact randomization ranges used in Isaac Lab (lighting intensity and color temperature, stem stiffness and friction coefficients, fruit mass and size variation, and camera pose noise). We will also include a brief sensitivity study showing policy success rate versus selected randomization magnitudes. Direct force-torque trajectory matching is not feasible because the greenhouse trials did not instrument the UR10e with a force-torque sensor; we will therefore add an explicit limitations paragraph noting this gap and explaining that the 84.3 % success rate across 281 strawberries in an unstructured greenhouse, together with smoother motion than the MoveIt baseline, constitutes empirical support for transfer rather than conclusive proof against all possible sim-reality mismatches. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: purely empirical results from physical trials and dataset tests

full rationale

The paper reports measured success rates (96.6% reaching, 91.3% grasp-and-pull, 84.3% overall on 281 strawberries) from greenhouse deployment of a simulation-trained PPO policy and a modified YOLO segmentation model. These are direct experimental outcomes, not predictions or derivations that reduce to fitted inputs, self-citations, or ansatzes by construction. The sim-to-real transfer is presented as an empirical fact verified by real-robot performance rather than any mathematical chain that collapses to its own assumptions. No equations, uniqueness theorems, or self-referential definitions appear in the load-bearing claims.

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

The paper rests on standard robotics and machine-learning assumptions without introducing new physical entities or deriving constants; the main unstated premises are accurate sim-to-real transfer and generalization of the vision model to the target greenhouse.

free parameters (1)
  • PPO reward weights and network hyperparameters
    Typical training knobs chosen to produce stable joint commands; values not reported in abstract.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Isaac Lab simulator dynamics are sufficiently faithful for policy transfer to the real UR10e in contact tasks
    Invoked when the trained policy is deployed directly on hardware without further adaptation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robotic Strawberry Harvesting with Robust Vision and Deep Reinforcement Learning based Sim-to-Real Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XZEOGGBZ

@misc{pith2026260523863,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robotic Strawberry Harvesting with Robust Vision and Deep Reinforcement Learning based Sim-to-Real Control},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XZEOGGBZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.23863}
}
read the original abstract

This study presents a closed-loop robotic strawberry harvesting system that combines a robust vision module, simulation-trained deep reinforcement learning (DRL) control, and ROS-based realrobot execution. For perception, we propose HRAttnEdge-YOLO26-seg, a modified YOLO26-seg architecture that incorporates a high-resolution P2 branch, segmentation-path attention, and edgesupervised prototype learning to improve instance segmentation in cluttered scenes. For control, we train a target-conditioned Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) policy in Isaac Lab to produce smooth joint-position commands for a UR10e manipulator and deploy it on a UR10e robot for targetfruit reaching and harvesting. This simulation-based approach reduces hardware dependency, lowers development cost, and allows scalable policy training without exhaustive physical trials before real deployment. The proposed vision model demonstrated the highest overall performance among the evaluated methods. On both self-collected and public datasets, the model showed a 10 to 14% improvement in segmentation performance. In controlled in-house tests, the PPO controller produced stable and dynamically smoother motion than a inverse kinematics (IK)-based MoveIt baseline. In greenhouse trials, the proposed integrated system harvested 281 strawberries, achieving 96.6% reaching success, 91.3% grasp-and-pull success, and 84.3% overall harvesting success. These results illustrate that task-specific perception combined with simulation-trained PPO can serve as a practical and resource-efficient alternative to conventional planner-dependent reaching in manipulation, enabling reliable closed-loop robotic harvesting in complex agricultural environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23863 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the closed-loop robotic strawberry harvesting system. An RGB-D camera acquires [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Side-by-side comparison of baseline YOLO26-seg and the proposed HRAttnEdge-YOLO26-seg. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PPO-based reaching policy learning for the UR10e manipulator in Isaac Lab. At each time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ROS-based integration architecture for greenhouse strawberry harvesting. The vision node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of strawberry instance segmentation results at the nano ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative in-house trajectories for qualitative comparison between the PPO-based con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Demonstration of greenhouse strawberry harvesting using integrated vision and trajectory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Representative greenhouse harvesting trajectories of the PPO-based controller: (a) 3D tra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Stemmler, E

    H. Stemmler, E. M. Meemken, Greenhouse farming and employment: Evidence from ecuador, Food Policy 117 (5 2023).doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102443

    work page doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102443 2023

  2. [2]

    Schimmelpfennig, Crop production costs, profits, and ecosystem stewardship with precision agri- culture, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 50 (1) (2018) 81–103

    D. Schimmelpfennig, Crop production costs, profits, and ecosystem stewardship with precision agri- culture, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 50 (1) (2018) 81–103

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Pánková, R

    L. Pánková, R. Aulová, J. Jarolímek, Economic aspects of precision agriculture systems, AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics 12 (3) (2020) 59–67

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Getahun, H

    S. Getahun, H. Kefale, Y. Gelaye, Application of precision agriculture technologies for sustain- able crop production and environmental sustainability: A systematic review, The Scientific World Journal 2024 (1) (2024) 2126734

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    M. T. Win, Z. Rutledge, M. K. Maredia, Labor shortages and farmer adaptation strategies, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 47 (3) (2025) 896–913

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Charlton, J

    D. Charlton, J. E. Taylor, S. Vougioukas, Z. Rutledge, Can wages rise quickly enough to keep workers in the fields?, Choices 34 (2) (2019) 1–7

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Pandey, K

    S. Pandey, K. Kaushik, A. Tewatia, S. J. Quraishi, Robotics and automation in modern agriculture: Revolutionizing harvesting and processing, in: Precision and Intelligence in Agriculture: Advanced Technologies for Sustainable Farming, IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 2026, pp. 153–186

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    W. Wang, C. Li, Y. Xi, J. Gu, X. Zhang, M. Zhou, Y. Peng, Research progress and development trend of visual detection methods for selective fruit harvesting robots, Agronomy 15 (8) (2025) 1926

    work page 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Rajendran, B

    V. Rajendran, B. Debnath, S. Mghames, W. Mandil, S.Parsa, S.Parsons, A. Ghalamzan-E, Towards autonomous selective harvesting: A review of robot perception, robot design, motion planning and control, Journal of Field Robotics 41 (7) (2024) 2247–2279

    2024

  2. [10]

    S. Wu, H. Chen, Y. Zhang, K. Liao, L. Li, Robot visual servo based on lightweight yolo11-smma for camellia oleifera fruits harvesting, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 243 (2026) 111409. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2026.111409

    2026 doi

  3. [11]

    B. Arad, J. Balendonck, R. Barth, O. Ben-Shahar, Y. Edan, T. Hellström, J. Hemming, P. Kurtser, O. Ringdahl, T. Tielen, et al., Development of a sweet pepper harvesting robot, Journal of field robotics 37 (6) (2020) 1027–1039. 19

    2020

  4. [12]

    S. Noda, M. Kogoshi, W. Iijima, Robot simulation on agri-field point cloud with centimeter resolu- tion, IEEE Access 13 (2025) 14404–14416

    2025

  5. [13]

    Catala-Roman, E

    P. Catala-Roman, E. A. Navarro, J. Segura-Garcia, M. Garcia-Pineda, Harnessing digital twins for agriculture 5.0: a comparative analysis of 3d point cloud tools, Applied Sciences 14 (5) (2024) 1709

    2024

  6. [14]

    Huang, C.-T

    Z.-H. Huang, C.-T. Chen, N. Ikegaya, T. Chang, K. Ke, Y.-C. Chen, A robotic harvesting system for occluded cucumbers using f2sa-yolov8 and hvsc, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 246 (2026) 111616.doi:10.1016/j.compag.2026.111616

    2026 doi

  7. [15]

    W. Jia, Y. Tian, R. Luo, Z. Zhang, J. Lian, Y. Zheng, Detection and segmentation of overlapped fruits based on optimized mask r-cnn application in apple harvesting robot, Computers and Elec- tronics in Agriculture 172 (2020) 105380

    2020

  8. [16]

    W.Huapeng, H.Handroos, Inversekinematicsanalysisofaparallelredundantmanipulatorbymeans of differential evolution, in: E. Arai, T. Arai, M. Takano (Eds.), Human Friendly Mechatronics, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2001, pp. 321–326.doi:10.1016/B978-044450649-8/50054-1

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    O. A. Al-Sharif, N. A. Abbass, A. M. Hanafi, A. O. Elnady, Enhancing robotic autonomy: a review and case study of traditional and deep learning approaches to inverse kinematics, Int J Eng Appl Sci Oct 6 Univ 1 (1) (2024) 1–8

    2024

  10. [18]

    Calzada-Garcia, J

    A. Calzada-Garcia, J. G. Victores, F. J. Naranjo-Campos, C. Balaguer, A review on inverse kine- matics, control and planning for robotic manipulators with and without obstacles via deep neural networks, Algorithms 18 (1) (2025) 23

    2025

  11. [19]

    Jocher, A

    G. Jocher, A. Chaurasia, J. Qiu, Ultralytics yolov8 (2023). URLhttps://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    2023

  12. [20]

    Jocher, J

    G. Jocher, J. Qiu, Ultralytics yolo11 (2024). URLhttps://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    2024

  13. [21]

    Malis, F

    E. Malis, F. Chaumette, S. Boudet, 2 1/2 d visual servoing, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 15 (2) (2002) 238–250

    2002

  14. [22]

    Chaumette, S

    F. Chaumette, S. Hutchinson, Visual servo control. i. basic approaches, IEEE robotics & automation magazine 13 (4) (2006) 82–90

    2006

  15. [23]

    Chesi, A

    G. Chesi, A. Vicino, Visual servoing for large camera displacements, IEEE Transactions on Robotics 20 (4) (2004) 724–735.doi:10.1109/TRO.2004.829465

    2004 doi

  16. [24]

    Levine, P

    S. Levine, P. Pastor, A. Krizhevsky, J. Ibarz, D. Quillen, Learning hand-eye coordination for robotic grasping with deep learning and large-scale data collection, The International journal of robotics research 37 (4-5) (2018) 421–436

    2018

  17. [25]

    K. M. Bhat, T. Gao, A. Mathur, R. Satishkumar, F. Yandun, D. Bauer, N. Pollard, Vision-guided autonomous dual-arm extraction robot for bell pepper harvesting, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.13987 (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Y. Tang, J. Qiu, Y. Zhang, D. Wu, Y. Cao, K. Zhao, L. Zhu, Optimization strategies of fruit detection to overcome the challenge of unstructured background in field orchard environment: A review, Precision Agriculture 24 (4) (2023) 1183–1219

    2023

  19. [27]

    Espinoza, C

    S. Espinoza, C. Aguilera, L. Rojas, P. G. Campos, Analysis of fruit images with deep learning: A systematic literature review and future directions, IEEE Access 12 (2023) 3837–3859

    2023

  20. [28]

    Bashir, Y

    A. Bashir, Y. Wang, M. O. Ojo, A. Zahid, A vision system for occluded cutting point localization in robotic harvesting of greenhouse lettuce, IEEE Transactions on AgriFood Electronics 4 (1) (2026) 157–167.doi:10.1109/TAFE.2025.3621592

    2026 doi

  21. [29]

    Arulkumaran, M

    K. Arulkumaran, M. P. Deisenroth, M. Brundage, A. A. Bharath, Deep reinforcement learning: A brief survey, IEEE signal processing magazine 34 (6) (2017) 26–38

    2017

  22. [30]

    Schulman, F

    J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, O. Klimov, Proximal policy optimization algo- rithms, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347 (2017). 20

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kurup, D

    A. Kurup, D. Sumesh, L. L. Saju, S. Suresh, Comparative analysis between proximal policy op- timization and its applications in high-complexity sequential decision-making, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH 14 (1) (2026) 504–510

    2026

  24. [32]

    V. K. Elumalai, et al., A proximal policy optimization based deep reinforcement learning framework for tracking control of a flexible robotic manipulator, Results in Engineering 25 (2025) 104178

    2025

  25. [33]

    Y. Liu, H. Xu, D. Liu, L. Wang, A digital twin-based sim-to-real transfer for deep reinforcement learning-enabled industrial robot grasping, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 78 (2022) 102365.doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2022.102365

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    J. Liu, H. J. Yap, A. S. M. Khairuddin, Review on motion planning of robotic manipulator in dynamic environments, Journal of Sensors 2024 (1) (2024) 5969512

    2024

  27. [35]

    Soleymanzadeh, I

    D. Soleymanzadeh, I. Lopez-Sanchez, H. Su, Y. Li, X. Liang, M. Zheng, Towards generalist neural motion planners for robotic manipulators: Challenges and opportunities, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering (2026)

    2026

  28. [36]

    Mittal, P

    M. Mittal, P. Roth, J. Tigue, A. Richard, O. Zhang, P. Du, A. Serrano-Munoz, X. Yao, R. Zurbrügg, N. Rudin, et al., Isaac lab: A gpu-accelerated simulation framework for multi-modal robot learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.04831 (2025).doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.04831

    2025 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    H. A. Hernández, I. F. Mondragón, S. R. González, L. F. Pedraza, Reconfigurable agricultural robotics: Control strategies, communication, and applications, Computers and Electronics in Agri- culture 234 (2025) 110161.doi:10.1016/j.compag.2025.110161

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    Silveira, J

    J. Silveira, J. A. Marshall, S. N. Givigi, A simulation pipeline to facilitate real-world robotic rein- forcement learning applications, in: 2025 IEEE International systems Conference (SysCon), IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–8

    2025

  31. [39]

    Jocher, J

    G. Jocher, J. Qiu, Ultralytics yolo26 (2026). URLhttps://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics

    2026

  32. [40]

    Schwarke, M

    C. Schwarke, M. Mittal, N. Rudin, D. Hoeller, M. Hutter, Rsl-rl: A learning library for robotics research, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.10771 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    I.Pérez-Borrero, D.Marín-Santos, M.E.Gegúndez-Arias, E.Cortés-Ancos, Afastandaccuratedeep learning method for strawberry instance segmentation, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 178 (2020) 105736.doi:10.1016/j.compag.2020.105736

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Sekachev, N

    B. Sekachev, N. Manovich, M. Zhiltsov, A. Zhavoronkov, D. Kalinin, B. Hoff, TOsmanov, D. Kru- chinin, A. Zankevich, DmitriySidnev, M. Markelov, Johannes222, M. Chenuet, a andre, telena- chos, A. Melnikov, J. Kim, L. Ilouz, N. Glazov, Priya4607, R. Tehrani, S. Jeong, V. Skubrie...

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    Maire, S

    T.-Y.Lin, M. Maire, S. Belongie, J. Hays, P. Perona, D. Ramanan, P.Dollár, C. L.Zitnick, Microsoft coco: Common objects in context, in: European conference on computer vision, Springer, 2014, pp. 740–755.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10602-1_48

    2014 doi

  36. [44]

    Everingham, L

    M. Everingham, L. Van Gool, C. K. Williams, J. Winn, A. Zisserman, The pascal visual object classes (voc) challenge, International journal of computer vision 88 (2) (2010) 303–338.doi:10. 1007/s11263-009-0275-4

    2010

  37. [45]

    D. H. Douglas, T. K. Peucker, Algorithms for the reduction of the number of points required to represent a digitized line or its caricature, Cartographica: the international journal for geographic information and geovisualization 10 (2) (1973) 112–122

    1973

  38. [46]

    Ramer, An iterative procedure for the polygonal approximation of plane curves, Computer graph- ics and image processing 1 (3) (1972) 244–256

    U. Ramer, An iterative procedure for the polygonal approximation of plane curves, Computer graph- ics and image processing 1 (3) (1972) 244–256. 21

    1972

Pith tools

Reviewed May 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.