Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Beyond Visibility: Real-Time Surface Accessibility Fields from Sparse LiDAR

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a per-point Accessibility Field can be computed in real time from streaming sparse LiDAR, without a prior scene model or fixed base, and that it beats visibility-only baselines on mixed-accessibility geometry.

desk verdict A genuinely novel real-time accessibility pipeline whose headline F1 is an internal consistency score, not physical validation; worth reviewing but needs an independent ground-truth test. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06412 v1 pith:AVJSELPO submitted 2026-08-05 eess.IV cs.RO

Bradley Scott , Sam Schofield , Richard Green This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.RO
keywords accessibilityfieldsurfacesparseLiDARtruncatedsigneddistanceroboticperceptionhiddenpointremovalreal-timeGPUtoolcollisionchecking
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 aims to establish that surface accessibility—whether a specific tool can physically reach and act on a surface—can be labelled per point in real time from streaming sparse LiDAR, without a complete mesh, a fixed kinematic base, or a prior scene model. It introduces the Accessibility Field: a growing map of surface points scored as accessible or blocked, updated at sensor rate as the robot moves. If the claim holds, mobile robots such as aerial pruners can decide where to act while flying through unstructured outdoor scenes, instead of planning only from geometry or visibility. The central quantitative evidence is that on mixed-accessibility geometry the method reaches F1 = 90.8 versus 69.8 for a Hidden Point Removal visibility baseline, and it marks 56.8% of pine branch surfaces inaccessible even though they are visible from the sensor.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Accessibility Field, a per-point label over a voxel-deduplicated point cloud, produced by three coupled components: a scan-centric TSDF integration that updates only a ±τ neighbourhood around each LiDAR return under a forward-cone constraint and positive clamping; a precomputed tensor of D = 180 yaw-rotated tool kernels, each a point cloud sampled from the tool mesh; and a collision scorer that queries the TSDF with each kernel plus three arm-path samples at {0.6τ, 1.25τ, 2.25τ}, retaining directions inside a 70° normal cone with observational support. The TSDF supplies signed-distance queries; unknown voxels are treated as occupied for arm-path checks and free for tool-kernel checks, a conservative convention chosen to avoid planning through unmapped space. Incremental re-evaluation, confidence accumulation, and a sliding window keep the computation bounded and within the 100 ms LiDAR frame period on both workstation and Jetson Orin hardware.

What would settle it

Take a physical object with known inaccessible concavities, such as a torus seen from outside, scan it with a Livox Mid-360 from a moving platform using an external odometry source, and independently probe the labelled surfaces with the actual tool; if the field's accessible labels on the inner corridor exceed the synthetic precision reported, or if pose drift visibly relabels surfaces, the central claim of real-time physical accessibility from sparse LiDAR would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that physical tool accessibility is a distinct 3D perception output that can be computed online from sparse, non-repetitive LiDAR. The method builds a scan-centric Truncated Signed Distance Field, updating only voxels near observed returns and clamping signed distances to positive values, which prevents the erosion of thin structures that projective TSDF integration suffers under sparse scanning. Each surface point is then scored by placing precomputed, yaw-rotated point-cloud kernels of the tool at the point and querying the distance field for collisions, along with three arm-path samples behind the tool and filters on surface normal and observation side. The paper's reported results show that visibility alone is not a proxy: on a torus with a blocked inner corridor, HPR visibility gives F1 = 69.8 while the Accessibility Field gives F1 = 90.8, and on synthetic pine trees 56.8% of visible branch points are correctly labelled inaccessible.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy assumes the synthetic ground-truth oracle—built from the same 70° normal cone, arm-path sample distances, and collision threshold as the method—is a valid measure of real physical tool access, and that the external sensor poses carry no error that would shift the labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A mobile platform can maintain a per-point accessibility label over a growing map at sensor rate, so interaction planning can run concurrently with mapping rather than after offline mesh construction.
  • Tool changes require only swapping the precomputed kernel set; no retraining or re-mapping is needed because tool geometry is checked explicitly rather than learned.
  • Scenes with thin structures, such as branches, remain stable under sparse non-repetitive scanning because only voxels near returns are updated.
  • Unknown regions are treated as blocked for the approach corridor, so the field is conservative near the frontier of the map and becomes more permissive as observations accumulate.
  • Visibility-based planners systematically overestimate accessible area on geometry with obstructed approach corridors, so accessibility fields should replace visibility proxies for tool-placement decisions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if pose estimates carry drift, the observation-side filter and TSDF alignment will inherit that error, so on a real platform the per-point label should be treated as conditioned on localization quality, not as sensor-independent truth.
  • Editorial inference: the same scoring pipeline could be extended to full spherical approach sampling beyond yaw, which would reveal orientation-dependent accessibility and, at increased cost, support arbitrary tool orientations.
  • Editorial inference: the conservative unknown-as-occupied rule for arm-path checks may under-label surfaces near unmapped regions; a planner could trade this safety margin against map uncertainty to expand usable space.
  • Editorial inference: because per-direction collision counts are retained, the field could be used not only to choose where to place a tool but also to choose which approach direction to use.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Accessibility Field, a per-point labeling of surface accessibility for a given tool, computed in real time from streaming sparse LiDAR. The proposed system uses a scan-centric TSDF integration scheme to update only voxels near observed returns, a sliding-window grid for unbounded scenes, and precomputed yaw-rotated tool-geometry kernels to check collisions and approach-corridor clearance on a GPU. The authors report F1 = 90.8 versus 69.8 for an HPR visibility baseline on a synthetic torus, claim that 56.8% of pine tree branch surfaces are correctly identified as inaccessible despite being visible, and demonstrate end-to-end runtimes within a 100 ms frame budget on both an RTX 4090 and a Jetson Orin AGX. The stated novelty is that this is the first method to estimate per-point surface accessibility in real time from streaming sparse LiDAR without a prior scene model or a fixed base frame.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper extends perception beyond visibility and complete-mesh accessibility analysis in a direction that is practically relevant for mobile robotic interaction. The work has concrete strengths: the scan-centric TSDF integration is a reasonable response to the sparsity of non-repetitive LiDAR, the ablations in Tables 3 and 4 demonstrate that integration style and positive clamping materially change the outputs, the sliding-window design gives bounded memory use, and the runtime measurements are specific and believable. The system is tool-agnostic and can run on edge hardware, which is a meaningful engineering contribution. However, the quantitative validation is substantially self-referential: the synthetic ground truth is generated with the same scoring rules as the method itself, so the headline F1 scores measure internal consistency rather than physical validity. The real-world results are qualitative by the authors' own admission, and the pine-tree 'correctly identifies' claim is not backed by independent ground truth.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Section 3.4, Table 5] The synthetic ground-truth oracle is constructed from the same accessibility definition as the method. Section 4.1 states that a direction is accepted if it lies within a 70-degree half-cone of the outward normal, if three arm-path samples at {0.6τ, 1.25τ, 2.25τ} do not intersect the mesh, and if the tool-kernel collision count is below θ_c = 5. These are exactly the conditions used by the Section 3.4 scorer. Consequently, the F1 values in Table 5 measure how faithfully the voxelized TSDF implementation reproduces the method's own definition; they do not establish that this definition corresponds to physical tool access. This is load-bearing because the abstract and conclusion use F1 = 90.8 versus 69.8 as the primary quantitative evidence that the proposed capability is correct. The paper should either provide an independent physical or simulation-based ground truth, or clearly re-frame these numbers as an implementation-fidelity check rather than a validity check.
  2. [Section 4.2, Section 5.1, Abstract, Conclusion] The claim that the method 'correctly identifies 56.8% of pine tree branch surfaces as physically inaccessible' is not supported by the evidence presented. Section 4.2 explicitly states that 'no analytical ground truth is available' for the synthetic Pinus radiata, and Section 5.1 concedes that real LiDAR field scans have no ground truth and that real-scan results are qualitative. The 56.8 percentage-point figure is the difference between HPR's 95.0% visible label and the method's 38.1% accessible label; it is a label disagreement with HPR, not a correctness measurement. The abstract and conclusion present this as correct identification of physically inaccessible surfaces, which overstates what the experiment can show. This section should be rewritten to describe the result as a predicted-label gap relative to HPR, or supplemented with an independent ground truth.
  3. [Section 3.1, Section 4.3] The system takes as input a stream of LiDAR point clouds 'with associated sensor poses,' but the paper provides no analysis of how pose-estimation error affects the accessibility labels. The scan-centric TSDF integration and the observation-side filter both depend on the sensor trajectory, so localization drift would propagate directly into the distance field and therefore into the per-point accessibility classifications. The real-world evaluations in Section 4.3 are qualitative and do not include pose-error sensitivity. For a mobile-platform claim, this is a load-bearing omission: the paper should either quantify the effect of realistic pose noise on the synthetic scenes or state clearly that the reported accuracy assumes perfect poses.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.4] The collision threshold is introduced as n_c in the scoring description but is later referred to as θ_c = 5 in Section 4.1; please unify the notation.
  2. [Table 1] The column header 'NGT access.' is undefined; please expand it to something like 'number of ground-truth accessible points'.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] Typesetting artifacts produce missing spaces in 'theAccessibility Field' and 'anaccessibility'; these should be corrected.
  4. [Section 4.2] The sentence 'HPR is run for every fifth trajectory viewpoint (200 of 1,000 poses)' is slightly ambiguous; it should say 'every fifth trajectory viewpoint, i.e., 200 of 1,000 poses.'

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline F1 is an internal-consistency score: the Section 4.1 oracle applies the method's own Section 3.4 scoring rules, so the 90.8/69.8 result and the 56.8% pine-tree figure validate voxel fidelity, not physical accessibility.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.1, 'Ground truth' paragraph; compare Section 3.4, 'Accessibility scoring'.]
    "Accessibility ground truth is exhaustively computed for all D=180 approach directions against an exact SDF of each synthetic object, using a pencil-shaped tool geometry (Figure 2a). As outlined in Section 3.4, for each surface point a direction is accepted if (i) it lies within a 70◦ half-cone of the outward normal, (ii) three fixed arm-path samples at {0.6τ,1.25τ,2.25τ} do not intersect the mesh, and (iii) the tool-kernel collision count falls below the threshold θ_c=5."

    The ground-truth oracle is constructed from the same scoring rule that Section 3.4 defines as the method: the 70-degree normal cone, the arm-path samples {0.6τ,1.25τ,2.25τ}, and the collision threshold are identical. The only difference is that the oracle evaluates this rule against an exact SDF while the method evaluates it against the voxelized TSDF. Therefore the reported F1 = 90.8 (and the HPR comparison in Table 5, scored against this same oracle) measures how faithfully the scan-centric TSDF implementation reproduces the paper's own accessibility proxy. It does not test whether that proxy — yaw-only directions, a 70-degree cone, three arm-path samples, and threshold 5 — corresponds to physical tool access.

  2. other [Section 4.2, 'Synthetic Pinus Radiata' paragraph; abstract and Section 5 repeat the claim.]
    "We also extend this comparison to a mature-scale synthetic Pinus radiata tree for which no analytical ground truth is available... This 56.8 percentage-point gap represents points that are visible from the sensor trajectory, yet physically unreachable due to the surrounding branch geometry obstructing the approach corridor. As a result, HPR produces a near-uniformly green canopy as shown in Figure 3a, while our method correctly classifies surface points as inaccessible (blocked) (see Figure 3b)."

    The passage first states there is no analytical ground truth, then calls the gap points 'physically unreachable' and the method's labels 'correctly classified.' Because the method's inaccessibility label is defined by the same Section 3.4 scoring rule, the 56.8% number is the difference between HPR visibility and the paper's own accessibility proxy, restated as a correctness result. Section 5.1 later concedes that ground-truth accessibility remains unavailable for real scans and that real-scan results are qualitative. Thus the abstract's 'correctly identifies 56.8%' is not an independent measurement: the truth predicate is supplied by the method's own rule.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative evidence is internally consistent but not externally grounded. Step 1 is the clearest circular reduction: the synthetic ground-truth oracle in Section 4.1 is built by applying the exact scoring rule from Section 3.4 (70-degree normal cone, arm-path samples at {0.6τ,1.25τ,2.25τ}, collision threshold θ_c = 5) to an exact SDF. Consequently, Tables 1-5 and the headline F1 = 90.8 versus HPR's 69.8 validate only how well the voxelized TSDF pipeline reproduces the paper's own accessibility definition, not whether that definition matches physical tool access. The pine-tree 56.8% figure has an even weaker status: Section 4.2 states no analytical ground truth is available, yet the paper labels that gap as 'correctly' identified inaccessible surfaces, and Section 5.1 concedes that ground-truth accessibility remains unavailable for real scans. No parameter was fitted to maximize the reported F1, and the system's runtime, memory, and TSDF ablation results are independently meaningful, so this is not a case of a fully manufactured prediction. The comparison against HPR is also a genuine algorithmic contrast; the circularity lies in using the method's own rule as the oracle for that comparison. Because the central empirical claims reduce to self-consistency of the method's definition rather than to external validation, a score of 6 is appropriate. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems were found; the otherwise reasonable self-citation [13] is peripheral related work.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method depends on many hand-set thresholds (collision count, normal cone, confidence decay) and on a scan-centric TSDF whose values serve as the collision proxy. None of these are fitted to data, but they define what accessible means, so the reported F1 is relative to those choices. The only invented entity is the Accessibility Field representation itself, which has no independent physical evidence.

free parameters (12)
  • voxel size v = 1 mm synthetic, 5-20 mm real
    Set per experiment; controls TSDF resolution and runtime; not fitted to optimize F1.
  • truncation distance τ = max(4v, 0.1 m)
    Hand-chosen function of voxel size; determines TSDF update neighbourhood and free-space convention.
  • collision threshold θ_c = 5
    Maximum allowed kernel points with TSDF below collision radius; used in both method and synthetic ground truth.
  • collision radius r_c = not stated
    TSDF value below which a kernel point counts as a collision; omitted from the paper.
  • self-exclusion radius r_s = not stated
    Radius around a surface point excluded from kernel collision checks to allow tool-tip contact; not quantified.
  • approach direction count D = 180
    Uniform yaw sampling with fixed pitch; hand-chosen resolution of the tool approach search.
  • normal filter half-cone = 70 degrees
    Retains candidate directions within a cone of the outward surface normal; chosen to allow oblique approaches.
  • observation-side alignment dot threshold = 0.25 with up to 8 historical viewpoints
    Requires a historical sensor view positively aligned with the candidate direction; excludes back-side approaches.
  • arm path sample offsets = {0.6τ, 1.25τ, 2.25τ}
    Three fixed distances along the approach ray; hand-chosen and reused identically in the synthetic oracle.
  • confidence parameters = k_c=5, min c=0.2, accessible c·a>0.7, decay 0.75, recover 0.15
    Hand-chosen thresholds and dynamics that directly affect which points receive accessible or blocked labels.
  • incremental re-evaluation thresholds = TSDF delta >2v, neighbourhood r_u=3v, sensor move >0.1 m, window shift 30%
    Engineering heuristics bounding per-frame work; may affect label stability and are not justified empirically.
  • tool kernel sampling count M = not stated
    Number of points sampled from the tool mesh; affects collision counts, accuracy, and runtime but is not reported.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Sensor poses are known and accurate.
    The system input is 'a stream of LiDAR point clouds with associated sensor poses' (Section 3.1); no pose uncertainty is modeled, so localization drift would corrupt TSDF and accessibility labels.
  • ad hoc to paper Unobserved voxels are treated as occupied for arm path checks.
    Section 3.4 states unobserved voxels that are not ray-cleared are occupied, making accessibility estimates conservative in unmapped space; this is a safety-motivated convention, not derived from data.
  • domain assumption Tool approach is restricted to yaw rotation with a fixed pitch.
    Section 3.4 samples only yaw directions because the target aerial platform approaches horizontally; full spherical sampling is deferred, so the field is not a complete tool-orientation accessibility estimate.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic ground truth uses the same scoring rules as the method.
    Section 4.1 builds the oracle with the same 70-degree cone, same arm-path samples, and same θ_c=5 threshold, so F1 measures implementation fidelity to the method's definition, not independent physical validity.
  • domain assumption The scan-centric positive-clamped TSDF is a valid collision proxy.
    The TSDF with truncation τ and positive clamping is used for all tool-kernel and arm-path collision checks; thin structures may be incompletely reconstructed, as acknowledged in Section 5.1.
invented entities (1)
  • Accessibility Field
    purpose: A per-point label of surface accessibility for a specified tool, produced from live sparse LiDAR at sensor rate.
    No physical prediction outside the paper; the field is defined by the method's own collision checks and thresholds, and its validity is tied to the tool-kernel approximation and yaw-only approach assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Visibility: Real-Time Surface Accessibility Fields from Sparse LiDAR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AVJSELPO

@misc{pith2026260806412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Visibility: Real-Time Surface Accessibility Fields from Sparse LiDAR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AVJSELPO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06412}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding which surfaces in a scene are physically accessible to a given tool is fundamental for robotic interaction, yet 3D perception systems typically stop at geometric reconstruction or visibility estimation. Existing geometric accessibility methods require complete, noise-free meshes and fixed kinematic bases, assumptions that fail for mobile platforms mapping incrementally from live data; visibility estimation cannot account for tool geometry or approach-corridor clearance. We propose the Accessibility Field: a per-point labelling of surface accessibility for a given tool, produced in real time from streaming sparse LiDAR and updated at sensor rate as the platform moves. Running entirely on GPU, our method evaluates each surface point against precomputed geometry kernels representing the tool at a set of rotated approach orientations, checking tool collisions and approach-corridor clearance. A scan-centric Truncated Signed Distance Field integration scheme underpins our system, updating only voxels near each observed return rather than projecting every frustum voxel each frame -- critical for nonrepetitive sensors like the Livox Mid-360, where some bins contain no returns. Our system is tool-agnostic, needs no prior scene model, and runs on workstation and Jetson Orin edge hardware. We evaluate quantitatively on synthetic objects and mature-scale Pinus radiata models, showing visibility alone is insufficient as an accessibility proxy: our method achieves F1=90.8 vs. 69.8 for a Hidden Point Removal baseline on mixed-accessibility geometry, and correctly identifies 56.8% of pine branch surfaces as inaccessible despite being visible from the sensor. To our knowledge, this is the first method to estimate per-point surface accessibility in real time from streaming sparse LiDAR without a prior scene model or fixed base frame -- a capability visibility estimation cannot provide.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06412 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Accessibility Field. Per-point surface accessibility com￾puted from a Livox Mid-360 LiDAR scan of an outdoor scene. Colours indicate point classification status — green: points acces￾sible to the aerial pruning tool (inset, bottom-right); red: points blocked by surrounding geometry along the approach corridor; grey: below our TSDF confidence threshold and not yet scored. 1. Introduction Three-dimensional scene under… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Tool geometry and synthetic evaluation scenes. Top row: pencil tool (a), torus (b), sphere (c), box (d), and wall (e) meshes. Bottom row: corresponding per-point surface accessibility results at 1mm voxel size, with tool rotation limited to yaw only (f–i). (wall, box) are insensitive to voxel size because their ac￾cessibility boundaries are axis-aligned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visibility vs. accessibility for synthetic Pinus Radiata. (a) HPR labels 95.0 % of surface points as accessible (green). (b) Our method labels 38.1 % as accessible; surface points blocked by surrounding geometry are correctly marked inaccessible (red). accumulated, making precision our key metric. On the torus, where 46.4 % of surface points lie on the inacces￾sible inner ring, HPR results in a precision of 53.6 % (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A closer look at the details of our accessibility field, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Braulio Jose Alvarez Alvarez, Pedro Fernandez, J. C. Rico, S. Mateos, and Cecilia Suarez. Accessibility analysis for automatic inspection in CMMs by using bounding volume hierarchies.International Journal of Production Research,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Balasubramaniam, P

    M. Balasubramaniam, P. Laxmiprasad, S. Sarma, and Z. Shaikh. Generating 5-axis NC roughing paths directly from a tessellated representation.Computer-Aided Design, 32(4): 261–277, 2000. 2

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Accessibility in 5-axis milling environment

    Gershon Elber. Accessibility in 5-axis milling environment. Computer-Aided Design, 26(11):796–802, 1994. 2

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    GraspNet-1Billion: A Large-Scale Benchmark for General Object Grasping

    Hao-Shu Fang, Chenxi Wang, Minghao Gou, and Cewu Lu. GraspNet-1Billion: A Large-Scale Benchmark for General Object Grasping. In2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11441– 11450, 2020. ISSN: 2575-7075. 3

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    G. Gil, J. A. Cobano, F. Caballero, and L. Merino. Evaluation of Neural Euclidean Signed Distance Fields for Distance- Aware Local Path Planning. In2024 7th Iberian Robotics Conference (ROBOT), pages 1–6, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Han, Gregorij Kurillo, R

    Jay J. Han, Gregorij Kurillo, R. Ted Abresch, Alina Nicorici, and Ruzena Bajcsy. Validity, Reliabil- 8 ity, and Sensitivity of a 3D Vision Sensor-based Upper Extremity Reachable Workspace Evaluation in Neuromuscular Diseases.PLoS Currents, 5: ecurrents.md.f63ae7dde63caa718fa0770217c5a0e6, 2013. 2

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    FIESTA: Fast Incremental Euclidean Distance Fields for Online Mo- tion Planning of Aerial Robots

    Luxin Han, Fei Gao, Boyu Zhou, and Shaojie Shen. FIESTA: Fast Incremental Euclidean Distance Fields for Online Mo- tion Planning of Aerial Robots. In2019 IEEE/RSJ Interna- tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 4423–4430, 2019. ISSN: 2153-0866. 2

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Guangyu Hou and Matthew C. Frank. Computing the Global Visibility Map Using Slice Geometry for Setup Planning. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 139 (081006), 2017. 2

    work page 2017

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Direct visibility of point sets

    Sagi Katz, Ayellet Tal, and Ronen Basri. Direct visibility of point sets. InACM SIGGRAPH 2007 papers, pages 24– es, New York, NY , USA, 2007. Association for Computing Machinery. 3, 6

    2007

  2. [10]

    Han, and Jongmin Lee

    Yong Min Lee, Seunghwan Lee, Kyeong Eun Uhm, Gre- gorij Kurillo, Jay J. Han, and Jongmin Lee. Upper Limb Three-Dimensional Reachable Workspace Analysis.Amer- ican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 2020. 2

    2020

  3. [11]

    PointNetGPD: Detecting Grasp Configurations from Point Sets

    Hongzhuo Liang, Xiaojian Ma, Shuang Li, Michael G ¨orner, Song Tang, Bin Fang, Fuchun Sun, and Jianwei Zhang. PointNetGPD: Detecting Grasp Configurations from Point Sets. In2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 3629–3635, 2019. ISSN: 2577- 087X. 3

    2019

  4. [12]

    Limaiem and H.A

    A. Limaiem and H.A. El Maraghy. A general method for ac- cessibility analysis. InProceedings of International Confer- ence on Robotics and Automation, pages 2346–2351 vol.3,

  5. [13]

    Deep Learning-Based Depth Map Genera- tion and YOLO-Integrated Distance Estimation for Radiata Pine Branch Detection Using Drone Stereo Vision

    Yida Lin, Bing Xue, Mengjie Zhang, Sam Schofield, and Richard Green. Deep Learning-Based Depth Map Genera- tion and YOLO-Integrated Distance Estimation for Radiata Pine Branch Detection Using Drone Stereo Vision. In2024 39th International Conference on Image and Vision Comput-...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Livox Mid-360 user manual, 2024

    Livox Technology. Livox Mid-360 user manual, 2024. 3

    2024

  7. [15]

    nvblox: GPU-Accelerated Incremental Signed Distance Field Mapping, 2024

    Alexander Millane, Helen Oleynikova, Emilie Wirbel, Remo Steiner, Vikram Ramasamy, David Tingdahl, and Roland Siegwart. nvblox: GPU-Accelerated Incremental Signed Distance Field Mapping, 2024. arXiv:2311.00626 [cs]. 2, 6

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    6- DOF GraspNet: Variational Grasp Generation for Object Manipulation

    Arsalan Mousavian, Clemens Eppner, and Dieter Fox. 6- DOF GraspNet: Variational Grasp Generation for Object Manipulation. In2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 2901–2910, Seoul, Korea (South), 2019. IEEE. 3

    2019

  9. [17]

    Autonomous robotic pruning in orchards and vine- yards: A review.Smart Agricultural Technology, 12:101283,

    Alessandro Navone, Mauro Martini, and Marcello Chi- aberge. Autonomous robotic pruning in orchards and vine- yards: A review.Smart Agricultural Technology, 12:101283,

  10. [18]

    Newcombe, Shahram Izadi, Otmar Hilliges, David Molyneaux, David Kim, Andrew J

    Richard A. Newcombe, Shahram Izadi, Otmar Hilliges, David Molyneaux, David Kim, Andrew J. Davison, Push- meet Kohi, Jamie Shotton, Steve Hodges, and Andrew Fitzgibbon. KinectFusion: Real-time dense surface mapping and tracking. In2011 10th IEEE International Symposium on Mixed...

    2011

  11. [19]

    V oxblox: Incremental 3D Eu- clidean Signed Distance Fields for on-board MA V planning

    Helen Oleynikova, Zachary Taylor, Marius Fehr, Roland Siegwart, and Juan Nieto. V oxblox: Incremental 3D Eu- clidean Signed Distance Fields for on-board MA V planning. In2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 1366–1373, 2017. ISS...

    2017

  12. [20]

    OS1 lidar sensor datasheet, 2025

    Ouster, Inc. OS1 lidar sensor datasheet, 2025. 3

    2025

  13. [21]

    V oxfield: Non- Projective Signed Distance Fields for Online Planning and 3D Reconstruction

    Yue Pan, Yves Kompis, Luca Bartolomei, Ruben Mas- caro, Cyrill Stachniss, and Margarita Chli. V oxfield: Non- Projective Signed Distance Fields for Online Planning and 3D Reconstruction. In2022 IEEE/RSJ International Confer- ence on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages...

    2022

  14. [22]

    LIO-SAM: Tightly-coupled Lidar Inertial Odometry via Smoothing and Mapping

    Tixiao Shan, Brendan Englot, Drew Meyers, Wei Wang, Carlo Ratti, and Daniela Rus. LIO-SAM: Tightly-coupled Lidar Inertial Odometry via Smoothing and Mapping. In 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 5135–5142, Las Vegas, NV , US...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Spyridi and A.A.G

    A.J. Spyridi and A.A.G. Requicha. Accessibility analysis for the automatic inspection of mechanical parts by coordinate measuring machines. In, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation Proceedings, pages 1284–1289 vol.2, 1990. 2

    1990

  16. [24]

    Representing the robot’s workspace through constrained manipulability anal- ysis.Autonomous Robots, 38:1–14, 2014

    Nikolaus Vahrenkamp and Tamim Asfour. Representing the robot’s workspace through constrained manipulability anal- ysis.Autonomous Robots, 38:1–14, 2014. 2

    2014

  17. [25]

    Manipulability analysis

    Nikolaus Vahrenkamp, Tamim Asfour, Giorgio Metta, Giulio Sandini, and Rudiger Dillmann. Manipulability analysis. In2012 12th IEEE-RAS International Conference on Hu- manoid Robots (Humanoids 2012), pages 568–573, Osaka, Japan, 2012. IEEE. 2

    2012

  18. [26]

    Neural Visibility of Point Sets

    Jun-Hao Wang, Yi-Yang Tian, Baoquan Chen, and Peng- Shuai Wang. Neural Visibility of Point Sets. InProceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 Conference Papers, pages 1– 11, New York, NY , USA, 2025. Association for Computing Machinery. 3

    2025

  19. [27]

    SFPNet: Sparse Focal Point Network for Semantic Segmentation on General Li- DAR Point Clouds, 2024

    Yanbo Wang, Wentao Zhao, Chuan Cao, Tianchen Deng, Jingchuan Wang, and Weidong Chen. SFPNet: Sparse Focal Point Network for Semantic Segmentation on General Li- DAR Point Clouds, 2024. arXiv:2407.11569 [cs.CV]. 2

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Tony C. Woo. Visibility maps and spherical algorithms. Computer-Aided Design, 26(1):6–16, 1994. 2

    1994

  21. [29]

    LGSDF: Continual Global Learning of Signed Dis- tance Fields Aided by Local Updating.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 10(6):5689–5696, 2025

    Yufeng Yue, Yinan Deng, Yujie Tang, Jiahui Wang, and Yi Yang. LGSDF: Continual Global Learning of Signed Dis- tance Fields Aided by Local Updating.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 10(6):5689–5696, 2025. 2

    2025

  22. [30]

    Capturing robot workspace structure: representing robot ca- pabilities

    Franziska Zacharias, Christoph Borst, and Gerd Hirzinger. Capturing robot workspace structure: representing robot ca- pabilities. In2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 3229–3236, 2007. ISSN: 2153-0866. 2

    2007

  23. [31]

    LOAM: Lidar Odometry and Mapping in Real-time

    Ji Zhang and Sanjiv Singh. LOAM: Lidar Odometry and Mapping in Real-time. InRobotics: Science and Systems X. Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation, 2014. 2 9

    2014

Pith tools

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