Browse State-of-the-Art › Point Cloud Quality Assessment

Point Cloud Quality Assessment

20 papers with code · 3 benchmarks · 2 datasets archive 2025-07-28

Background

A large and dense collection of points in three-dimensional space, collected by sensors such as LiDAR, is known as a point cloud. Points in the point cloud consist of geometric properties, such as three-dimensional spatial coordinates (x, y, z), and other attributes like color, reflectance, opacity, etc., represented by feature vectors. Since point clouds can directly represent the 3D world, they are widely employed in various fields, such as photogrammetry, power monitoring, architectural surveying, digital manufacturing, autonomous driving, gaming, cultural heritage reservation, and more.

Significance

Interactive point clouds typically contain millions of colored points and may possess complex attributes. To address the substantial transmission bandwidth and storage space required by point clouds, esearchers have developed various point cloud compression (PCC) techniques. However, point cloud compression may introduce significant visual distortions. In addition, deformations and distortions frequently occur during the acquisition, processing, transmission, rendering, and interaction of point clouds, all of which degrade the visual quality of the point cloud, ultimately impacting the application’s user experience. Therefore, effective methods for quantifying the quality of compressed point clouds are needed. More generally, point cloud quality assessment (PCQA) is crucial for optimizing and evaluating point cloud processing algorithms, such as encoding, denoising, and super-resolution.

Description from the archive archive 2025-07-28.

Benchmarks archive 2025-07-28

3 leaderboard tables shown for this task, 3 with rows (a “benchmark” on this site is a table with at least one row, as on /sota), ordered by row count. “Best model” is the first row in the archive's own order at snapshot; nothing is re-ranked here and metric direction is not recorded in the archive. PwC's Trend sparklines are not in the archive, so that column is omitted.

Syntology column: samples harvested from the paper's repositories and executed on synthesized fixtures; “ran” is not a correctness claim and does not order the table. A dash means no Syntology record for that paper, not a recorded non-run. Read from the graph 2026-09-24.

Libraries

Not in the archive: the export carries no per-task library table, so there is nothing to show at snapshot 2025-07-28.

Datasets archive 2025-07-28

2 datasets whose archive record lists this task, ordered by the archive's paper count.

Subtasks archive 2025-07-28

No subtask under this task in the archive's task tree.

Most implemented papers archive 2025-07-28

20 shown of 20 papers with code (40 tagged with this task in all), ordered by repositories listed in the archive, not by stars (the archive holds no stars, so PwC's “Social” and “Latest” sorts cannot be reproduced). Papers without a page here are shown as plain text.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections