[REVIEW]: small_gicp: Efficient and parallel algorithms for point cloud registration #6948

editorialbot · 2024-07-01T17:06:57Z

Submitting author: @koide3 (Kenji Koide)
Repository: https://github.com/koide3/small_gicp
Branch with paper.md (empty if default branch): paper
Version: v1.0.0
Editor: @diehlpk
Reviewers: @versatran01, @abougouffa
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.13283012

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/059b017c823ed9fd211fc91373cdc2cc"><img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/059b017c823ed9fd211fc91373cdc2cc/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/059b017c823ed9fd211fc91373cdc2cc/status.svg)](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/059b017c823ed9fd211fc91373cdc2cc)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@versatran01 & @abougouffa, your review will be checklist based. Each of you will have a separate checklist that you should update when carrying out your review.
First of all you need to run this command in a separate comment to create the checklist:

@editorialbot generate my checklist

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @diehlpk know.

✨ Please start on your review when you are able, and be sure to complete your review in the next six weeks, at the very latest ✨

Checklists

📝 Checklist for @versatran01

📝 Checklist for @abougouffa

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

editorialbot · 2024-07-01T17:07:00Z

Hello humans, I'm @editorialbot, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks.

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@editorialbot commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-07-01T17:07:14Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980567 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1801.09847 is OK
- 10.1109/LRA.2022.3152830 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA48506.2021.9560835 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01427149 is OK
- 10.15607/rss.2009.v.021 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-07-01T17:07:17Z

Software report:

github.com/AlDanial/cloc v 1.90  T=0.05 s (2478.2 files/s, 236252.9 lines/s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language                     files          blank        comment           code
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C++                             40            798            276           3548
C/C++ Header                    45            781            734           2872
Markdown                         8            235              0            668
Python                           9            248             79            643
YAML                            10             64             13            449
CMake                            3             46             43            288
TeX                              1              5              0             56
Bourne Shell                     4             14              0             55
Dockerfile                       2             22              0             42
TOML                             1              9              0             40
make                             1              5              0             23
XML                              1              4              3             15
reStructuredText                 2              8             12              9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUM:                           127           2239           1160           8708
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commit count by author:

    66	k.koide
    46	koide3
     4	Martin Valgur
     2	Atticus Zhou
     2	Daisuke Nishimatsu
     2	Nikhil Khedekar

editorialbot · 2024-07-01T17:07:21Z

Paper file info:

📄 Wordcount for paper.md is 663

✅ The paper includes a Statement of need section

editorialbot · 2024-07-01T17:07:23Z

License info:

✅ License found: MIT License (Valid open source OSI approved license)

editorialbot · 2024-07-01T17:08:32Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

versatran01 · 2024-07-01T19:59:24Z

Review checklist for @versatran01

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/koide3/small_gicp?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@koide3) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)?
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

koide3 · 2024-07-02T00:19:40Z

@versatran01 @abougouffa
Thank you so much for reviewing small_gicp!
I'm so glad that my package is going to be reviewed by professionals in the community.
I'm looking forward to hearing any feedback from you.

abougouffa · 2024-07-02T06:52:59Z

Review checklist for @abougouffa

Conflict of interest

I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest (COI) policy and that: I have no COIs with reviewing this work or that any perceived COIs have been waived by JOSS for the purpose of this review.

Code of Conduct

I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the https://github.com/koide3/small_gicp?
License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE or COPYING file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
Contribution and authorship: Has the submitting author (@koide3) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?
Substantial scholarly effort: Does this submission meet the scope eligibility described in the JOSS guidelines
Data sharing: If the paper contains original data, data are accessible to the reviewers. If the paper contains no original data, please check this item.
Reproducibility: If the paper contains original results, results are entirely reproducible by reviewers. If the paper contains no original results, please check this item.
Human and animal research: If the paper contains original data research on humans subjects or animals, does it comply with JOSS's human participants research policy and/or animal research policy? If the paper contains no such data, please check this item.

Functionality

Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the functionality of the software can be verified?
Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

Summary: Has a clear description of the high-level functionality and purpose of the software for a diverse, non-specialist audience been provided?
A statement of need: Does the paper have a section titled 'Statement of need' that clearly states what problems the software is designed to solve, who the target audience is, and its relation to other work?
State of the field: Do the authors describe how this software compares to other commonly-used packages?
Quality of writing: Is the paper well written (i.e., it does not require editing for structure, language, or writing quality)? -- Comment: Minor editing might be required, there are some grammar issues and phrases that can be enhanced.
References: Is the list of references complete, and is everything cited appropriately that should be cited (e.g., papers, datasets, software)? Do references in the text use the proper citation syntax?

versatran01 · 2024-07-11T23:26:12Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-07-11T23:27:21Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

diehlpk · 2024-07-17T03:19:57Z

Hi @versatran01, @abougouffa how is your review going?

abougouffa · 2024-07-21T21:28:24Z

Hi @diehlpk

I've read the paper and taken a look at the code but didn't have the time for now to check the code in deep and try it locally. I will try to finish the review next week!

Thanks for your patience!

abougouffa · 2024-07-28T23:15:56Z

I would like to thank you for your patience, and congratulations @koide3 for the excellent implementation.

I have finished the review of the paper and the code, the code is well written and documented. The installation and execution went as described in the documentation. The results I got by running the benchmarks on the same dataset used by the author gave results similar to these presented in the repository.

The paper might need few modifications:

Iterative point cloud registration, also known as fine registration or local registration, is particularly crucial.

Besides introducing the "iterative point cloud registration" term and its aliases, this phrase doesn't add any significant information. I would like to have a phrase like:

Iterative point cloud registration, also known as fine registration or local registration, is a <<some relevant definition of the iterative aspect of "iterative point cloud registration">>.

Also, I think you can add some citations of papers using the iterative point cloud registration to solve these problems:

They are widely used in applications like autonomous vehicle localization [CITATION], place recognition [CITATION], and object classification [CITATION].

In the statement of needs:

There are several point cloud processing libraries, ~~and~~ [other conjunction might be better!] PCL (Rusu & Cousins, 2011) and Open3D (Zhou et al., 2018) are the notable ones among them.

The "notable" qualification here seems a bit arbitrary! Indeed, there are other known open source libraries like libpointmatcher, CGAL, or the CCCoreLib used in CloudCompare. So, I think the phrase need to be changed to something more neutral.

versatran01 · 2024-07-29T01:02:55Z

I will try to finish my review by next week

koide3 · 2024-08-02T01:41:00Z

@abougouffa
Thank you so much for your feedback! I fully agree with all your comments on the manuscript, and I will soon revise and upload it.

versatran01 · 2024-08-04T19:49:42Z

I have reviewed the paper and the code and checked all checklist items.

Functionality[Installation]/Documentation[Installation Instructions]: I was able to follow the installation guidelines and successfully compiled the code in a conda environment where all dependencies are installed via conda. I was also able to build Iridescence but after installation, small_gicp couldn't find the library. But this was not an issue with the code under review.
Functionality[Functionality]/Documentation[Example Usage]: I have no trouble running the examples 01, 02, 03.
Functionality[Performance]: I could not run all the benchmarks because it requires the kitti dataset and is a fairly big dataset to download. However, the author did provide detailed benchmark results in the repo. By looking at the code, both the downsampling and ICP algorithms are accelerated by multithreading, and the alleged speed-up does make sense. I would suggest the author either provide a smaller subset of the kitti dataset (if allowed) or another smaller dataset to download for the ease of reproducibility.
Documentation[Functionality Documentation]: This is one of the parts where the repo could use some improvements. While most of the functions have a doxygen-style comment, some of the details are missing. For example, in the documentation of the voxelgrid_sampling function, it has a brief comment that says Voxelgrid downsampling and a note says that discretized voxel coords must be in 21-bit range. However, it is missing some important details (even though many could be inferred by the function signature or the code). For example, what happens to the points outside the 21-bit range? Is this downsampling stable? How many points are kept per voxel? These should be documented. The same concern applies to many other functions in the repo. To summarize, I think the documentation part could use some improvements.
Documentation[Automated tests]: I was able to run all the tests with no issues (just by running make test). And the repo contains a healthy amount of tests. However, I'm not able to run code coverage locally via make coverage. There's some build failure.
Paper[Reference]: The code and paper already covered many practical use cases of GICP with good references. For example, data association with VoxelHash and KD-tree and various ICP implementations. However, I think in future work, the author could potentially add projective-based ICP, as described in the NICP paper by Serafin and Grisetti.

Overall I think this is good work and a valuable contribution to the robotics community.

koide3 · 2024-08-05T03:15:46Z

@versatran01
Thank you for reviewer our paper and code!

I was also able to build Iridescence but after installation, small_gicp couldn't find the library.

It seems some changes in Iridescence introduced cmake errors. This should be fixed quickly.

I would suggest the author either provide a smaller subset of the kitti dataset (if allowed) or another smaller dataset to download for the ease of reproducibility.

I agree. I think it is possible to distribute a part of KITTI because it employs CC BY-NC-SA license that allows re-distribution. I'll upload a small part of KITTI so that the user can easily reproduce the evaluation results.

To summarize, I think the documentation part could use some improvements.

I also agree with this point. I'll enhance documentation to tell the detailed behavior of the implemented algorithms to the user.

However, I think in future work, the author could potentially add projective-based ICP, as described in the NICP paper by Serafin and Grisetti.

Thank you for your suggestion. I'll revise the manuscript with these points along with suggestions given by @abougouffa .

@abougouffa @versatran01
I'll update both the documentation and manuscript and let you know in this week. Thank you again for your suggestions that are so helpful and useful to improve the quality of our package.

koide3 · 2024-08-06T01:39:25Z

@editorialbot generate pdf

editorialbot · 2024-08-06T01:40:38Z

👉📄 Download article proof 📄 View article proof on GitHub 📄 👈

koide3 · 2024-08-06T02:42:04Z

Thank you again for taking the time to review small_gicp! I revised the code, doc, and manuscript as follows. I believe the quality of the package and paper are greatly improved thanks to your suggestions. Please let me know if there are areas that need more improvements.

@abougouffa

Besides introducing the "iterative point cloud registration" term and its aliases, this phrase doesn't add any significant information. I would like to have a phrase like:

I revised the sentence as follows to clarify what "iterative point cloud registration" means.

Iterative point cloud registration, also known as fine registration or local registration, iteratively refines the transformation between point clouds starting from an initial guess. Each iteration involves a proximity-based point correspondence search and the minimization of the distance between corresponding points, continuing until convergence.

Also, I think you can add some citations of papers using the iterative point cloud registration to solve these problems:

I added relevant references as follows.

They are widely used in applications like autonomous vehicle localization [@Kim], place recognition [@Wang], and object classification [@Izadinia].

The "notable" qualification here seems a bit arbitrary! Indeed, there are other known open source libraries like libpointmatcher, CGAL, or the CCCoreLib used in CloudCompare. So, I think the phrase need to be changed to something more neutral.

I agree, the use of "notable" was a bit subjective. I revised the sentence as follows to put emphasis on processing speed and highlight libraries that are frequently used in real-time applications.

There are several point cloud processing libraries, and PCL [@Rusu], Open3D [@Zhou], libpointmatcher [@Pomerleau] are commonly used in real-time applications owing to their performant implementations.

==================

@versatran01

I was also able to build Iridescence but after installation, small_gicp couldn't find the library.

I fixed the build error with koide3/small_gicp#81

I would suggest the author either provide a smaller subset of the kitti dataset (if allowed) or another smaller dataset to download for the ease of reproducibility.

I uploaded a small subset of KITTI00 sequence and added a link to the benchmark page: https://github.com/koide3/small_gicp/blob/master/BENCHMARK.md#dataset

However, it is missing some important details (even though many could be inferred by the function signature or the code).

I updated both C++ and python documentations to tell detailed behaviors of the implemented algorithms. If I'm still missing anything to be noted, please let me know.

Updates: koide3/small_gicp#82
Updated doc: https://koide3.github.io/small_gicp/doc_py/index.html#small_gicp.voxelgrid_sampling

However, I'm not able to run code coverage locally via make coverage. There's some build failure.

I guess it stems from some dependency problems. While I think it is a minor issue (we can at least check the coverage through CI), if you recommend addressing this, I'll try to make coverage runnable on different ubuntu versions.

However, I think in future work, the author could potentially add projective-based ICP, as described in the NICP paper by Serafin and Grisetti.

Thank you for your suggestion! Additional neighbor search methods must be beneficial. I think we can easily integrate new neighbor search methods into small_gicp thanks to its design, and I'm planning to add a few implementations including the projective search. I added a future work section in the paper as follows.

The efficiency of nearest neighbor search significantly impacts the overall performance of point cloud registration. While small_gicp currently offers efficient and parallel implementations of KdTree and voxelmap, which are general and useful in many situations, there are other nearest neighbor search methods that can be more efficient under mild assumptions about the point cloud measurement model (e.g., projective search [@Serafin]). We plan to implement these alternative neighbor search algorithms to further enhance the speed of the point cloud registration process. The design of small_gicp, where nearest neighbor search and pose optimization are decoupled, facilitates the easy integration of these new search algorithms.

koide3 · 2024-08-06T03:00:19Z

@editorialbot check references

editorialbot · 2024-08-06T03:00:35Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980567 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1801.09847 is OK
- 10.1109/LRA.2022.3152830 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA48506.2021.9560835 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01427149 is OK
- 10.15607/rss.2009.v.021 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA40945.2020.9196764 is OK
- 10.1109/TITS.2022.3160235 is OK
- 10.1007/s10514-013-9327-2 is OK
- 10.1109/IROS.2015.7353455 is OK
- 10.1145/997817.997857 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- 10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00101 may be a valid DOI for title: Scene recomposition by learning-based icp

INVALID DOIs

- None

diehlpk · 2024-08-09T15:18:42Z

@editorialbot set 10.5281/zenodo.13283012 as archive

editorialbot · 2024-08-09T15:18:44Z

Done! archive is now 10.5281/zenodo.13283012

diehlpk · 2024-08-09T15:19:16Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-08-09T15:19:19Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-08-09T15:19:39Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980567 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1801.09847 is OK
- 10.1109/LRA.2022.3152830 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA48506.2021.9560835 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01427149 is OK
- 10.15607/rss.2009.v.021 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA40945.2020.9196764 is OK
- 10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00101 is OK
- 10.1109/TITS.2022.3160235 is OK
- 10.1007/s10514-013-9327-2 is OK
- 10.1109/IROS.2015.7353455 is OK
- 10.1145/997817.997857 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-08-09T15:21:13Z

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5741, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2024-08-09T15:23:46Z

👋 @koide3 - As track chair, I'll next proofread this and see what else needs to be done, if anything.

danielskatz · 2024-08-09T16:02:06Z

👋 @koide3 - I just see a couple of small things in the cases of characters in the references, which I've suggested in koide3/small_gicp#85. Please merge this, or let me know what you disagree with, then we can continue.

koide3 · 2024-08-09T23:41:46Z

@danielskatz
Thank you so much! I just merged the PR.

danielskatz · 2024-08-09T23:54:02Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-08-09T23:54:04Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-08-09T23:54:18Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980567 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1801.09847 is OK
- 10.1109/LRA.2022.3152830 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA48506.2021.9560835 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01427149 is OK
- 10.15607/rss.2009.v.021 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA40945.2020.9196764 is OK
- 10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00101 is OK
- 10.1109/TITS.2022.3160235 is OK
- 10.1007/s10514-013-9327-2 is OK
- 10.1109/IROS.2015.7353455 is OK
- 10.1145/997817.997857 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-08-09T23:55:34Z

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5751, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2024-08-09T23:58:05Z

@koide3 - sorry, I missed one fix that I now see: koide3/small_gicp#86

koide3 · 2024-08-10T00:06:00Z

I just merged it as well. Thanks a lot!

danielskatz · 2024-08-10T00:07:00Z

@editorialbot recommend-accept

editorialbot · 2024-08-10T00:07:02Z

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-08-10T00:07:21Z

Reference check summary (note 'MISSING' DOIs are suggestions that need verification):

OK DOIs

- 10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980567 is OK
- 10.48550/arXiv.1801.09847 is OK
- 10.1109/LRA.2022.3152830 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA48506.2021.9560835 is OK
- 10.1007/BF01427149 is OK
- 10.15607/rss.2009.v.021 is OK
- 10.1109/ICRA40945.2020.9196764 is OK
- 10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00101 is OK
- 10.1109/TITS.2022.3160235 is OK
- 10.1007/s10514-013-9327-2 is OK
- 10.1109/IROS.2015.7353455 is OK
- 10.1145/997817.997857 is OK

MISSING DOIs

- None

INVALID DOIs

- None

editorialbot · 2024-08-10T00:08:26Z

👋 @openjournals/csism-eics, this paper is ready to be accepted and published.

Check final proof 👉📄 Download article

If the paper PDF and the deposit XML files look good in openjournals/joss-papers#5752, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the command @editorialbot accept

danielskatz · 2024-08-10T00:09:37Z

@editorialbot accept

editorialbot · 2024-08-10T00:09:40Z

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

editorialbot · 2024-08-10T00:16:06Z

Ensure proper citation by uploading a plain text CITATION.cff file to the default branch of your repository.

If using GitHub, a Cite this repository menu will appear in the About section, containing both APA and BibTeX formats. When exported to Zotero using a browser plugin, Zotero will automatically create an entry using the information contained in the .cff file.

You can copy the contents for your CITATION.cff file here:

CITATION.cff

cff-version: "1.2.0"
authors:
- family-names: Koide
  given-names: Kenji
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5361-1428"
contact:
- family-names: Koide
  given-names: Kenji
  orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5361-1428"
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.13283012
message: If you use this software, please cite our article in the
  Journal of Open Source Software.
preferred-citation:
  authors:
  - family-names: Koide
    given-names: Kenji
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5361-1428"
  date-published: 2024-08-10
  doi: 10.21105/joss.06948
  issn: 2475-9066
  issue: 100
  journal: Journal of Open Source Software
  publisher:
    name: Open Journals
  start: 6948
  title: "small_gicp: Efficient and parallel algorithms for point cloud
    registration"
  type: article
  url: "https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06948"
  volume: 9
title: "small_gicp: Efficient and parallel algorithms for point cloud
  registration"

If the repository is not hosted on GitHub, a .cff file can still be uploaded to set your preferred citation. Users will be able to manually copy and paste the citation.

Find more information on .cff files here and here.

editorialbot · 2024-08-10T00:16:09Z

🐘🐘🐘 👉 Toot for this paper 👈 🐘🐘🐘

editorialbot · 2024-08-10T00:16:10Z

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited 👉 Creating pull request for 10.21105.joss.06948 joss-papers#5753
Wait five minutes, then verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06948
If everything looks good, then close this review issue.
Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

Any issues? Notify your editorial technical team...

danielskatz · 2024-08-10T00:23:47Z

Congratulations to @koide3 (Kenji Koide) on your publication!!

And thanks to @versatran01 and @abougouffa for reviewing, and to @diehlpk for editing!
JOSS depends on volunteers; we couldn't do this without you!

editorialbot · 2024-08-10T00:23:49Z

🎉🎉🎉 Congratulations on your paper acceptance! 🎉🎉🎉

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06948/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06948)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06948">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06948/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.06948/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.06948

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

The Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org/join
Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.org/donate-to-joss

editorialbot added C++ CMake Python review Track: 7 (CSISM) Computer science, Information Science, and Mathematics labels Jul 1, 2024

editorialbot assigned diehlpk Jul 1, 2024

editorialbot mentioned this issue Jul 1, 2024

[PRE REVIEW]: small_gicp: Efficient and parallel algorithms for point cloud registration #6900

Closed

editorialbot added the recommend-accept Papers recommended for acceptance in JOSS. label Aug 9, 2024

editorialbot added accepted published Papers published in JOSS labels Aug 10, 2024

danielskatz closed this as completed Aug 10, 2024

[REVIEW]: small_gicp: Efficient and parallel algorithms for point cloud registration #6948

[REVIEW]: small_gicp: Efficient and parallel algorithms for point cloud registration #6948

Comments

editorialbot commented Jul 1, 2024 • edited Loading

Status

Reviewer instructions & questions

Checklists

editorialbot commented Jul 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Jul 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Jul 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Jul 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Jul 1, 2024

editorialbot commented Jul 1, 2024

versatran01 commented Jul 1, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @versatran01

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

koide3 commented Jul 2, 2024

abougouffa commented Jul 2, 2024 • edited Loading

Review checklist for @abougouffa

Conflict of interest

Code of Conduct

General checks

Functionality

Documentation

Software paper

versatran01 commented Jul 11, 2024

editorialbot commented Jul 11, 2024

diehlpk commented Jul 17, 2024

abougouffa commented Jul 21, 2024

abougouffa commented Jul 28, 2024 • edited Loading

versatran01 commented Jul 29, 2024

koide3 commented Aug 2, 2024

versatran01 commented Aug 4, 2024 • edited Loading

koide3 commented Aug 5, 2024

koide3 commented Aug 6, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 6, 2024

koide3 commented Aug 6, 2024 • edited Loading

koide3 commented Aug 6, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 6, 2024

diehlpk commented Aug 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2024

diehlpk commented Aug 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 9, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 9, 2024

koide3 commented Aug 9, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 9, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 9, 2024

koide3 commented Aug 10, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 10, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 10, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 10, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 10, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 10, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 10, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 10, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 10, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 10, 2024

danielskatz commented Aug 10, 2024

editorialbot commented Aug 10, 2024

editorialbot commented Jul 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading

versatran01 commented Jul 1, 2024 •

edited

Loading

abougouffa commented Jul 2, 2024 •

edited

Loading

abougouffa commented Jul 28, 2024 •

edited

Loading

versatran01 commented Aug 4, 2024 •

edited

Loading

koide3 commented Aug 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading