Efficient 3D LiDAR point cloud compression (LPCC) and streaming are critical for edge server-assisted robotic systems, enabling real-time communication with compact data representations. A widely adopted approach represents LiDAR point clouds as range images, enabling the direct use of mature image and video compression codecs. However, because these codecs are designed with human visual perception in mind, they often compromise geometric details, which downgrades the performance of downstream robotic tasks such as mapping and object detection. Furthermore, rate-distortion optimization (RDO)-based rate control remains largely underexplored for range image compression (RIC) under dynamic bandwidth conditions. To address these limitations, we propose D-Compress, a new detail-preserving and fast RIC framework tailored for real-time streaming. D-Compress integrates both intra- and inter-frame prediction with an adaptive discrete wavelet transform approach for precise residual compression. Additionally, we introduce a new RDO-based rate control algorithm for RIC through new rate-distortion modeling. Extensive evaluations on various datasets demonstrate the superiority of D-Compress, which outperforms state-of-the-art (SOTA) compression methods in both geometric accuracy and downstream task performance, particularly at compression ratios exceeding 100x, while maintaining real-time execution on resource-constrained hardware. Moreover, evaluations under dynamic bandwidth conditions validate the robustness of its rate control mechanism.
Figures & tables
Method
PSNR (dB) ↑
Mapping Error ↓
Detection Precision ↑
FPS ↑
G-PCC [ 6 ]
63.7
2.0 %
45.5 %
1.8
Draco [ 7 ]
58.9
4.2 %
33.1 %
26.2
H.265 [ 8 ]
63.4
2.7 %
45.2 %
5.1
JPEG2000 [ 9 ]
58.1
3.7 %
37.7 %
27.1
WebP [ 10 ]
56.3
5.8 %
30.0 %
25.7
RT-ST [ 11 ]
60.7
3.6 %
37.3 %
8.8
TABLE I: Performance comparison between D-Compress (Ours) with other SOTA LPCC codecs at bits per point (bpp) of 1.55, including PSNR, LiDAR mapping error, 3D object detection average precision (AP) and frames per second (FPS). All experiments are evaluated on a low-cost mini PC with Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7260U CPU @ 2.20GHz and 16 GB of RAM), using the KITTI dataset.
Fig. 1: D-Compress overview.
Fig. 2: Workflow of (a) Frame prediction. (b) a-DWT.
Fig. 3: Illustration of gradient clustering: (a) A macroblock. (b) Block division and delta coding direction.
Fig. 4: R-D modeling validation by curve fitting: (a) D-Q curve. (b) R-Q curve. (c) λ -Q curve. (d)-(f) present the values of fitted aD , aR and bR for all point clouds in KITTI06 sequence, confirming the fidelity of our model fitting.
Dataset
Quadratic model
Hyperbolic model
aD
CoD
aR
bR
CoD
KITTI
0.0100
1.00
0.86
0.277
0.99
nuScenes
0.0109
0.99
1.82
0.234
0.99
Waymo Perception
0.0101
1.00
0.72
0.243
0.99
TABLE II: Parameters of D-Q Models and R-Q Models
Fig. 5: Compression metrics under varying bpps: (a) Point-to-point PSNR. (b) Mean square error.
Fig. 6: Visuailzed compression error of D-Compress and top-accurate baseline methods H.265, G-PCC and RT-ST. The heatmap unit is meter.
Method
Need IMU
Encoding Time (ms)
Decoding Time (ms)
Total Runtime (ms)
WebP
×
34.9
4.0
38.9
x265
×
127.3
69.8
197.1
RT-ST
✓
88.2
22.4
113.6
JPEG
×
19.4
0.07
19.4
JPEG2000
×
30.9
6.0
36.9
Draco
×
33.6
4.5
38.1
TABLE III: Computational latency summary
Fig. 7: Computational latency analysis of D-Compress.
Fig. 8: Translational error of (a) Mapping. (b) Localization.
Fig. 9: 3D Object detection accuracy.
Fig. 10: Rate control performance on KITTI06 .
Dataset
Average Bit Error/Peak Bit Error
D-Compress
Hou’s Method [ 25 ]
Li’s Method [ 21 ]
KITTI 03
2.9 % /8.4 %
5.5 % /29.4 %
8.7 % /29.9 %
KITTI 06
1.7 % /6.8 %
4.3 % /19.9 %
5.6 % /20.0 %
KITTI 09
4.4 % /11.6 %
5.9 % /43.3 %
14.6 % /53.3 %
KITTI 12
2.5 % /8.7 %
5.0 % /32.9 %
12.3 % /44.8 %
KITTI 15
3.3 % /10.2 %
5.8 % /31.5 %
9.0 % /47.3 %
TABLE IV: Bit error across different dataset sequences
Method
PSNR (dB)
Runtime (ms)
0.6 bpp
1.0 bpp
1.4 bpp
1.8 bpp
2.2 bpp
a-DWT
57.9
63.1
67.3
69.6
72.4
3.6
DWT
47.5
54.3
57.5
61.3
65.8
3.5
DCT
34.7
41.8
46.8
51.4
55.9
2.4
TABLE V: Comparison of PSNR of a-DWT, DWT and DCT across various bpp.