Multi-view computer vision pipelines typically rely on accurate sparse keypoints and robust descriptors. While incorporating line features has shown clear benefits for matching and pose estimation, existing point-line approaches remain inefficient: they detect points and lines separately, use increasingly heavy networks, and depend on CPU-bound heuristics that hinder real-time performance. We introduce a Unified Efficient Points and Lines (UPAL) feature extractor that jointly extracts keypoints, line segments, and feature descriptors within a single lightweight architecture. A shared backbone provides common representations that feed different branches for point and line features. Line segments are recovered through an accelerated post-processing stage, an enhanced and highly efficient variant of the LSD algorithm. UPAL matches or exceeds state-ofthe-art performance in both point and line applications while significantly reducing computational cost, achieving, for instance, a 4x speedup and 10x smaller memory footprint over the ALIKED + DeepLSD pipeline. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/francois141/upal.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: In this paper, we propose UPAL, a joint point-line feature extractor that outperforms most existing methods (here, on hybrid point-line visual localization with pose accuracy under 5cm / 5 ∘ ) while being substantially more lightweight . This is enabled by our compact architecture, joint point-line training with distilled supervision, and an efficient variant of the LSD algorithm. Results are shown on the Stairs scene of the 7Scenes dataset [ 61 ] with the setup described in Sec. 4.4 .
Figure 2: Overview of our network architecture. We use a shared convolutional encoder to generate a multi-scale feature map (orange). We then use three decoder branches: a keypoint detection branch (blue) with a Score Map Head (SMH) followed by Differentiable Keypoint Detection (DKD), a Sparse Deformable Descriptor Head (SDDH) to obtain descriptors (purple), and a branch predicting a distance field (green). The latter is then passed to our fast LSD to extract the line segments.
Figure 3: Visualization of the outputs of the network. The shared backbone receives an input image (a) and encodes it into bottleneck features (b). We observe that the predicted keypoint score map (c) and line distance field (d) show some similarity (e.g. keypoints are often line endpoints or intersections), justifying their joint prediction.
Figure 4: Line detection examples. In spite of its efficiency, UPAL outputs generic lines with quality similar to more expensive methods.
Method
AUC @1px ↑
AUC @3px ↑
AUC @5px ↑
Latency (ms) ↓
Lightweight Methods
SIFT [ 39 ]
35.1
65.0
75.3
237
SuperPoint [ 10 ]
35.6
65.2
75.7
50
DISK [ 65 ]
29.9
61.8
73.2
100
XFeat [ 47 ]
34.4
62.2
73.3
44
Wireframe [ 17 ]
38.3
66.4
76.1
308
Table 1: Homography estimation on HPatches [ 4 ] . We report the latency in ms and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of correctly predicted homographies for various pixel error thresholds. Methods are grouped into lightweight and heavyweight categories. Within each category, the best result is shown in bold , and the second best is underlined .
Method
AUC @5 ∘ ↑
AUC @10 ∘ ↑
AUC @20 ∘ ↑
Latency (ms) ↓
Lightweight Methods
SIFT [ 39 ]
40.1
53.6
64.4
729
SuperPoint [ 10 ]
51.3
64.4
73.7
78
DISK [ 65 ]
53.9
66.1
75.3
335
ALIKED [ 80 ]
59.8
72.0
81.1
79
XFeat [ 47 ]
44.6
59.0
70.2
28
Table 2: Relative pose estimation on MegaDepth [ 34 ] . The latency and AUC of correctly retrieved poses under various angular error thresholds are reported. Methods are grouped into lightweight and heavyweight categories. Within each category, the best result is highlighted in bold and the second best is underlined . Results reported in parentheses are not considered for ranking due to overlap between the training data and the MegaDepth benchmark test set.
Method
AUC @5 ∘ ↑
AUC @10 ∘ ↑
AUC @20 ∘ ↑
Latency (ms)
Lightweight Methods
SIFT [ 39 ]
6.7
14.9
24.2
742
SuperPoint [ 10 ]
15.5
29.8
43.4
83
DISK [ 65 ]
10.1
19.2
29.5
348
ALIKED [ 80 ]
6.9
13.3
20.1
82
XFeat [ 47 ]
16.4
31.2
45.7
27
Table 3: Relative pose estimation on ScanNet [ 8 ] . The latency and AUC of correctly estimated poses under various angular error thresholds are reported. Methods are grouped into lightweight and heavyweight categories. Within each category, the best result is highlighted in bold and the second best is underlined .
HPatches
RDNIM
Loc Err
H Estim
Rep
Time
Loc Err
H Estim
Rep
Time
50l
300l
1px
3px
5px
1px
3px
5px
(ms)
50l
300l
1px
3px
5px
1px
3px
5px
(ms)
LSD [ 68 ]
0.50
1.42
58.3
88.3
90.9
26.4
53.6
61.6
150
1.78
1.85
7.4
44.8
57.6
9.2
30.0
37.7
85
ELSED [ 63 ]
0.71
1.63
40.7
65.8
67.9
18.8
41.8
50.8
67
1.92
1.96
5.9
30.8
40.9
8.9
25.9
30.9
40
TP-LSD [ 27 ]
1.49
1.61
10.9
34.6
42.6
11.6
42.9
57.2
65
1.93
1.93
0.2
6.3
14.2
4.9
33.3
47.5
52
SOLD2 [ 45 ]
1.09
1.29
23.7
48.5
55.4
19.8
44.9
51.5
745
1.39
1.41
0.6
9.4
16.0
8.8
20.0
24.0
546
Table 4: Line detection evaluation on HPatches [ 4 ] and RDNIM [ 43 ] . We compare the line localization error (Loc Err) on a fixed set of l lines, homography estimation (H Estim), and line repeatability (Rep) at various pixel thresholds. Horizontal lines separate Traditional / Learned / Joint methods.
Method
T / R err. ↓
Acc. ↑
Points
SuperPoint [ 10 ]
0 6.2 / 1.65
36.6
DISK [ 65 ]
0 7.2 / 2.16
28.5
ALIKED [ 80 ]
0 7.8 / 1.98
35.0
PLNet [ 70 ]
0 6.2 / 1.68
38.2
UPAL (Ours)
0 5.1 / 1.39
49.1
Points + Lines
SuperPoint [ 10 ] +DeepLSD [ 44 ]
0 5.0 / 1.33
49.6
Table 5: Visual localization on Stairs scene of the 7Scenes dataset [ 61 ] . We report the median translation / rotation errors (cm / deg) and pose accuracy at 5 cm / 5° threshold. Please refer to our supplementary material for results on all scenes.
Method
Completeness (%)
Accuracy (%)
1cm
2cm
5cm
1cm
2cm
5cm
SuperPoint [ 10 ]
0.17
0.81
4.34
49.52
64.73
80.01
DISK [ 65 ]
0.33
1.18
4.41
69.22
81.10
91.29
ALIKED [ 80 ]
0.13
0.56
2.76
56.61
70.78
85.18
Wireframe [ 17 ]
0.19
0.98
5.41
50.98
66.44
82.50
UPAL (Ours)
0.30
1.09
4.45
64.80
77.57
88.87
Table 6: Evaluation on multi-view point triangulation on ETH3D [ 59 ] .
Nb params ↓
Latency (ms) ↓
GPU
CPU
SuperPoint [ 10 ] + DeepLSD [ 44 ]
9.8M
293
2259
ALIKED [ 80 ] + DeepLSD [ 44 ]
9.2M
286
2239
ALIKED [ 80 ] + M-LSD [ 22 ]
1.3M
54
525
ALIKED [ 80 ] + TP-LSD [ 27 ]
25M
56
1582
DaD [ 14 ] + DeDoDe v2 [ 15 ] + ScaleLSD [ 29 ]
120M
147
>200K
Table 7: Runtime evaluation. Parameter counts are reported, and latencies are averaged over 500 sequential detections on an NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti GPU and Intel Core i9-13900K CPU.
Loc Error ↓
H estimation ↑
Repeatability ↑
Latency (ms) ↓
(1)
DeepLSD [ 44 ]
1.432
90.6
27.2
233
(2)
DeepLSD no AF
1.341
90.6
28.2
218
(3)
LSD [ 68 ]
1.414
91.1
26.3
36
(4)
(3) + parall. ang. comp.
1.414
91.1
26.3
27
(5)
(4) + stride 2
1.455
90.6
26.3
19
(6)
(5) + subset
1.476
90.6
26.3
17
Table 8: Ablation study on the HPatches dataset [ 4 ] . We compare the localization error, homography estimation, repeatability, and latency for variants of our approach.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
AUC@5 ∘ ↑
AUC@10 ∘ ↑
AUC@20 ∘ ↑
Ours (points only)
55.2
67.6
76.4
Ours (joint training)
58.2
70.8
79.4
Improvement
+3.0
+3.2
+3.0
Appendix
Table 9: Impact of joint point and line training on MegaDepth [ 34 ] relative pose estimation.
Nb params ↓
Latency ↓
SuperPoint [ 10 ] + DeepLSD [ 44 ]
9.8×106
707
ALIKED [ 80 ] + DeepLSD [ 44 ]
9.2×106
716
DaD [ 14 ] + DeDoDe v2 [ 15 ] + ScaleLSD [ 29 ]
1.2×108
3474
UPAL (Ours)
7.8×105
186
Appendix
Table 10: Runtime evaluation. Parameter counts and latencies (ms) are averaged over 500 sequential detections on an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti with 4 GB of VRAM. UPAL runs in 186 ms, about 18 × faster than DaD + ScaleLSD.
Figure 5: Line detection examples. Unlike wireframe-based methods [ 29 , 17 ] that focus solely on structural lines, UPAL produces more general and repeatable line detections that better support downstream tasks, while remaining significantly more lightweight. The last four images are challenging examples for UPAL and other detectors.
Figure 6: Point matching on HPatches (yellow = correct, red = wrong with respect to the ground-truth homography; only the most salient matches are shown). UPAL generally matches keypoints reliably under both viewpoint and illumination changes. On repetitive structures the salient corners still match, with errors confined to weaker detections, whereas specular surfaces and especially self-similar texture under large viewpoint changes are harder and yield many incorrect matches.
Figure 7: Line matching on HPatches (green = correct, red = wrong with respect to the ground-truth homography; only the longest matched segments are shown). UPAL matches lines well under illumination changes on structured man-made scenes, but its line branch is not viewpoint-robust: the same viewpoint pairs that are matched reliably by points are almost entirely mismatched as lines.
Local feature matching finds corresponding points or regions across images to support geometric estimation, localization, reconstruction, and recognition.
Traditional keypoint descriptors, such as SIFT (Scale-Invariant Feature Transform) and ORB (Oriented FAST and Rotated BRIEF), are computed from local image patches. They may be unreliable in scenes with repetitive patterns or weak textures, where patches at different locations can look similar. We propose the Contextual Line-Assisted Descriptor (CLAD), a keypoint matching method that addresses this problem by using global geometric context from line correspondences. CLAD represents each keypoint with a vector whose elements indicate its proximity to matched lines. It can therefore use the keypoint's spatial relationships to the lines in the scene. We use HOME (Hough-space One-dimensional Matching of Extrema) to detect both clear and weak linear structures and to establish enough line-to-keypoint associations to represent this context. Evaluations on the TUM RGB-D SLAM dataset and outdoor video sequences show that CLAD provides geometrically consistent matches that complement those obtained with traditional local descriptors. In repetitive scenes, where local descriptors may not distinguish similar patches, CLAD uses global structure to improve matching reliability. The method is computationally lightweight and practical to implement.
Visual front-ends for robotic localization typically rely on point-based features such as Oriented FAST and Rotated BRIEF (ORB), which frequently fail in structured environments dominated by strong linear structures or textureless surfaces. While line-based Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) systems mitigate this by utilizing line segments, conventional line extraction and description algorithms are computationally prohibitive for real-time edge robotics. To address this fundamental bottleneck, we propose HOME (Hough-space One-dimensional Matching of Extrema), an ultra-lightweight, training-free feature matching framework. HOME transforms images into Hough space, mapping global linear structures to stable local extrema, which serve as keypoints, thereby reformulating complex line matching into highly efficient one-dimensional point matching. The proposed 1D radial descriptor mathematically guarantees rotational and translational invariance without the overhead of explicit orientation estimation. As a proof of concept to validate the matching accuracy and efficiency of HOME, this paper focuses on homography estimation. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that HOME achieves robust registration in challenging scenarios where point-based methods fail, operating at a much faster speed than existing line-based methods. Extending this robust matching engine to full 3D pose estimation remains a highly promising future direction.
A widespread assumption in local feature research holds that classical handcrafted descriptors are accuracy-limited relics best replaced by learned alternatives. We show this is wrong. Through an 8-configuration ablation spanning four benchmarks (HPatches, ROxford5K, IMC Phototourism, MegaDepth), we demonstrate that classical SIFT with DSP multi-scale pooling outperforms neural descriptor and orientation replacements (HardNet, OriNet) on every accuracy metric--while running 2--18× faster--and that learned matchers (LightGlue) complement rather than supersede classical features. The conclusion reframes a decade of work: not "replace SIFT" but "compose with SIFT," classical extraction paired with learned matching only where geometric context demands it. This finding was invisible because no prior GPU SIFT kept the complete pipeline in VRAM or offered modularity for controlled classical-vs-learned ablations. We present PySIFT, the first fully GPU-resident SIFT, implemented in CuPy/Numba CUDA kernels with DLPack zero-copy handoff to downstream DL frameworks--submillisecond O(1) metadata swap regardless of keypoint count. On a laptop-grade NVIDIA RTX 3050 (4 GB VRAM), PySIFT achieves: (i) higher Mean Matching Accuracy (MMA) than OpenCV SIFT on HPatches, (ii) 383 ms faster per pair on high-resolution MegaDepth, (iii) higher geometric accuracy on cross-dataset benchmarks (+5.6 pp AUC@10∘ on MegaDepth, more inliers on IMC Phototourism), and (iv) bitwise deterministic output--identical keypoints and descriptors across runs, with detection reproducing identically even across GPU architectures: a guarantee that learned extractors cannot match without significant performance sacrifice, and cannot achieve at all across GPU architectures due to cuDNN's architecture-dependent algorithm selection. PySIFT is open-source, requiring no C++ compilation.
Sivakumar K. S., Mohammad Daniyalur Rahman, Gopi Raju Matta