MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028418844 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2020.2994935

Plane Segmentation Based on the Optimal-Vector-Field in LiDAR Point Clouds

2020· article· en· W3028418844 on OpenAlexafffund
Sheng Xu, Ruisheng Wang, Hao Wang, Ruigang Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsLidarPoint cloudArtificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer visionComputer sciencePlane (geometry)Image segmentationPoint (geometry)Remote sensingGeologyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One key challenge in the point cloud segmentation is the detection and split of overlapping regions between different planes. The existing methods depend on the similarity and the dissimilarity in neighbor regions without a global constraint, which brings the 'over-' and 'under-' segmentation in the results. Hence, this paper presents a pipeline of the accurate plane segmentation for point clouds to address the shortcoming in the local optimization. There are two phases included in the proposed segmentation process. One is a local phase to calculate connectivity scores between different planes based on local variations of surface normals. In this phase, a new optimal-vector-field is formulated to detect the plane intersections. The optimal-vector-field is large in magnitude at plane intersections and vanishing at other regions. The other one is a global phase to smooth local segmentation cues to mimic leading eigenvector computation in the graph-cut. Evaluation of two datasets shows that the achieved precision and recall is 94.50 percent and 90.81 percent on the collected mobile LiDAR data and obtains an average accuracy of 75.4 percent on an open benchmark, which outperforms the state-of-the-art methods in terms of completeness and correctness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207