MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034664537 · doi:10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.01297

Adaptive Hierarchical Down-Sampling for Point Cloud Classification

2020· article· en· W3034664537 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Nezhadarya, Ehsan Taghavi, Ryan Razani, Bingbing Liu, Jun Luo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer scienceSampling (signal processing)Cloud computingAdaptive samplingArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmData miningComputer visionMathematicsMonte Carlo methodStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deterministic down-sampling of an unordered point cloud in a deep neural network has not been rigorously studied so far. Existing methods down-sample the points regardless of their importance for the network output and often address down-sampling the raw point cloud before processing. As a result, some important points in the point cloud may be removed, while less valuable points may be passed to next layers. In contrast, the proposed adaptive down-sampling method samples the points by taking into account the importance of each point, which varies according to application, task and training data. In this paper, we propose a novel deterministic, adaptive, permutation-invariant down-sampling layer, called Critical Points Layer (CPL), which learns to reduce the number of points in an unordered point cloud while retaining the important (critical) ones. Unlike most graph-based point cloud down-sampling methods that use k-NN to find the neighboring points, CPL is a global down-sampling method, rendering it computationally very efficient. The proposed layer can be used along with a graph-based point cloud convolution layer to form a convolutional neural network, dubbed CP-Net in this paper. We introduce a CP-Net for 3D object classification that achieves high accuracy for the ModelNet 40 dataset among point cloud-based methods, which validates the effectiveness of the CPL.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations154
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207