MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189820959 · doi:10.3390/rs13163121

Semantic Segmentation of Large-Scale Outdoor Point Clouds by Encoder–Decoder Shared MLPs with Multiple Losses

2021· article· en· W3189820959 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Beanbonyka Rim, Ahyoung Lee, Min Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSegmentationPoint cloudEncoderLidarArtificial intelligenceScale (ratio)Benchmark (surveying)PoolingMetric (unit)Pattern recognition (psychology)Remote sensingCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semantic segmentation of large-scale outdoor 3D LiDAR point clouds becomes essential to understand the scene environment in various applications, such as geometry mapping, autonomous driving, and more. With an advantage of being a 3D metric space, 3D LiDAR point clouds, on the other hand, pose a challenge for a deep learning approach, due to their unstructured, unorder, irregular, and large-scale characteristics. Therefore, this paper presents an encoder–decoder shared multi-layer perceptron (MLP) with multiple losses, to address an issue of this semantic segmentation. The challenge rises a trade-off between efficiency and effectiveness in performance. To balance this trade-off, we proposed common mechanisms, which is simple and yet effective, by defining a random point sampling layer, an attention-based pooling layer, and a summation of multiple losses integrated with the encoder–decoder shared MLPs method for the large-scale outdoor point clouds semantic segmentation. We conducted our experiments on the following two large-scale benchmark datasets: Toronto-3D and DALES dataset. Our experimental results achieved an overall accuracy (OA) and a mean intersection over union (mIoU) of both the Toronto-3D dataset, with 83.60% and 71.03%, and the DALES dataset, with 76.43% and 59.52%, respectively. Additionally, our proposed method performed a few numbers of parameters of the model, and faster than PointNet++ by about three times during inferencing.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207