MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201731711 · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2021.102564

Boundary-Aware graph Markov neural network for semiautomated object segmentation from point clouds

2021· article· en· W3201731711 on OpenAlexaff
Huan Luo, Quan Zheng, Lina Fang, Yingya Guo, Wenzhong Guo, Cheng Wang, Jonathan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Fujian ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPoint cloudSegmentationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMarkov random fieldBoundary (topology)Conditional random fieldComputer visionArtificial neural networkLaser scanningPattern recognition (psychology)Representation (politics)Object (grammar)Image segmentationLaserMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the advantages of 3D point clouds over 2D optical images, the related researches on scene understanding in 3D point clouds have been increasingly attracting wide attention from academy and industry. However, many 3D scene understanding methods largely require abundant supervised information for training a data-driven model. The acquisition of such supervised information relies on manual annotations which are laborious and arduous. Therefore, to mitigate such manual efforts for annotating training samples, this paper studies a unified neural network to segment 3D objects out of point clouds interactively. Particularly, to improve the segmentation performance on the accurate object segmentation, the boundary information of 3D objects in point clouds are encoded as a boundary energy term in the Markov Random Field (MRF) model. Moreover, the MRF model with the boundary energy term is naturally integrated with the Graphical Neural Network (GNN) to obtain a compact representation for generating the boundary-preserved 3D objects. The proposed method is evaluated on two point clouds datasets obtained from different types of laser scanning systems, i.e. terrestrial laser scanning system and mobile laser scanning system. Comparative experiments show that the proposed method is superior and effective in 3D objects segmentation in different point-cloud scenarios.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Applied Earth Observation and GeoinformationSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207