MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluating Initialization Methods for Discriminative and Fast-Converging HGMM Point Clouds

2021· article· en· W3205625221 on OpenAlexaff
Haohan Lin, Xuzhan Chen, Matthew Tucsok, Ji Li, Homayoun Najjaran

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitializationDiscriminative modelComputer scienceCluster analysisPattern recognition (psychology)Convergence (economics)Artificial intelligenceCovarianceGaussianAlgorithmMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discriminative data representations for point cloud data are critical for computer vision applications. Recently, the Hierarchical Gaussian Mixture Model (HGMM) has become a popular representation due to its compactness and real-time execution. However, HGMM still lacks a well-designed and robust initialization criterion. Ad-hoc initializations for HGMM can lead to a low discriminative clustering capability, slow convergence, and loss of scale-invariance. To adopt the optimal initialization scheme, we evaluate four potential candidates: K-Means++, Fuzzy C-Means (FCM), uniform, and random initialization across a few synthetic and measured datasets. Our experiments involve comparing the quality of HGMM point cloud reconstruction based on different initialization methods. The reconstruction quality is evaluated by the peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR). Our experiments show that clustering-based initialization methods can result in higher-quality HGMMs because of i) faster convergence of the Expectation-Maximization (EM) optimization, ii) better scaleinvariance across differently sized datasets, and iii) greater stability for different initial scales of covariance matrices of the HGMM.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207