MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S3Net: 3D LiDAR Sparse Semantic Segmentation Network

2021· article· en· W3206593131 on OpenAlexaff
Ran Cheng, Ryan Razani, Yuan Ren

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSegmentationLidarConvolutional neural networkFeature (linguistics)Computer visionProjection (relational algebra)Convolution (computer science)Semantics (computer science)Pattern recognition (psychology)Artificial neural networkRemote sensingAlgorithmGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semantic Segmentation is a crucial component in the perception systems of many applications, such as robotics and autonomous driving that rely on accurate environmental perception and understanding. In literature, several approaches are introduced to attempt LiDAR semantic segmentation task, such as projection-based (range-view or birds-eye-view), and voxel-based approaches. However, they either abandon the valuable 3D topology and geometric relations and suffer from information loss introduced in the projection process or are inefficient. Therefore, there is a need for accurate models capable of processing the 3D driving-scene point cloud in 3D space. In this paper, we propose S3Net, a novel convolutional neural network for LiDAR point cloud semantic segmentation. It adopts an encoder-decoder backbone that consists of Sparse Intra-channel Attention Module (SIntraAM), and Sparse Inter-channel Attention Module (SInterAM) to emphasize the fine details of both within each feature map and among nearby feature maps. To extract the global contexts in deeper layers, we introduce Sparse Residual Tower based upon sparse convolution that suits varying sparsity of LiDAR point cloud. In addition, geo-aware anisotrophic loss is leveraged to emphasize the semantic boundaries and penalize the noise within each predicted regions, leading to a robust prediction. Our experimental results show that the proposed method leads to a large improvement (12%) compared to its baseline counterpart (MinkNet42 [1]) on SemanticKITTI [2] test set and achieves state-of-the-art mIoU accuracy of semantic segmentation approaches.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations49
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207