MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LiDAR few-shot domain adaptation via integrated CycleGAN and 3D object detector with joint learning delay

2021· article· en· W3207497018 on OpenAlexaff
Eduardo R. Corral-Soto, Amir Nabatchian, Martin Gerdzhev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLidarArtificial intelligencePoint cloudTask (project management)Object detectionMinimum bounding boxMargin (machine learning)Domain (mathematical analysis)DetectorJoint (building)Bounding overwatchObject (grammar)Network architectureAdaptation (eye)Machine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

he success of supervised LiDAR perception methods relies on the availability of large sets of labeled point cloud data, for which the labeling process is costly and time consuming. Given unpaired LiDAR datasets of similar sizes from two domains, with one (source) containing task-specific labels e.g. 3D bounding boxes for all frames, but only a small percentage of frames being labeled in the other (target) domain, it is challenging to train a model that generalizes well on validation data from the target domain. In this paper we propose a novel LiDAR few-shot domain adaptation architecture and training strategy to address this challenge. Our method is based on adapting a task-specific network (3D object detector) to work within the CycleGAN framework modified to operate with LiDAR features, and on the joint end-to-end training of generators, discriminators, and task-specific layers. To overcome nonconvergence issues we propose a training strategy that introduces a mechanism to delay the joint learning between the generators/discriminators and the task-specific network by allowing them to start learning independently, while slowly introducing joint learning as they converge, hence avoiding instability during the early stages of the training. Our proposed integrated architecture enables a direct way to evaluate the performance of the model instead of feeding pre-computed generated data into a separate pretrained model. We include an experimental section where we evaluate our proposed architecture on the publicly available KITTI and Nuscenes datasets, as well as on our own labeled dataset. We present useful mean average precision plots that illustrate the benefits of our domain adaptation architecture as a function of number of labeled target domain frames.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207