MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292554355 · doi:10.3390/rs14164055

RG-GCN: A Random Graph Based on Graph Convolution Network for Point Cloud Semantic Segmentation

2022· article· en· W4292554355 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Ziyin Zeng, Yongyang Xu, Zhong Xie, Jie Wan, Weichao Wu, Wenxia Dai

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsComputer sciencePoint cloudSegmentationGraphConditional random fieldArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Random graphCloud computingKey (lock)Convolution (computer science)Data miningTheoretical computer scienceArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Point cloud semantic segmentation, a challenging task in 3D data processing, is popular in many realistic applications. Currently, deep learning methods are gradually being applied to point cloud semantic segmentation. However, as it is difficult to manually label point clouds in 3D scenes, it remains difficult to obtain sufficient training samples for the supervised deep learning network. Although an increasing number of excellent methods have been proposed in recent years, few of these have focused on the problem of semantic segmentation with insufficient samples. To address this problem, this paper proposes a random graph based on graph convolution network, referred to as RG-GCN. The proposed network consists of two key components: (1) a random graph module is proposed to perform data augmentation by changing the topology of the built graphs; and (2) a feature extraction module is proposed to obtain local significant features by aggregating point spatial information and multidimensional features. To validate the performance of the RG-GCN, the indoor dataset S3DIS and outdoor dataset Toronto3D are used to validate the proposed network via a series of experiments. The results show that the proposed network achieves excellent performance for point cloud semantic segmentation of the two different datasets.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations44
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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