MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306377479 · doi:10.3390/electronics11203310

Selection of Relevant Geometric Features Using Filter-Based Algorithms for Point Cloud Semantic Segmentation

2022· article· en· W4306377479 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Muhammed Enes Atik, Zaide Duran

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi
KeywordsPoint cloudSegmentationIntersection (aeronautics)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceFilter (signal processing)Pattern recognition (psychology)Selection (genetic algorithm)Feature selectionPoint (geometry)Feature (linguistics)Data miningComputer visionMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semantic segmentation of mobile LiDAR point clouds is an essential task in many fields such as road network management, mapping, urban planning, and 3D High Definition (HD) city maps for autonomous vehicles. This study presents an approach to improve the evaluation metrics of deep-learning-based point cloud semantic segmentation using 3D geometric features and filter-based feature selection. Information gain (IG), Chi-square (Chi2), and ReliefF algorithms are used to select relevant features. RandLA-Net and Superpoint Grapgh (SPG), the current and effective deep learning networks, were preferred for applying semantic segmentation. RandLA-Net and SPG were fed by adding geometric features in addition to 3D coordinates (x, y, z) directly without any change in the structure of the point clouds. Experiments were carried out on three challenging mobile LiDAR datasets: Toronto3D, SZTAKI-CityMLS, and Paris. As a result of the study, it was demonstrated that the selection of relevant features improved accuracy in all datasets. For RandLA-Net, mean Intersection-over-Union (mIoU) was 70.1% with the features selected with Chi2 in the Toronto3D dataset, 84.1% mIoU was obtained with the features selected with the IG in the SZTAKI-CityMLS dataset, and 55.2% mIoU with the features selected with the IG and ReliefF in the Paris dataset. For SPG, 69.8% mIoU was obtained with Chi2 in the Toronto3D dataset, 77.5% mIoU was obtained with IG in SZTAKI-CityMLS, and 59.0% mIoU was obtained with IG and ReliefF in Paris.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicsSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207