MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PCGen: Point Cloud Generator for LiDAR Simulation

2023· article· en· W4383108193 on OpenAlexaff
Chenqi Li, Yuan Ren, Bingbing Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsHuawei Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer scienceLidarComputer visionNoise (video)Artificial intelligenceScalabilityComputer graphics (images)Real-time computingRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data is a fundamental building block for LiDAR perception systems. Unfortunately, real-world data collection and annotation is extremely costly & laborious. Recently, real data based LiDAR simulators have shown tremendous potential to complement real data, due to their scalability and high-fidelity compared to graphics engine based methods. Before simulation can be deployed in the real-world, two shortcomings need to be addressed. First, existing methods usually generate data which are more noisy and complete than the real point clouds, due to 3D reconstruction error and pure geometry-based raycasting method. Second, prior works on simulation for object detection focus solely on rigid objects, like cars, but Vulnerable Road User (VRU)s, like pedestrians, are important road participants. To tackle the first challenge, we propose First Peak Averaging (FPA) raycasting and surrogate model raydrop. FPA enables the simulation of both point cloud coordinates and sensor features, while taking into account reconstruction noise. The ray-wise surrogate raydrop model mimics the physical properties of LiDAR's laser receiver to determine whether a simulated point would be recorded by a real LiDAR. With minimal training data, the surrogate model can generalize to different geographies and scenes, closing the domain gap between raycasted and real point clouds. To tackle the simulation of deformable VRU simulation, we employ Skinned Multi-Person Linear model (SMPL) dataset to provide a pedestrian simulation baseline and compare the domain gap between CAD and reconstructed objects. Applying our pipeline to perform novel sensor synthesis, results show that object detection models trained by simulation data can achieve similar result as the real data trained model.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207