MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383503930 · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3293161

A Local-Global Feature Fusing Method for Point Clouds Semantic Segmentation

2023· article· en· W4383503930 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yuanwei Bi, Lujian Zhang, Yaowen Liu, Yansen Huang, Hao Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer sciencePoint cloudSegmentationFeature (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceImage segmentationPoint (geometry)Computer visionPattern recognition (psychology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the abundance of information in 3D data has made the semantic segmentation of 3D point clouds a topic of great interest. However, current methods often rely solely on the original three-dimensional coordinates of the point cloud as input geometric features, leading to poor generalization performance. Additionally, occlusion of the point cloud data can negatively impact segmentation accuracy when only local information is considered. To address these issues, this paper proposes a network named LGFF-Net. To fully utilize the original information of point clouds, we designed a Local Feature Aggregation (LFA) module that treats geometric and semantic information equally and preserves the original properties while cross-augmenting them. On the other hand, we proposed a simple and effective Global Feature Extraction (GFE) module to extract global features. Finally, we hierarchically fuse local and global features using a U-shaped segmentation structure. Compared to state-of-the-art networks, our method achieves competitive results on several benchmark datasets, including Semantic Topographic Point Labeling-Synthetic 3D, Toronto_3D, Stanford Large 3-D Indoor Space, and ScanNet. We also conduct multiple ablation experiments to validate the efficacy of LGFF-Net.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207