MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385819743 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2023.3303399

Feature Graph Convolution Network With Attentive Fusion for Large-Scale Point Clouds Semantic Segmentation

2023· article· en· W4385819743 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jun Chen, Yiping Chen, Cheng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceFeature (linguistics)SegmentationGraphEncoderConvolution (computer science)Feature extractionSemantic featureTheoretical computer scienceArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unstructured nature of 3D point clouds in large scenes is a challenging problem to effectively learn local geometric structures for point cloud semantic segmentation. To address this issue, we proposed a Feature Graph Convolution Network with Attentive Fusion (FGC-AFNet) in this letter. Our method takes large point clouds as input and uses the Feature Graph Convoluton (FGC) module to construct a graph of the central point with its neighboring points to extract local features. Then, we reduced the number of points using Random Sampling (RS) to expand the receptive field gradually to obtain multi-level features. The network also employs a dual Attention Fusion (AF) mechanism for efficient feature aggregation. One is at different levels for semantic feature fusion, another is for narrowing the semantic feature gap between the encoder and decoder. Compared to state-of-the-art methods on the S3DIS and Toronto3D datasets, our method obtained competitive results, with an overall accuracy of 88.6% and 96.58%, and a mean intersection over union of 71.2% and 81.92% on S3DIS and Toronto3D, respectively.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207