Feature Graph Convolution Network With Attentive Fusion for Large-Scale Point Clouds Semantic Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".