Living in a Material World: Learning Material Properties from Full-Waveform Flash Lidar Data for Semantic Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in lidar technology have made the collection of 3D point clouds fast and easy. While most lidar sensors return per-point intensity (or reflectance) values along with range measurements, flash lidar sensors are able to provide information about the shape of the return pulse. The shape of the return waveform is affected by many factors, including the distance that the light pulse travels and the angle of incidence with a surface. Importantly, the shape of the return waveform also depends on the material properties of the reflecting surface. In this paper, we investigate whether the material type or class can be determined from the full-waveform response. First, as a proof of concept, we demonstrate that the extra information about material class, if known accurately, can improve performance on scene understanding tasks such as semantic segmentation. Next, we learn two different full-waveform material classifiers: a random forest classifier and a temporal convolutional neural network (TCN) classifier. We find that, in some cases, material types can be distinguished, and that the TCN generally performs better across a wider range of materials. However, factors such as angle of incidence, material colour, and material similarity may hinder overall performance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".