MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386249618 · doi:10.1109/crv60082.2023.00011

A Reversible Transformer for LiDAR Point Cloud Semantic Segmentation

2023· article· en· W4386249618 on OpenAlexaffabout
Perpertual Hope Akwensi, Ruisheng Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformerComputer scienceSegmentationBottleneckPoint cloudLidarArtificial intelligenceReal-time computingComputer engineeringElectrical engineeringEmbedded systemEngineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success of transformer networks in the natural language processing and 2D vision domains has encouraged the adaptation of transformers for 3D computer vision tasks. However, majority of the existing approaches employ standard back-propagation (SBP) - which requires the storage of model activations on a forward pass for use during the backward pass - making their memory complexity linearly proportional to model depth, hence inefficient. Furthermore, most 3D point transformers use the classic QK(V) matrix multiplication design which comes with a memory bottleneck. To address these issues, we propose a memory-efficient point transformer that makes use of reversible functions and linearized self-attention to minimize SBP and transformer memory complexities, respectively. Experimental results on benchmark datasets (Toronto3D and CSPC) from different sensor platforms (aerial, and mobile backpack) show that our approach uses less than half the number of model parameters (compared to its SBP counterpart), take more than twice the input sequence, and use less than half the memory compared to majority of the traditional approach. Overall, the proposed RPT attained competitive performance compared to the state-of-the-art.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207