MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Test-Time Adaptation for Point Cloud Upsampling Using Meta-Learning

2023· article· en· W4389667410 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Hatem, Yiming Qian, Yan Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpsamplingComputer sciencePoint cloudCloud computingGeneralityAdaptation (eye)Artificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Test setTest dataPoint (geometry)Machine learningMeta learning (computer science)Test (biology)Data miningImage (mathematics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Affordable 3D scanners often produce sparse and non-uniform point clouds that negatively impact downstream applications in robotic systems. While existing point cloud upsampling architectures have demonstrated promising results on standard benchmarks, they tend to experience significant performance drops when the test data have different distributions from the training data. To address this issue, this paper proposes a test-time adaption approach to enhance model generality of point cloud upsampling. The proposed approach leverages meta-learning to explicitly learn network parameters for test-time adaption. Our method does not require any prior information about the test data. During meta-training, the model parameters are learned from a collection of instance-level tasks, each of which consists of a sparse-dense pair of point clouds from the training data. During meta-testing, the trained model is fine-tuned with a few gradient updates to produce a unique set of network parameters for each test instance. The updated model is then used for the final prediction. Our framework is generic and can be applied in a plug-and-play manner with existing backbone networks in point cloud upsampling. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach improves the performance of state-of-the-art models.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.181 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207