MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Volumetric 3d Point Cloud Attribute Compression: Learned Polynomial Bilateral Filter for Prediction

2024· article· en· W4392909804 on OpenAlexaff
Tam Thuc, Philip A. Chou, Gene Cheung

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer scienceCompression (physics)Cloud computingFilter (signal processing)PolynomialData compressionPoint (geometry)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmComputer visionMathematicsGeometryMaterials scienceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We extend a previous study on 3D point cloud attribute compression scheme that uses a volumetric approach: given a target volumetric attribute function f : ℝ <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3</sup> ↦ ℝ, we quantize and encode parameters θ that characterize f at the encoder, for reconstruction ${f_{\hat \theta }}({\mathbf{x}})$ at known 3D points x at the decoder. Specifically, parameters $\hat \theta $ are quantized coefficients of B-spline basis vectors Φ <inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">l</inf> (for order p ≥ 2) that span the function space $\mathcal{F}_l^{(p)}$ at a particular resolution l, which are coded from coarse to fine resolutions for scalability. In this work, we focus on the prediction of finer-grained coefficients given coarser-grained ones by learning parameters of a polynomial bilateral filter (PBF) from data. PBF is a pseudo-linear filter that is signal-dependent with a graph spectral interpretation common in the graph signal processing (GSP) field. We demonstrate PBF’s predictive performance over a linear predictor inspired by MPEG standardization over a wide range of point cloud datasets.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207