Effects of Range-based LiDAR Point Cloud Density Manipulation on 3D Object Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, much progress has been made in LiDAR-based 3D object detection mainly due to advances in detector architecture designs and availability of large-scale LiDAR datasets. Existing 3D object detectors tend to perform well on the point cloud regions closer to the LiDAR sensor as opposed to on regions that are farther away. In this paper, we investigate this problem from the data perspective instead of detector architecture design. We observe that there is a learning bias in detection models towards the dense objects near the sensor and show that the detection performance can be improved by simply manipulating the input point cloud density at different distance ranges without modifying the detector architecture and without data augmentation. We propose a model-free point cloud density adjustment pre-processing mechanism that uses iterative MCMC optimization to estimate near-optimal parameters for altering the point density at different distance ranges. We conduct experiments using four state-of-the-art LiDAR 3D object detectors on two public LiDAR datasets, namely Waymo and ONCE. Our results demonstrate that our range-based point cloud density manipulation technique can improve the performance of the existing detectors, which in turn could potentially inspire future detector designs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".