MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408492743 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc124-13

Research on semantic segmentation methods for RGB-D urban scenes in the context of artificial intelligence

2025· article· en· W4408492743 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaowen Ma, Xiangyang Ma, Minghui Qiu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Topics in Contemporary Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Computer visionRGB color modelPattern recognition (psychology)Geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To solve the problem of identifying intrinsic relationships between objects and mirror segmentation in semantic segmentation of urban scenes using current multi-modal data, this study innovatively integrates color images, depth information, and thermal images to propose a network model that integrates modal memory sharing and form complementarity, and a hierarchical assisted fusion network model. Compared with existing advanced urban scene semantic segmentation methods, the proposed method performed excellently in terms of performance, with an average pixel accuracy and mean intersection over union of over 80% for different objects. In addition, the research method achieved clearer and more complete segmentation results by strengthening contextual associations, and edge processing is also smoother. Even in object segmentation with similarities in distance, shape, and brightness such as “vegetation” and “sidewalk”, the research method still maintained high accuracy. The research method can effectively handle the complexity of urban scenes, providing a new solution for semantic segmentation of multi-modal data in urban scenes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicDiverse Topics in Contemporary ResearchFrench-language works237,207