MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409263175 · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00714

Point-JEPA: A Joint Embedding Predictive Architecture for Self-Supervised Learning on Point Cloud

2025· article· en· W4409263175 on OpenAlexaff
Ayumu Saito, Prachi Kudeshia, Jiju Poovvancheri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEmbeddingJoint (building)Point cloudArchitectureArtificial intelligenceCloud computingMachine learningPoint (geometry)MathematicsEngineeringOperating systemGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advancements in self-supervised learning in the point cloud domain have demonstrated significant potential. However, these methods often suffer from drawbacks such as lengthy pre-training time, the necessity of reconstruction in the input space, and the necessity of additional modalities. In order to address these issues, we introduce Point-JEPA, a joint embedding predictive architecture designed specifically for point cloud data. To this end, we introduce a sequencer that orders point cloud patch embeddings to efficiently compute and utilize their proximity based on their indices during target and context selection. The sequencer also allows shared computations of the patch embeddings' proximity between context and target selection, further improving the efficiency. Experimentally, our method demonstrates state-of-the-art performance while avoiding the re-construction in the input space or additional modality. In particular, Point-JEPA attains a classification accuracy of 93.7 ±0.2 % for linear SVM on ModelNet40 surpassing all other self-supervised models. Moreover, Point-JEPA also establishes new state-of-the-art performance levels across all four few-shot learning evaluation frameworks. The code is available at https://github.com/Ayumu-J-S/Point-JEPA

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 score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207