MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413144712 · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.00625

PSA-SSL: Pose and Size-aware Self-Supervised Learning on LiDAR Point Clouds

2025· article· en· W4413144712 on OpenAlexaff
Barza Nisar, Steven L. Waslander

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHuman Pose and Action Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudComputer scienceLidarArtificial intelligencePoint (geometry)Computer visionRemote sensingGeographyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-supervised learning (SSL) on 3D point clouds has the potential to learn feature representations that can transfer to diverse sensors and multiple downstream perception tasks. However, recent SSL approaches fail to define pretext tasks that retain geometric information such as object pose and scale, which can be detrimental to the performance of downstream localization and geometry-sensitive 3D scene understanding tasks, such as 3D semantic segmentation and 3D object detection. We propose PSA-SSL, a novel extension to point cloud SSL that learns object pose and size-aware (PSA) features. Our approach defines a self-supervised bounding box regression pretext task, which retains object pose and size information. Furthermore, we incorporate LiDAR beam pattern augmentation on input point clouds, which encourages learning sensor-agnostic features. Our experiments demonstrate that with a single pretrained model, our light-weight yet effective extensions achieve significant improvements on 3D semantic segmentation with limited labels across popular autonomous driving datasets (Waymo, nuScenes, SemanticKITTI). Moreover, our approach outperforms other state-of-the-art SSL methods on 3D semantic segmentation (using up to 10 times less labels), as well as on 3D object detection. Our code will be released on https://github.com/TRAILab/PSA-SSL.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Pose and Action RecognitionFrench-language works237,207