MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413377297 · doi:10.3390/rs17162825

Context-Aware Feature Adaptation for Mitigating Negative Transfer in 3D LiDAR Semantic Segmentation

2025· article· en· W4413377297 on OpenAlexafffund
Lamiae El Mendili, Sylvie Daniel, Thierry Badard

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaUniversité Laval
KeywordsComputer scienceLidarAdaptation (eye)Feature (linguistics)Context (archaeology)SegmentationRemote sensingArtificial intelligenceGeographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semantic segmentation of 3D LiDAR point clouds is crucial for autonomous driving and urban modeling but requires extensive labeled data. Unsupervised domain adaptation from synthetic to real data offers a promising solution, yet faces the challenge of negative transfer, particularly due to context shifts between domains. This paper introduces Context-Aware Feature Adaptation, a novel approach to mitigate negative transfer in 3D unsupervised domain adaptation. The proposed approach disentangles object-specific and context-specific features, refines source context features through cross-attention with target information, and adaptively fuses the results. We evaluate our approach on challenging synthetic-to-real adaptation scenarios, demonstrating consistent improvements over state-of-the-art domain adaptation methods with up to 7.9% improvement in classes subject to context shift. Our comprehensive domain shift analysis reveals a positive correlation between context shift magnitude and performance improvement. Extensive ablation studies and visualizations further validate the efficacy in handling context shift for 3D semantic segmentation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207