MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413926070 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2025.3605383

Exploring Token Serialization for Mamba-Based LiDAR Point Cloud Segmentation

2025· article· en· W4413926070 on OpenAlexaff
Dening Lu, Kyle Gao, Jonathan Li, Dedong Zhang, Linlin Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Waterloo
FundersChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsLidarPoint cloudSerializationRemote sensingComputer scienceSegmentationCloud computingGeologyComputer visionOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LiDAR point cloud segmentation has increasingly benefited from the application of Mamba-based models. However, unordered and irregular natures of point clouds necessitates serialization, which significantly impacts the performance of Mamba-based methods. This paper explores the critical role of token serialization in Mamba-based point cloud processing, using the pure Mamba network, PointMamba, as the baseline. We systematically investigated existing point cloud serialization methods, evaluating their performance on two challenging LiDAR datasets: the airborne MultiSpectral LiDAR (MS-LiDAR) dataset and the aerial DALES dataset. To explore the inherent factors of serialization contributing to Mamba’s performance, we design novel indicators for serialization quality, focusing on spatial and semantic proximity. These indicators are validated across all datasets, offering a valuable reference and guidance for advancing token serialization in Mamba-based point cloud processing. Guided by these indicators, we proposed a new point cloud serialization method that integrates spatial and semantic features through a weighted comprehensive distance matrix. The proposed method achieves superior accuracy on both LiDAR datasets, surpassing existing approaches, and establishes a strong foundation for advancing Mamba-based point cloud processing.

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 score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207