DVIOR: Dynamic Vertical and Low-Intensity Outlier Removal for Efficient Snow Noise Removal from LiDAR Point Clouds in Adverse Weather
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advancement of autonomous driving technology, the performance of LiDAR in adverse weather conditions has garnered increasing attention. Traditional denoising algorithms, including intensity-based methods like LIOR (a representative intensity-based filter that relies solely on signal intensity), have limited effectiveness in handling snow noise, especially in removing dynamic noise points and distinguishing them from environmental features. This paper proposes a Dynamic Vertical and Low-Intensity Outlier Removal (DVIOR) algorithm, specifically designed to optimize LiDAR point cloud data under snowy conditions. The DVIOR algorithm, as an extension of intensity-based filtering augmented with vertical height information, dynamically adjusts filter parameters by combining the height and intensity information of the point cloud, effectively filtering out snow noise while preserving environmental features. In our experiments, the DVIOR algorithm was evaluated on several publicly available adverse weather datasets, including the Winter Adverse Driving Scenarios (WADS), the Canadian Adverse Driving Conditions (CADC), and the Radar Dataset for Autonomous Driving in Adverse weather conditions (RADIATE) datasets. Compared with both the mainstream dynamic distance–intensity hybrid algorithm in recent years, Dynamic Distance–Intensity Outlier Removal (DDIOR), and the representative intensity-based filter LIOR, DVIOR achieved notable improvements: it gained a 10.2-point higher F1-score than DDIOR and an 11.8-point higher F1-score than LIOR (79.00) on the WADS dataset. Additionally, DVIOR performed excellently on the CADC and RADIATE datasets, achieving F1-scores of 87.35 and 86.68, respectively—representing an improvement of 19.82 and 36.9 points over DDIOR and 4.67 and 17.95 points over LIOR (82.68 and 68.73). These results demonstrate that the DVIOR algorithm outperforms existing methods, including both distance–intensity hybrid approaches and intensity-based filters like LIOR, in snow noise removal, particularly in complex snowy environments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".