MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7009447182

An Efficient Neural Network Architecture and Training Protocol for 3D Point Cloud Classification

2023· dissertation· en· W7009447182 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMitacsConcordia University
KeywordsPoint cloudCloud computingSet (abstract data type)Protocol (science)Point (geometry)Artificial neural networkData setNetwork architecture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The point cloud is a set of data points in a 3D coordinate system with an irregular data format. As a result, they are needed to be transformed into a collection of images before being fed into models. This unnecessarily increases the volume of the data and increases complexities. The existing literature on point cloud uses a fixed number of points sampled from the whole point cloud as the input. However, with large point cloud data, it is important to consider more points as input to have a better understanding of the scene. The computational expense increases if the input number of points increases for existing networks. Our research contributes to the existing point cloud classification literature in two directions. First, we develop a training protocol for improved point cloud training accuracy on top of the existing PointNet \\cite{qi2017pointnet} architecture over the ModelNet10 dataset. A few variations of encoder models have been proposed in this regard. Also, an extensive hyperparameter study and ablation study are done. These experiments achieve a 6.10\\% improvement over the baseline model. After that, we propose DualNet, a novel 3D point cloud network that resolves the trade-off between the number of input points and the computational expense of 3D data. The DualNet consists of two branches: DensetNet and SparseNet. The SparseNet is a comparatively large network in terms of number of parameters, that samples a small number of points from the whole point cloud. Whereas the DenseNet is a lightweight network that takes a large number of points as input. SparseNet is composed of more number of channels than DenseNet making it more computationally expensive than DenseNet. While the accuracy of the model shows good improvement when the number of points increases, the overall computational cost of DenseNet does not increase much in such settings. DualNet shows 0.81\\% and 0.45\\% increase in the SOTA results on ModelNet40 and ScanObjectNN respectively. In respect of computational complexity, our model takes about 40\\% less time compared to SOTA.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207