Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Calibrated and Efficient Sampling-Free Confidence Estimation for LiDAR Scene Semantic Segmentation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A product of pairwise Gaussian CDFs replaces Monte Carlo sampling for calibrated LiDAR confidence, achieving low calibration error with 15–18x faster inference.

desk verdict Useful sampling-free confidence bound with a real speedup, but the paper overclaims the bound's tightness without quantifying it. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11935 v2 pith:IXCJQUKU submitted 2024-11-18 cs.CV cs.LG

Hanieh Shojaei Miandashti , Qianqian Zou , Claus Brenner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords confidencecalibrationaleatoricuncertaintyLiDARsemanticsegmentationsampling-freeestimationGaussianlogitsAdaptiveErrordeepensembles
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a sampling-free method for computing well-calibrated confidence values in LiDAR semantic segmentation by treating each class logit as a Gaussian with a learned mean and variance. The confidence is the probability that the predicted class's logit exceeds all competing logits, which is approximated by a closed-form lower bound built from pairwise Gaussian CDFs. The authors show that this lower bound closely matches exact Monte Carlo confidence, is systematically slightly underconfident, and yields low Adaptive Calibration Error (ACE) — 1.70% for RangeViT and 1.33% for SalsaNext on SemanticKITTI when combined with deep ensembles — while cutting inference time by 15–18 times relative to logit-sampling. If correct, the result matters because it makes calibrated, conservatively biased uncertainty estimates practical for real-time safety-critical perception in autonomous driving.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pairwise Gaussian CDF identity $\Phi_{1,i} = \Phi(\mu_1 - \mu_i \mid 0,\, \sigma_1^2 + \sigma_i^2)$ and the lower bound of Equation 4: $P(X_1 \geq \max_{i\geq 2} X_i) \geq \prod_{i=2}^C \Phi_{1,i}$. This reduces the multi-class selection probability — an integral over a product of $C-1$ Gaussian CDFs with no closed form — to a product of $C-1$ one-dimensional Gaussian cumulative probabilities, each computable exactly in closed form. The proof mechanism is the positive covariance of strictly monotone functions of a random variable: since $\Phi_i(X)$ are all increasing functions of $X$, their product's expectation is at least the product of their expectations. The machinery carries the whole argument by replacing Monte Carlo integration with a deterministic, sampling-free estimate that is guaranteed to be conservative.

What would settle it

Measure the empirical distribution of logits from a trained model on a held-out set and compare against the fitted Gaussians, for example with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov or chi-square test; if the deviations are large for the classes that compete with the prediction, the lower bound is no longer a true probability bound for the real logits and the ACE gap relative to exact Monte Carlo confidence should widen. A concrete version on SemanticKITTI: for every point, compute both Equation 2 (exact Monte Carlo with many samples) and Equation 4 (the lower bound); the claim predicts the bound never exceeds the exact value and the average gap stays small, so a violation of that ordering or an average gap large enough to shift ACE by several points on a held-out split would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the multi-class confidence integral $P(X_1 \geq \max_{i\geq 2} X_i)$ can be bounded from below by a product of $C-1$ pairwise Gaussian CDF evaluations, $P(X_1 \geq X_i)$, each with a closed form. Because Gaussian CDFs are monotone and thus positively correlated under the winning logit's distribution, the expectation of their product is at least the product of their expectations; the paper proves this and shows empirically that the bound is nearly tight, with the residual difference manifesting as slight underconfidence. The authors argue this makes aleatoric uncertainty — sensor noise, sparse and distance-dependent LiDAR points, reflectivity variation — explicitly available at inference time without Monte Carlo draws, and that combining this aleatoric confidence with epistemic uncertainty from deep ensembles or MC dropout yields the best-calibrated confidences among the methods compared.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every class logit is exactly Gaussian with the mean and variance the network predicts; if real logits are heavy-tailed, multimodal, or otherwise non-Gaussian, the confidence estimate and the lower-bound guarantee are no longer exact, and calibration could degrade as the CIFAR-100 results suggest when the class count grows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The sampling-free bound lets per-pixel confidence be computed in 0.25–0.28 ms for LiDAR range-view images on a single GPU, while logit-sampling adds 6.82G FLOPs and 15–18× more latency.
  • The method's systematic underconfidence means error-prone points, such as misclassified bikes, poles, and ambiguous sidewalk/street regions, receive higher uncertainty, which is the desirable direction for downstream risk-aware planning.
  • Combining the aleatoric confidence with epistemic uncertainty from deep ensembles or MC dropout yields ACE of 1.70% on RangeViT and 1.33% on SalsaNext on SemanticKITTI, outperforming temperature scaling and its ensemble variants.
  • The pipeline transfers to image classification: on CIFAR-100, the sampling-free approach with deep ensembles achieves ACE 1.80%, approaching the sampling baseline's 1.16% while running far faster.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method is not LiDAR-specific: the Gaussian-logit plus pairwise-CDF lower bound applies to any multi-class classifier whose logits can be modeled as Gaussian, so image segmentation, object detection, and other dense prediction tasks could adopt the same machinery.
  • The lower bound loses tightness as the number of classes grows, as hinted by the larger ACE gap on CIFAR-100; applying the product only over the top-k competing classes and absorbing the rest into a residual term could trade a little conservativeness for tighter calibration in high-class-count settings.
  • Because the bound is guaranteed conservative, pairing it with an upper bound on the true confidence would yield an interval estimate, giving downstream planners both a pessimistic and a plausible value to act on.
  • The training-time cost of predicting per-class variance is the method's main overhead; a shared uncertainty head that amortizes variance prediction across classes could reduce that cost while preserving the lower-bound guarantee.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a sampling-free confidence estimation method for LiDAR semantic segmentation. A network is trained to predict a Gaussian distribution over each class logit, and the confidence of the predicted class is defined as the probability that its logit exceeds all competing logits. Since this probability lacks a closed form, the authors derive a lower bound as the product of pairwise Gaussian CDF comparisons and use this bound as the confidence estimate. They evaluate on SemanticKITTI and nuScenes with SalsaNext and RangeViT, comparing against temperature scaling, logit-sampling, deep ensembles, MC dropout, and evidential deep learning using ACE and reliability diagrams. The paper reports lower ACE than temperature scaling, underconfident behavior, and a 15-18x speedup over logit-sampling.

Significance. If the central approximation claim is supported, the paper makes a practically useful contribution: a closed-form, parameter-free-at-inference confidence estimate for Gaussian-logit classifiers that avoids Monte Carlo sampling. The lower-bound inequality is proven in Appendix A.1 and the proof is sound. The empirical scope is relevant, covering two LiDAR segmentation benchmarks and two backbone architectures, and the combination with epistemic uncertainty methods follows an established direction. However, the paper currently supports its headline claim mainly with a scatter plot, reports no error bars, and leaves the aleatoric-epistemic combination unspecified, so the significance is conditional on substantial revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (2) and (4)] The claim that the lower-bound confidence 'exhibits only a negligible difference' from the exact confidence is not quantified. Figure 1a is a scatter plot on an unspecified subset of SemanticKITTI test samples with SalsaNext only; no mean or maximum absolute error, correlation coefficient, or fraction of points with large deviation is reported. This is load-bearing because Eq. (4) is a mathematical lower bound whose gap can be substantial: E[prod_i Phi_i(X)] - prod_i E[Phi_i(X)] is not guaranteed small when several pairwise probabilities are not close to 1, and the gap can grow with class count. Please report quantitative tightness statistics (e.g., mean/median/max absolute deviation, 95th percentile, fraction of points with deviation > 0.05) over the full validation sets for both SemanticKITTI and nuScenes and both backbones, and ideally compare the ACE of the bound against the ACE of the exact Monte Carlo confidence.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 1] The text states that 'a trend that also holds for SalsaNext, where the same combination yields an ACE of 1.33%' for the sampling-free method with deep ensembles, but Table 1 reports logit-sampling + DE achieving 1.21% ACE on SalsaNext, which is lower than 1.33%. The best-performing configuration on SalsaNext is therefore not the proposed sampling-free method. This contradiction should be corrected, and the comparison should be qualified accordingly.
  3. [Tables 1 and 3] All experimental results are single-run point estimates with no error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple seeds. Given the small differences among top configurations (e.g., 1.70% vs 1.83% on RangeViT SemanticKITTI, or 1.33% vs 1.21% on SalsaNext), the claims of superiority or equivalence are not statistically supported. Please add standard deviations over at least three runs or bootstrap confidence intervals for the main ACE and time measurements.
  4. [Section 4.3] The procedure for combining aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty is not specified. The text says 'combining our aleatoric confidence estimation with DE and MC dropout' but does not state whether the Gaussian parameters are averaged over ensemble members, whether logit samples are drawn per member, or whether the final confidences are averaged. Without this information, the headline combined results (e.g., 1.70% ACE on RangeViT) cannot be reproduced or interpreted.
  5. [Section 3.1.1 and Appendix A.3] The Gaussian assumption on logits is not validated. The exact probability in Eq. (2) and the lower bound in Eq. (4) are only correct if each class logit is exactly Gaussian with the predicted mean and variance. The CIFAR-100 results in Table 3 show a larger degradation for the sampling-free method (ACE 1.80 vs 1.16 for logit-sampling with DE), which is consistent with the bound loosening or the Gaussian assumption failing as the class count grows. Please provide diagnostics such as normality tests on held-out logit samples, variance-calibration checks, or an analysis of how the bound's tightness varies with the number of competing classes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports ACE values of 1.70% and 1.33% as the results 'using RangeViT and SalsaNext', but these values correspond to the sampling-free method combined with deep ensembles, not to the plain sampling-free approach (which is 2.06% and 2.15% in Table 1). Please clarify this distinction.
  2. [Section 4.2] The subset of SemanticKITTI test samples used for Figure 1a is not described. Please specify its size and selection procedure so that the scatter plot can be interpreted.
  3. [Table 1] The inference-time units are inconsistent: milliseconds for SemanticKITTI and seconds for nuScenes. Please use a single unit or clearly annotate the columns.
  4. [Section A.1] In the proof of the lower bound, the functions f and g are introduced abstractly; identifying them explicitly as Phi_b and Phi_c before defining the constant a would make the argument easier to follow.
  5. [Section 6] The underconfidence property is presented as an empirical observation, but it follows directly from Eq. (4) being a lower bound. The text should acknowledge this mathematical origin when discussing the safety-advantage claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the confidence bound is a closed-form function of trained Gaussian parameters, calibration is evaluated on held-out data, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Confidence is defined as P(X1 >= max_{i>=2} Xi) under Gaussian logits (Section 3.1.1, Eq. 1), approximated by Monte Carlo (Eq. 2), solved in closed form for two classes (Eq. 3), and bounded by the product of pairwise CDFs (Eq. 4). The lower bound is derived in Appendix A.1 using the non-negative covariance of monotonically increasing functions; it is a mathematical inequality, not an assumed equivalence. The network's Gaussian parameters are produced by a training loss over sampled softmax outputs, and the reported confidence values are then computed directly from those parameters with no validation-set fitting, temperature scaling, or other post-hoc calibration. Calibration claims are supported by held-out benchmark evaluations (SemanticKITTI, nuScenes, CIFAR-10/100) using ACE and reliability diagrams. The underconfidence property is consistent with the fact that Eq. 4 is a lower bound on the exact Gaussian confidence, but the paper also verifies it against true classification accuracy, so the claim is not merely definitional. The assertion that the lower bound 'exhibits only a negligible difference' to the exact value is presented with a scatter plot rather than quantitative error statistics; this is a rigor or verification gap, not circularity, because no experimental result used to measure calibration is an input to the confidence formula. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no fitted parameter disguised as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's central claim rests on the Gaussianity of logits and on a standard mathematical inequality; it introduces no new physical or architectural entities. The training hyperparameter T is the main free knob not fully disclosed.

free parameters (2)
  • T (training samples per logit) = not stated
    During training, the loss averages softmax over T samples from each Gaussian logit distribution (Section 3). The value of T is not given in the paper, but it controls the fidelity of the Gaussian training and thus the quality of the predicted variances.
  • Number of Monte Carlo samples for exact/baseline = 50 for logit-sampling
    The logit-sampling baseline uses 50 samples; the 'exact' comparison in Figure 1 likely uses a larger number, but this is not specified.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Class logits are Gaussian-distributed with predicted mean and per-class variance
    Section 3: the network outputs mean and variance for each logit; all confidence derivations and the lower bound assume this distribution. If logits deviate from Gaussian, the probabilities are not exact.
  • standard math The pairwise Gaussian CDFs are strictly monotone, making the covariance non-negative and the product lower bound valid
    Appendix A.1: uses Chebyshev's integral inequality / the FKG-type argument that expectations of products of increasing functions of a random variable exceed the product of expectations.
  • domain assumption The predicted class is the one with the highest mean logit
    Section 3.1: the winner class is selected by argmax of mean, and confidence is defined with respect to this selection rule. This is consistent with softmax classification when variance is ignored but is still an assumption about the decision rule.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Calibrated and Efficient Sampling-Free Confidence Estimation for LiDAR Scene Semantic Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IXCJQUKU

@misc{pith2026241111935,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Calibrated and Efficient Sampling-Free Confidence Estimation for LiDAR Scene Semantic Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IXCJQUKU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11935}
}
read the original abstract

Reliable deep learning models require not only accurate predictions but also well-calibrated confidence estimates to ensure dependable uncertainty estimation. This is crucial in safety-critical applications like autonomous driving, which depend on rapid and precise semantic segmentation of LiDAR point clouds for real-time 3D scene understanding. In this work, we introduce a sampling-free approach for estimating well-calibrated confidence values for classification tasks, achieving alignment with true classification accuracy and significantly reducing inference time compared to sampling-based methods. Our evaluation using the Adaptive Calibration Error (ACE) metric for LiDAR semantic segmentation shows that our approach maintains well-calibrated confidence values while achieving increased processing speed compared to a sampling baseline. Additionally, reliability diagrams reveal that our method produces underconfidence rather than overconfident predictions, an advantage for safety-critical applications. Our sampling-free approach offers well-calibrated and time-efficient predictions for LiDAR scene semantic segmentation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11935 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Reliability diagrams comparing cali￾bration of our method against temperature scal￾ing (TS) and uncalibrated (MCP) models on Se￾manticKITTI validation set using SalsaNext and RangeViT. Our method shows better calibration (closer to perfect calibration). 4.2 Comparative analysis of sampling-based and sampling-free confidence computations To support our first claim that the sampling-free lower bound approach closely e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison of uncertainty maps from the logit-sampling baseline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Illustration for three classes X ∼ N (µa = 4, σ2 a = 1), Y ∼ N (µb = 1, σ2 b = 1), and Z ∼ N (µc = −1, σ2 c = 42 ). As µa > µb, µc, class A (rightmost peak) will be the predicted class. The pairwise confidences are P(X > Y ) = 0.9831 and P(X > Z) = 0.8874 (so although µc < µb, it is more likely to confuse A with C than A with B, due to the large σc). The lower bound is P(X > Y )·P(X > Z) = 0.8723, whereas the exact … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of significant uncertainty arising from the confusion between the side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of a misclassified ground region with high uncertainty. Un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of uncertainty estimates for a semantically ambiguous region appear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. Guo, G. Pleiss, Y . Sun, and K. Q. Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1321–1330. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    Ovadia, E

    Y . Ovadia, E. Fertig, J. Ren, Z. Nado, D. Sculley, S. Nowozin, J. Dillon, B. Lakshminarayanan, and J. Snoek. Can you trust your model’s uncertainty? evaluating predictive uncertainty under dataset shift. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    D.-B. Wang, L. Feng, and M.-L. Zhang. Rethinking calibration of deep neural networks: Do not be afraid of overconfidence. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34: 11809–11820, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Gawlikowski, C

    J. Gawlikowski, C. R. N. Tassi, M. Ali, J. Lee, M. Humt, J. Feng, A. Kruspe, R. Triebel, P. Jung, R. Roscher, et al. A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(Suppl 1):1513–1589, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    C. Wang. Calibration in deep learning: A survey of the state-of-the-art. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01222, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Lakshminarayanan, A

    B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, and C. Blundell. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017

    2017

  7. [7]

    Gal and Z

    Y . Gal and Z. Ghahramani. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncer- tainty in deep learning. In international conference on machine learning , pages 1050–1059. PMLR, 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    On the Limitations of Temperature Scaling for Distributions with Overlaps

    M. Chidambaram and R. Ge. On the limitations of temperature scaling for distributions with overlaps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00740, 2023. 9

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Gal et al

    Y . Gal et al. Uncertainty in deep learning. thesis, University of Cambridge, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Mukhoti, A

    J. Mukhoti, A. Kirsch, J. van Amersfoort, P. H. Torr, and Y . Gal. Deep deterministic uncer- tainty: A new simple baseline. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 24384–24394, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Osband, Z

    I. Osband, Z. Wen, S. M. Asghari, V . Dwaracherla, M. Ibrahimi, X. Lu, and B. Van Roy. Epistemic neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:2795– 2823, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Behley, M

    J. Behley, M. Garbade, A. Milioto, J. Quenzel, S. Behnke, C. Stachniss, and J. Gall. Se- mantickitti: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of lidar sequences. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 9297–9307, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Caesar, V

    H. Caesar, V . Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. V ora, V . E. Liong, Q. Xu, A. Krishnan, Y . Pan, G. Baldan, and O. Beijbom. nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 11621–11631, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Nixon, M

    J. Nixon, M. W. Dusenberry, L. Zhang, G. Jerfel, and D. Tran. Measuring calibration in deep learning. In CVPR workshops, volume 2, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Hendrycks and K

    D. Hendrycks and K. Gimpel. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02136, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jiang, B

    H. Jiang, B. Kim, M. Guan, and M. Gupta. To trust or not to trust a classifier. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Corbi `ere, N

    C. Corbi `ere, N. Thome, A. Bar-Hen, M. Cord, and P. P ´erez. Addressing failure prediction by learning model confidence. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Thulasidasan, G

    S. Thulasidasan, G. Chennupati, J. A. Bilmes, T. Bhattacharya, and S. Michalak. On mixup training: Improved calibration and predictive uncertainty for deep neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    M. Kull, M. Perello Nieto, M. K ¨angsepp, T. Silva Filho, H. Song, and P. Flach. Beyond tem- perature scaling: Obtaining well-calibrated multi-class probabilities with dirichlet calibration. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Zadrozny and C

    B. Zadrozny and C. Elkan. Transforming classifier scores into accurate multiclass probability estimates. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 694–699, 2002

    2002

  13. [21]

    R. M. Neal. Bayesian learning for neural networks, volume 118. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Sensoy, L

    M. Sensoy, L. Kaplan, and M. Kandemir. Evidential deep learning to quantify classification uncertainty. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Louizos and M

    C. Louizos and M. Welling. Multiplicative normalizing flows for variational bayesian neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2218–2227. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Blundell, J

    C. Blundell, J. Cornebise, K. Kavukcuoglu, and D. Wierstra. Weight uncertainty in neural network. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1613–1622. PMLR, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Kendall, V

    A. Kendall, V . Badrinarayanan, and R. Cipolla. Bayesian segnet: Model uncertainty in deep convolutional encoder-decoder architectures for scene understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.02680, 2015. 10

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    K. Lee, H. Lee, K. Lee, and J. Shin. Training confidence-calibrated classifiers for detecting out-of-distribution samples. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.09325, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kendall and Y

    A. Kendall and Y . Gal. What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision? Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    Y . Guo, H. Wang, Q. Hu, H. Liu, L. Liu, and M. Bennamoun. Deep learning for 3d point clouds: A survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , 43(12): 4338–4364, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    C. R. Qi, L. Yi, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Q. Hu, B. Yang, L. Xie, S. Rosa, Y . Guo, Z. Wang, N. Trigoni, and A. Markham. Randla-net: Efficient semantic segmentation of large-scale point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 11108–11117, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    G. Puy, A. Boulch, and R. Marlet. Using a waffle iron for automotive point cloud semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 3379–3389, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Thomas, C

    H. Thomas, C. R. Qi, J.-E. Deschaud, B. Marcotegui, F. Goulette, and L. J. Guibas. Kpconv: Flexible and deformable convolution for point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision, pages 6411–6420, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    C. Choy, J. Gwak, and S. Savarese. 4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3075–3084, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Cheng, R

    R. Cheng, R. Razani, E. Taghavi, E. Li, and B. Liu. 2-s3net: Attentive feature fusion with adaptive feature selection for sparse semantic segmentation network. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12547–12556, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    H. Tang, Z. Liu, S. Zhao, Y . Lin, J. Lin, H. Wang, and S. Han. Searching efficient 3d architec- tures with sparse point-voxel convolution. In European conference on computer vision, pages 685–702. Springer, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    X. Zhu, H. Zhou, T. Wang, F. Hong, Y . Ma, W. Li, H. Li, and D. Lin. Cylindrical and asym- metrical 3d convolution networks for lidar segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9939–9948, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Huang and S

    J. Huang and S. You. Point cloud labeling using 3d convolutional neural network. In 2016 23rd International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 2670–2675. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  30. [38]

    Q. Chen, S. V ora, and O. Beijbom. Polarstream: Streaming object detection and segmentation with polar pillars. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:26871–26883, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Zhang, Z

    Y . Zhang, Z. Zhou, P. David, X. Yue, Z. Xi, B. Gong, and H. Foroosh. Polarnet: An improved grid representation for online lidar point clouds semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9601–9610, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Cortinhal, G

    T. Cortinhal, G. Tzelepis, and E. Erdal Aksoy. Salsanext: Fast, uncertainty-aware semantic segmentation of lidar point clouds. In Advances in Visual Computing: 15th International Symposium, ISVC 2020, San Diego, CA, USA, October 5–7, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 15 , pages 207–2...

    2020

  33. [41]

    C. Xu, B. Wu, Z. Wang, W. Zhan, P. Vajda, K. Keutzer, and M. Tomizuka. Squeezesegv3: Spatially-adaptive convolution for efficient point-cloud segmentation. In Computer Vision– ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXVIII 16, pa...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Milioto, I

    A. Milioto, I. Vizzo, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss. Rangenet++: Fast and accurate lidar semantic segmentation. In 2019 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pages 4213–4220. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    L. Kong, Y . Liu, R. Chen, Y . Ma, X. Zhu, Y . Li, Y . Hou, Y . Qiao, and Z. Liu. Rethinking range view representation for lidar segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 228–240, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    A. Ando, S. Gidaris, A. Bursuc, G. Puy, A. Boulch, and R. Marlet. Rangevit: Towards vi- sion transformers for 3d semantic segmentation in autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5240–5250, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    T.-Y . Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He, and P. Doll ´ar. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pages 2980–2988, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    Berman, A

    M. Berman, A. R. Triki, and M. B. Blaschko. The lov ´asz-softmax loss: A tractable surrogate for the optimization of the intersection-over-union measure in neural networks. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4413–4421, 2018

    2018

  39. [47]

    M. P. Naeini, G. Cooper, and M. Hauskrecht. Obtaining well calibrated probabilities using bayesian binning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 29, 2015

    2015

  40. [48]

    Krizhevsky and G

    A. Krizhevsky and G. Hinton. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Toronto, ON, Canada, 2009

    2009

  41. [49]

    Simonyan and A

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recog- nition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014. 12 A Supplementary Material A.1 Derivation of the lower bound formula This derives the lower bound formula (Equation 4) of the main paper. ...

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.