Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Domain-aware Category-level Geometry Learning Segmentation for 3D Point Clouds

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Category-level geometry improves 3D segmentation across weather

desk verdict Clever per-class geometry idea, but target-domain hyperparameter tuning undermines the reported SOTA gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11265 v1 pith:5G5HRALQ submitted 2025-08-15 cs.CV

Pei He , Lingling Li , Licheng Jiao , Ronghua Shang , Fang Liu , Shuang Wang , Xu Liu , Wenping Ma This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords domaingeneralization3Dpointcloudsegmentationcategory-levelgeometryoptimaltransportWassersteinembeddingadverseweatherLiDARsemantic
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 tries to establish that domain generalization for 3D point-cloud semantic segmentation is improved by learning and aligning geometric information at the level of semantic categories, not just by globally augmenting point-cloud data. It introduces Category-level Geometry Embedding (CGE), which builds a per-class geometric embedding of features using optimal transport in Wasserstein space, and Geometric Consistent Learning (GCL), which simulates adverse-weather distortions and aligns the category-level geometric embeddings of original and simulated point clouds. On standard benchmarks, the combined framework raises mean IoU over the previous state of the art: from 36.1 to 37.5 on SemanticKITTI to SemanticSTF, from 23.6 to 26.3 on SynLiDAR to SemanticSTF, and from 29.1 to 31.3 on SynLiDAR to SemanticKITTI. The paper argues that geometric relations between points are more stable across domains than raw intensity or point density, so category-aware geometry gives the model a transferable signal.

What carries the argument

The central object is the category-level geometry embedding matrix A, built per class from the optimal-transport coupling between point features and a target measure in Wasserstein space, and updated with momentum. The carrying mechanism is the pair of losses: LGPL couples the geometry embedding to semantic labels through a learned correlation matrix Q, and LGCL forces geometry embeddings of simulated adverse-weather features to match the geometry distribution of the original source features, thereby teaching the model which geometric structure is invariant across domains.

What would settle it

Replace the proposed simulations Ψ1 and Ψ2 with equally sized generic random point perturbations (Gaussian height jitter and random intensity scaling applied to random points); if mean IoU on SemanticSTF does not drop substantially, the specific physics-inspired simulation is not what carries the generalization gain. A complementary check: evaluate on a target domain whose shift is sensor-based (e.g., a LiDAR with a different number of beams) rather than weather-based; if gains vanish, the learned geometry alignment is weather-specific, not domain-invariant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that each semantic class in a LiDAR point cloud has a stable geometric signature, and that making the segmentation model explicitly construct and align these signatures across domain shifts is what drives generalization. The CGE module maps features into a geometry embedding matrix A, one per class, by solving an optimal-transport problem (Sinkhorn divergence) between the feature distribution and a Wasserstein-space target, then couples this embedding to semantic prediction through a geometry property loss. The GCL module creates a simulated adverse-weather view of the source point cloud through random matter accumulation (height and intensity changes) and fuzzy

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the random physics-inspired simulations (Ψ1: random height and intensity changes to mimic matter accumulation; Ψ2: masking low-intensity echoes as unknown to mimic fog) faithfully approximate how real fog, rain, and snow alter LiDAR point clouds, so that aligning geometry embeddings between original and simulated features teaches a domain-invariant geometric representation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LiDAR segmentation models can be trained on clean or synthetic data and then applied to fog, rain, and snow without collecting target-domain data or doing test-time adaptation.
  • Data augmentation for 3D segmentation should be designed to expose category-level geometric structure, not just to increase global point-cloud diversity.
  • Optimal-transport geometry (Wasserstein embedding) appears to act as a useful regularizer for point-cloud features, which may benefit other 3D tasks.
  • The per-class geometry alignment makes test-time augmentation more effective, lifting mIoU from 37.5 to 39.1 on SemanticKITTI to SemanticSTF.
  • The approach is backbone-agnostic: gains hold on both MinkUNet18 and MinkUNet34, suggesting it can be inserted into existing segmentation architectures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not address sensor-based domain shifts (e.g., different beam counts or scanning patterns); if category-level geometry alignment also helps there, the domain-invariance claim would be much stronger than weather-only generalization.
  • The simulation parameters (coverage rate, height range, intensity scaling) are fixed by hand; making them learnable or calibrating them against physics-based fog models could improve transfer and reduce the need for tuning.
  • Because the momentum update of A filters points by true positives from both label and prediction, the method's benefit may shrink when source labels are noisy; this is a testable prediction.
  • The geometry embedding matrix A could be interpreted as a set of per-class geometric prototypes, suggesting a natural connection to few-shot or open-set segmentation where category prototypes are used.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a category-level geometry learning framework (CGE and GCL) for domain-generalized 3D point cloud semantic segmentation. CGE maps point features of each semantic class into a geometric embedding space, claimed to be a Wasserstein space, and couples this embedding to the segmentation loss via a correlation matrix. GCL simulates adverse-weather-like perturbations (matter accumulation and fuzzy recognition) and aligns the original and simulated category-level geometric embeddings with a consistency loss. Experiments on SemanticKITTI→SemanticSTF, SynLiDAR→SemanticSTF, and SynLiDAR→SemanticKITTI report mIoU improvements of 1.4–2.2 points over prior DG methods, with additional ablations and hyperparameter studies.

Significance. If the proposed geometric construction were properly specified and the evaluation protocol were a faithful domain-generalization setting, the idea of category-level geometry alignment for LiDAR segmentation would be a useful and non-obvious contribution. The paper addresses a real gap—most DG methods for point clouds use global augmentation without category-aware geometric consistency. The reported gains, however, rest on an evaluation protocol that tunes hyperparameters directly on the target domain, which invalidates the claimed DG advantage. The geometric derivation is also under-specified, so the mechanism cannot currently be verified or reproduced. The code link is promised but not provided in the review materials. With corrected evaluation and a rigorous formulation of the OT/Wasserstein step, the paper could become a solid contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.6, Tables 7–9; Sec. 4.4, Table 4] The DG claim is undermined by target-domain hyperparameter selection. Tables 7–9 choose β1, β2, ρ, h1, h2, γ1, γ2, and ϵ by maximizing mIoU on SemanticKITTI→SemanticSTF, which is exactly the target domain used in Tables 1 and 3. Table 4 also uses target mIoU to decide which modules to include. In DG, the target domain must be unseen during model selection; Eq. (1) states T is not accessed during training. Because the baseline methods are evaluated with their published fixed configurations, the reported 1.4–2.2 point gains may be a selection artifact rather than evidence of generalization. The authors must re-select hyperparameters on a source-domain validation split (or fix them a priori) and then evaluate on all target sets, reporting mean and variance over multiple runs.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.1, Eq. (2)–(3)] The central geometric construction is under-specified. G0 is never defined beyond a type signature: mapping F to R^{N×C×M}. Eq. (2) applies a Sinkhorn iteration to "G0_(c,Nc)" and "W0_(c,Nc)", but the cost matrix, marginal constraints, and the precise relationship between G0 and W0 are not stated. It is claimed that the embedding lives in a Wasserstein space, but no distance or optimal transport problem is actually formulated. Eq. (3) then asserts A_c = F_(c,Nc)^⊤ W*_(c,Nc) as the mapping to the optimal geometric feature W*, with no derivation. This step is load-bearing: the entire CGE module and the claimed "geometry awareness" depend on it. Without a clear mathematical definition, the method cannot be reproduced or theoretically assessed.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.1, Eqs. (4)–(5); Sec. 3.2.2, Eq. (6)] There are dimension mismatches and notational ambiguities in the embedding formulas. A is defined as CONC_c((F_c)^⊤ W*_c), yielding a tensor in R^{D×C×M} (or D×CM if flattened). Eq. (5) writes G = F A with A ∈ R^{D×C×M}, but matrix multiplication of a D×C×M tensor by an N×D matrix is not defined without explicit reshaping. Similarly, Eq. (6) uses GQ where Q ∈ R^{CM×C}, requiring G to be reshaped or flattened without explanation. These are not cosmetic issues; they affect whether the proposed losses are computable as stated. The authors should provide exact tensor shapes and the contraction/reshape operations used.
  4. [Sec. 3.3.2, Eq. (9); Sec. 4.4, Table 6] The consistency mechanism uses the matrix A computed from original source features to embed simulated features (Gψ = Fψ A). However, A is a source-batch statistic updated by momentum; no evidence is given that this matrix is the right alignment target for the simulated distribution, since the simulation changes the geometric structure (e.g., height and intensity) that A encodes. Table 6 shows large drops when removing "geometry awareness" or "alignment," but because these ablations are also evaluated on the target-tuned configuration, they do not confirm the mechanism. A controlled experiment with fixed hyperparameters and, ideally, a synthetic source-validation split is needed to attribute the gains to the proposed geometry alignment rather than to augmentation alone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues: "V oxel" in Section 2.1, "CONC" should be defined as concatenation, "bi.cle" etc. in Table 1 are inconsistent abbreviations, and Figure 1 overlays equations in a hard-to-read way. The paper would benefit from a careful proofread.
  2. [Sec. 4.4, Table 4] Test-Time Augmentation (TTA) is listed as a module and is reported to add +1.6 mIoU. TTA uses the test input (though not labels) at inference; its inclusion in the main pipeline should be explicitly reconciled with the DG premise, or clearly separated from the reported comparison.
  3. [Sec. 4.6, Tables 7–9] The hyperparameter tables report mIoU values that differ from the main result (e.g., Table 9 reports 39.6% while Table 4 reports 37.5% for the same configuration). The relationship between these numbers is unclear—whether TTA or other components are included—and should be clarified.
  4. [References] References [10]–[12] and [9] are the authors' own prior work and are cited extensively. This is not inappropriate, but the authors should ensure the novelty claims are clearly distinguished from their own earlier method DGUIL, especially since the baseline comparisons reuse the same backbone and training protocol.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Target-domain hyperparameter selection makes the reported SOTA numbers a fit to the test set; otherwise the method is not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.4 / 4.6, Tables 7-9 (SemanticKITTI → SemanticSTF)]
    "we conducted extensive ablation experiments on SemanticKITTI → SemanticSTF ... Table 9 provides ablation experiments on hyperparameters ρ, h1, h2, γ1, γ2. The best miou of 39.6% can be achieved when ρ=0.3, h1=0.05, h2=0.3, γ1=0.3, γ2=1.0."

    SemanticSTF is the target domain of the benchmark on which the paper claims state-of-the-art generalization (Table 1). The hyperparameters β1, β2, ε, ρ, h1, h2, γ1, γ2 are selected by maximizing mIoU on this same target set (Tables 7-9). The reported 'superior performance' of 37.5% (or 39.6% in the parameter study) is therefore not a prediction about an unseen domain: it is the result of target-domain selection. This is the pattern of fitting a parameter to the test distribution and then presenting the resulting test score as evidence of generalization. The method may still have merit, but its central empirical claim is statistically forced by the tuning procedure rather than by the category-level geometry mechanism alone.

full rationale

I examined the derivation chain: CGE constructs per-class embeddings A_c = F_c^T W*_c via Sinkhorn and couples them to segmentation through L_GPL; GCL aligns embeddings of original and simulated features through L_GCL. These are internally consistent supervised objectives, and the source-label dependence of the per-class geometry is the intended use of labels, not a circular prediction. The paper does not invoke a self-citation as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or smuggle an ansatz through a citation; the frequent references to DGUIL [10] are as related work/baseline and do not by themselves force the result. The one substantive circularity is empirical: Section 4.6 uses the target-domain benchmark (SemanticKITTI → SemanticSTF) to select β1, β2, ε, ρ, h1, h2, γ1, γ2 by mIoU on the SemanticSTF test set, then reports the resulting numbers as state-of-the-art domain generalization. That makes the headline generalization claim a fitted evaluation rather than an independent prediction. Note this is not a mathematical equivalence, so I score it 6 (partial circularity) rather than 8-10.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its new constructs are method components (CGE, GCL, the geometry matrix A) and a latent 3D distribution used for alignment; the latent distribution is a modeling assumption, not an independently evidenced entity. All central claims rest on the free parameters and axioms listed above.

free parameters (8)
  • rho (coverage rate) = 0.3 (best in Table 9)
    Fraction of points selected for matter accumulation simulation; chosen by target-domain mIoU.
  • (h1, h2) accumulation height range = 0.05, 0.3 (best in Table 9)
    Uniform bounds for random z offset in Psi1; tuned on the target benchmark.
  • (gamma1, gamma2) intensity scaling range = 0.3, 1.0 (best in Table 9)
    Uniform bounds for intensity adjustment in Psi1; tuned on the target benchmark.
  • beta1, beta2 (Bernoulli probabilities) = beta1=0.3, beta2=0.5 (best in Table 7)
    Probabilities for applying Psi1 and Psi2; selected by target mIoU.
  • epsilon (momentum coefficient) = 0.9999 (best in Table 8)
    Momentum for updating the geometry embedding matrix A; tuned on the target benchmark.
  • sigma (Sinkhorn regularization) = 0.05 (Section 4.2)
    Regularization parameter in Eq. (2); no ablation is reported.
  • M (number of geometric properties) = not specified
    Dimension of the per-class geometry embedding; an architectural choice that is never stated or ablated.
  • Q (correlation matrix) = learned
    R^(CM x C) matrix relating geometric attributes to categories; learned by backpropagation and used in both GPL and GCL losses.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Geometric relations of point clouds are cross-domain stable
    Sections 1 and 2.2 state that underlying geometric relations remain consistent under different acquisition conditions; this motivates the entire invariant-geometry approach.
  • ad hoc to paper Sinkhorn divergence on an unspecified G0 captures category-level geometry
    Section 3.2.1 assumes Eqs. (2)-(4) encode geometry without defining G0 or proving the mapping U0; the mathematical mechanism is asserted rather than derived.
  • domain assumption The random 3D simulation (Psi1, Psi2) approximates the latent 3D target distribution
    Section 3.3.1 claims snow, rain, and fog can be simulated by z offsets, intensity scaling, and label masking; no validation against physical scattering models is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Momentum-updated A computed from source features transfers to simulated features
    Eq. (7) accumulates A from reliable source points, and Eqs. (8)-(9) apply it to simulated features; there is no theoretical or independent empirical justification beyond target results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Domain-aware Category-level Geometry Learning Segmentation for 3D Point Clouds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5G5HRALQ

@misc{pith2026250811265,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Domain-aware Category-level Geometry Learning Segmentation for 3D Point Clouds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5G5HRALQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11265}
}
read the original abstract

Domain generalization in 3D segmentation is a critical challenge in deploying models to unseen environments. Current methods mitigate the domain shift by augmenting the data distribution of point clouds. However, the model learns global geometric patterns in point clouds while ignoring the category-level distribution and alignment. In this paper, a category-level geometry learning framework is proposed to explore the domain-invariant geometric features for domain generalized 3D semantic segmentation. Specifically, Category-level Geometry Embedding (CGE) is proposed to perceive the fine-grained geometric properties of point cloud features, which constructs the geometric properties of each class and couples geometric embedding to semantic learning. Secondly, Geometric Consistent Learning (GCL) is proposed to simulate the latent 3D distribution and align the category-level geometric embeddings, allowing the model to focus on the geometric invariant information to improve generalization. Experimental results verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, which has very competitive segmentation accuracy compared with the state-of-the-art domain generalized point cloud methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.11265 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed category-level geometry learning framework. Category-level Geometry Embedding constructs the geometric properties of each class and couples geometric embedding to semantic learning. Geometric Consistent Learning simulates the latent 3D distribution and aligns the geometric embeddings of original and simulated features through consistent learning. 3. Category-level Geometry Learning 3.1. Prob… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative results of PointDR [35], DGUIL [10], and our approach from normal conditions (SemanticKITTI) to adverse weather. mIoU, which is 3.9% higher than LiDARWeather [25]. This is because the model perceives geometric information and can rely on contextual prediction in a noisy environment. In addition, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Features visualization by t-SNE. The colors and cate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of simulation Ψ1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Se- mantickitti: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of lidar sequences

    Jens Behley, Martin Garbade, Andres Milioto, Jan Quen- zel, Sven Behnke, Cyrill Stachniss, and Jurgen Gall. Se- mantickitti: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of lidar sequences. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF inter- national conference on computer vision , pages 9297–9307,

  2. [2]

    Adpl: Adaptive dual path learning for do- main adaptation of semantic segmentation

    Yiting Cheng, Fangyun Wei, Jianmin Bao, Dong Chen, and Wenqiang Zhang. Adpl: Adaptive dual path learning for do- main adaptation of semantic segmentation. IEEE Transac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 45(8): 9339–9356, 2023. 1

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks

    Christopher Choy, JunYoung Gwak, and Silvio 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,

    work page

  4. [4]

    A novel object re-track framework for 3d point clouds

    Tuo Feng, Licheng Jiao, Hao Zhu, and Long Sun. A novel object re-track framework for 3d point clouds. In Proceed- ings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multime- dia, pages 3118–3126, 2020. 1

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Learning entropic wasserstein embeddings

    Charlie Frogner, Farzaneh Mirzazadeh, and Justin Solomon. Learning entropic wasserstein embeddings. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. 3, 4

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Handling open-set noise and novel target recognition in do- main adaptive semantic segmentation

    Xiaoqing Guo, Jie Liu, Tongliang Liu, and Yixuan Yuan. Handling open-set noise and novel target recognition in do- main adaptive semantic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 45(8):9846– 9861, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Deep learning for 3d point clouds: A survey

    Yulan Guo, Hanyun Wang, Qingyong Hu, Hao Liu, Li Liu, and Mohammed Bennamoun. Deep learning for 3d point clouds: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 43(12):4338–4364, 2021. 1, 2

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Fog simulation on real lidar point clouds for 3d object detection in adverse weather

    Martin Hahner, Christos Sakaridis, Dengxin Dai, and Luc Van Gool. Fog simulation on real lidar point clouds for 3d object detection in adverse weather. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 15283–15292, 2021. 5

    work page 2021

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Manet: Multi- scale aware-relation network for semantic segmentation in aerial scenes

    Pei He, Licheng Jiao, Ronghua Shang, Shuang Wang, Xu Liu, Dou Quan, Kun Yang, and Dong Zhao. Manet: Multi- scale aware-relation network for semantic segmentation in aerial scenes. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 60:1–15, 2022. 2

    2022

  2. [10]

    Domain generalization-aware uncertainty introspective learning for 3d point clouds segmentation

    Pei He, Licheng Jiao, Lingling Li, Xu Liu, Fang Liu, Wen- ping Ma, Shuyuan Yang, and Ronghua Shang. Domain generalization-aware uncertainty introspective learning for 3d point clouds segmentation. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia , pages 65...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Cross-domain scene unsupervised learning segmentation with dynamic subdomains

    Pei He, Licheng Jiao, Fang Liu, Xu Liu, Ronghua Shang, and Shuang Wang. Cross-domain scene unsupervised learning segmentation with dynamic subdomains. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 26:6770–6784, 2024. 1

    2024

  4. [12]

    A patch diversity transformer for domain generalized semantic segmentation

    Pei He, Licheng Jiao, Ronghua Shang, Xu Liu, Fang Liu, Shuyuan Yang, Xiangrong Zhang, and Shuang Wang. A patch diversity transformer for domain generalized semantic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 35(10):14138–14150, 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [13]

    Prototype adaption and projection for few- and zero-shot 3d point cloud semantic segmentation

    Shuting He, Xudong Jiang, Wei Jiang, and Henghui Ding. Prototype adaption and projection for few- and zero-shot 3d point cloud semantic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 32:3199–3211, 2023. 1

    2023

  6. [14]

    Cross-modal learning for domain adaptation in 3d semantic segmentation

    Maximilian Jaritz, Tuan-Hung Vu, Raoul de Charette, ´Emilie Wirbel, and Patrick P´erez. Cross-modal learning for domain adaptation in 3d semantic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 45(2):1533– 1544, 2023. 1

    2023

  7. [15]

    Scalable optimal trans- port methods in machine learning: A contemporary survey

    Abdelwahed Khamis, Russell Tsuchida, Mohamed Tarek, Vivien Rolland, and Lars Petersson. Scalable optimal trans- port methods in machine learning: A contemporary survey. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence, 2024. 4

    2024

  8. [16]

    Single domain generalization for lidar semantic segmentation

    Hyeonseong Kim, Yoonsu Kang, Changgyoon Oh, and Kuk- Jin Yoon. Single domain generalization for lidar semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 17587–17598, 2023. 1, 6, 7

    2023

  9. [17]

    Virtual multi-view fusion for 3d semantic segmentation

    Abhijit Kundu, Xiaoqi Yin, Alireza Fathi, David Ross, Brian Brewington, Thomas Funkhouser, and Caroline Pantofaru. Virtual multi-view fusion for 3d semantic segmentation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part...

    2020

  10. [18]

    Stratified trans- former for 3d point cloud segmentation

    Xin Lai, Jianhui Liu, Li Jiang, Liwei Wang, Hengshuang Zhao, Shu Liu, Xiaojuan Qi, and Jiaya Jia. Stratified trans- former for 3d point cloud segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8500–8509, 2022. 1

    2022

  11. [19]

    Domain generalization with adversarial feature learning

    Haoliang Li, Sinno Jialin Pan, Shiqi Wang, and Alex C Kot. Domain generalization with adversarial feature learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5400–5409, 2018. 6

    2018

  12. [20]

    Semantic hierarchy-aware segmentation

    Liulei Li, Wenguan Wang, Tianfei Zhou, Ruijie Quan, and Yi Yang. Semantic hierarchy-aware segmentation. IEEE Trans- actions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(4): 2123–2138, 2024. 2

    2024

  13. [21]

    Chapman, Dongpu Cao, and Jonathan Li

    Ying Li, Lingfei Ma, Zilong Zhong, Fei Liu, Michael A. Chapman, Dongpu Cao, and Jonathan Li. Deep learning for lidar point clouds in autonomous driving: A review. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 32 (8):3412–3432, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  14. [22]

    Grab-net: Graph-based boundary-aware network for medical point cloud segmentation

    Yifan Liu, Wuyang Li, Jie Liu, Hui Chen, and Yixuan Yuan. Grab-net: Graph-based boundary-aware network for medical point cloud segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42(9):2776–2786, 2023. 1

    2023

  15. [23]

    Explore the influence of shallow information on point cloud registration.IEEE Trans- actions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, pages 1– 13, 2023

    Wenping Ma, Mingyu Yue, Yue Wu, Yongzhe Yuan, Hao Zhu, Biao Hou, and Licheng Jiao. Explore the influence of shallow information on point cloud registration.IEEE Trans- actions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, pages 1– 13, 2023. 1

    2023

  16. [24]

    V oxnet: A 3d con- volutional neural network for real-time object recognition

    Daniel Maturana and Sebastian Scherer. V oxnet: A 3d con- volutional neural network for real-time object recognition. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pages 922–928. IEEE, 2015. 2

    2015

  17. [25]

    Re- thinking data augmentation for robust lidar semantic seg- mentation in adverse weather

    Junsung Park, Kyungmin Kim, and Hyunjung Shim. Re- thinking data augmentation for robust lidar semantic seg- mentation in adverse weather. European Conference on Computer Vision, 2024. 1, 2, 6, 7

    2024

  18. [26]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 652–660,

  19. [27]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space

    Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 2

    2017

  20. [28]

    Compositional seman- tic mix for domain adaptation in point cloud segmentation

    Cristiano Saltori, Fabio Galasso, Giuseppe Fiameni, Nicu Sebe, Fabio Poiesi, and Elisa Ricci. Compositional seman- tic mix for domain adaptation in point cloud segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, 45(12):14234–14247, 2023. 2

    2023

  21. [29]

    Contrastive boundary learning for point cloud segmentation

    Liyao Tang, Yibing Zhan, Zhe Chen, Baosheng Yu, and Dacheng Tao. Contrastive boundary learning for point cloud segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 8489– 8499, 2022. 1

    2022

  22. [30]

    Visualizing data using t-sne

    Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne. Journal of machine learning research , 9 (11), 2008. 8

    2008

  23. [31]

    Generalizing to unseen domains: A survey on do- main generalization

    Jindong Wang, Cuiling Lan, Chang Liu, Yidong Ouyang, Tao Qin, Wang Lu, Yiqiang Chen, Wenjun Zeng, and S Yu Philip. Generalizing to unseen domains: A survey on do- main generalization. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 35(8):8052–8072, 2022. 2

    2022

  24. [32]

    Polarmix: A general data augmen- tation technique for lidar point clouds

    Aoran Xiao, Jiaxing Huang, Dayan Guan, Kaiwen Cui, Shi- jian Lu, and Ling Shao. Polarmix: A general data augmen- tation technique for lidar point clouds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:11035–11048, 2022. 6

    2022

  25. [33]

    Transfer learning from synthetic to real lidar point cloud for semantic segmentation

    Aoran Xiao, Jiaxing Huang, Dayan Guan, Fangneng Zhan, and Shijian Lu. Transfer learning from synthetic to real lidar point cloud for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2795– 2803, 2022. 5

    2022

  26. [34]

    Unsupervised point cloud rep- resentation learning with deep neural networks: A survey

    Aoran Xiao, Jiaxing Huang, Dayan Guan, Xiaoqin Zhang, Shijian Lu, and Ling Shao. Unsupervised point cloud rep- resentation learning with deep neural networks: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, 45(9):11321–11339, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  27. [35]

    3d semantic segmentation in the wild: Learning generalized models for adverse-condition point clouds

    Aoran Xiao, Jiaxing Huang, Weihao Xuan, Ruijie Ren, Kangcheng Liu, Dayan Guan, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik, Shi- jian Lu, and Eric P Xing. 3d semantic segmentation in the wild: Learning generalized models for adverse-condition point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Squeeze- segv3: Spatially-adaptive convolution for efficient point- cloud segmentation

    Chenfeng Xu, Bichen Wu, Zining Wang, Wei Zhan, Peter Vajda, Kurt Keutzer, and Masayoshi Tomizuka. Squeeze- segv3: Spatially-adaptive convolution for efficient point- cloud segmentation. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Pr...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Ept-net: Edge perception trans- former for 3d medical image segmentation

    Jingyi Yang, Licheng Jiao, Ronghua Shang, Xu Liu, Ruiyang Li, and Longchang Xu. Ept-net: Edge perception trans- former for 3d medical image segmentation. IEEE Transac- tions on Medical Imaging, pages 1–1, 2023. 1

    2023

  30. [38]

    Pcl: Proxy-based contrastive learning for domain generalization

    Xufeng Yao, Yang Bai, Xinyun Zhang, Yuechen Zhang, Qi Sun, Ran Chen, Ruiyu Li, and Bei Yu. Pcl: Proxy-based contrastive learning for domain generalization. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7097–7107, 2022. 6

    2022

  31. [39]

    Com- plete & label: A domain adaptation approach to seman- tic segmentation of lidar point clouds

    Li Yi, Boqing Gong, and Thomas Funkhouser. Com- plete & label: A domain adaptation approach to seman- tic segmentation of lidar point clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 15363–15373, 2021. 1

    2021

  32. [40]

    Attan: Attention adversarial networks for 3d point cloud semantic segmentation

    Gege Zhang, Qinghua Ma, Licheng Jiao, Fang Liu, and Qigong Sun. Attan: Attention adversarial networks for 3d point cloud semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 789–796,

  33. [41]

    A curriculum domain adaptation approach to the se- mantic segmentation of urban scenes

    Yang Zhang, Philip David, Hassan Foroosh, and Boqing Gong. A curriculum domain adaptation approach to the se- mantic segmentation of urban scenes. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 42(8):1823– 1841, 2020. 2

    2020

  34. [42]

    Learning shape-invariant rep- resentation for generalizable semantic segmentation

    Yuhang Zhang, Shishun Tian, Muxin Liao, Guoguang Hua, Wenbin Zou, and Chen Xu. Learning shape-invariant rep- resentation for generalizable semantic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 32:5031–5045, 2023. 2

    2023

  35. [43]

    Unimix: Towards domain adaptive and gener- alizable lidar semantic segmentation in adverse weather

    Haimei Zhao, Jing Zhang, Zhuo Chen, Shanshan Zhao, and Dacheng Tao. Unimix: Towards domain adaptive and gener- alizable lidar semantic segmentation in adverse weather. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 14781–14791, 20...

    2024

  36. [44]

    Domain generalization: A survey

    Kaiyang Zhou, Ziwei Liu, Yu Qiao, Tao Xiang, and Chen Change Loy. Domain generalization: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(4):4396–4415, 2022. 2

    2022

  37. [45]

    A survey on open- vocabulary detection and segmentation: Past, present, and future

    Chaoyang Zhu and Long Chen. A survey on open- vocabulary detection and segmentation: Past, present, and future. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(12):8954–8975, 2024. 1

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.