Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Few to Big: Prototype Expansion Network via Diffusion Learner for Point Cloud Few-shot Semantic Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A frozen diffusion-model encoder, repurposed as a feature learner, gives few-shot 3D point cloud segmentation the extra representational capacity that single-stream prototypes lack.

desk verdict A genuinely new idea for fusing diffusion features into few-shot 3D segmentation, but the core fusion equation is undefined as written and the reported gains rest on it. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.12878 v2 pith:BHUOKQXM submitted 2025-09-16 cs.CV

Qianguang Zhao , Dongli Wang , Yan Zhou , Jianxun Li , Richard Irampa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords few-shotlearningpointcloudsemanticsegmentationprototypeexpansiondiffusionmodelfeaturesalignment3DsceneunderstandingS3DISScanNet
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

PENet argues that the core weakness of few-shot 3D point cloud segmentation is not the number of prototypes but their capacity: prototypes built from one or two support samples cover only part of a class's shape variation and sit in a feature space offset from the query cloud. To fix that, it builds a prototype from two complementary feature streams — a supervised 'intrinsic' stream that keeps class discrimination, and a frozen diffusion-model encoder pretrained with masked reconstruction that contributes broad shape priors. The two prototypes are iteratively pulled and pushed toward each other's feature spaces, then summed into a single big-capacity prototype, with a calibration loss that keeps it from drifting off the support-set semantics. On S3DIS and ScanNet, the claimed result is a consistent gain across 2-way and 3-way, 1-shot and 5-shot settings, with the largest margins in 5-shot cases (up to about +5.95 mIoU).

What carries the argument

The central object is the big-capacity prototype: a single class prototype formed by summing two complementary prototypes, one from the supervised Intrinsic Learner and one from the Diffusion Learner. The mechanism that makes the sum usable is the Prototype Assimilation Module, an iterative push-pull channel-wise attention block: the 'pull' operation uses diffusion-space attention to refine the intrinsic prototypes, and the 'push' operation uses intrinsic-space attention to refine the diffusion prototypes, so the two are mutually aligned to the query distribution before fusion. A Prototype Calibration Mechanism then reconstructs the support-set mask from the fused prototype, anchoring it to

What would settle it

Inspect the released code or the exact tensor shapes: if Di != Dd and no linear projection or dimension-matching layer appears between Eq. 15 and Eq. 16, then the fusion formula cannot be executed as written, and the experimental numbers must come from an unstated adaptation. Alternatively, run the full pipeline with the diffusion stream's weights frozen but its input mask ratio set to 0% (full visibility) or replaced by random noise; if the mIoU gain vanishes, the effect is attributable to the masking or pretraining rather than the architecture's alignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a diffusion model's pretrained conditional encoder, normally used to guide generation, can be repurposed as a feature learner for few-shot segmentation: when the input point cloud is masked at 80% and the encoder is trained to produce a condition vector that lets a denoiser reconstruct the full shape, the encoder is forced to learn holistic class-level geometry. PENet keeps a conventional supervised learner for representative features and adds this diffusion learner for generalizable features, generates prototypes from each, and aligns them with a push-pull cross-guidance attention module before fusing them. The paper reports that this aligned big-capacity prototype

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the diffusion learner's pretrained features and the supervised learner's features live in spaces that can be directly merged by summation; the paper defines the two streams with different channel dimensions (Di and Dd) yet adds the aligned prototypes in Eq. 16 without a projection, so if the spaces are not compatible the reported gains rest on an undefined operation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reusing a frozen diffusion encoder costs no extra annotation and can be plugged into a few-shot segmentation pipeline as a second feature source.
  • Aligning prototypes iteratively matters: one iteration underperforms, three overcorrect, and two is the reported optimum for the assimilation module.
  • The big-capacity prototype maintains above 50% mIoU even at 6-way 1-shot on S3DIS S1, suggesting the expansion helps as the number of novel classes grows.
  • Removing either the diffusion learner or the assimilation module drops 2-way 1-shot S3DIS mIoU by roughly 5.8–7.0 points, indicating both are load-bearing for the reported gains.
  • The gains grow with shot number (5-shot margins larger than 1-shot), consistent with the claim that extra generalizable components let more support points be exploited.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: if the frozen diffusion encoder is the source of gains, the same prototype-expansion recipe could transfer to other few-shot 3D tasks (detection, instance segmentation) and to other point cloud backbones, since the diffusion stream is decoupled from the supervised stream.
  • The paper leaves implicit that the two feature streams have different channel dimensions; a learned projection or explicit alignment before fusion would make the addition in Eq. 16 better defined and could further improve results.
  • A direct test: replace the diffusion stream with a randomly initialized encoder trained with the same mask-reconstruction loss, or with a standard autoencoder, and compare; the paper ablates only removing the diffusion learner entirely, not swapping it for alternative self-supervised encoders.
  • The 80% mask ratio and the diffusion timestep conditioning are not swept; these are natural hyperparameters for probing how much of the effect comes from masking versus the diffusion training objective.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PENet, a few-shot 3D point cloud semantic segmentation method that builds a 'big-capacity prototype' from two complementary feature streams. An Intrinsic Learner (IL, based on DGCNN) provides supervised representative features, while a Diffusion Learner (DL) re-purposes the encoder of a masked diffusion model to provide self-supervised generalizable features. Prototypes are generated from both streams, aligned to the query space by an iterative push-pull cross-attention module (PAM), fused into a single prototype, and regularized by a Prototype Calibration Mechanism (PCM). Experiments on S3DIS and ScanNet report state-of-the-art mIoU across 2-way/3-way, 1-shot/5-shot settings, with ablations for the main modules, the push-pull structure, and the number of PAM iterations.

Significance. If the method operates as described, re-purposing a pre-trained diffusion encoder as a complementary feature stream for few-shot 3D segmentation is a timely and potentially valuable idea. The reported gains over strong baselines such as Seg-PN are substantial (e.g., +3.63 mIoU in S3DIS 2-way 1-shot), and the paper includes useful component ablations that isolate the contributions of the DL, PAM, and PCM. However, the central mechanism is not currently verifiable from the text: the fusion equation is dimensionally inconsistent, the data used to pre-train the diffusion learner is unspecified, and the empirical evaluation lacks error bars while using test-set ablations for key hyperparameters. These issues need to be resolved before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methodology, Eq. (16)] Eq. (1) states that the two feature streams have different channel dimensions (Di, Dd). Accordingly, Eq. (5) gives Pi ∈ R^{(C+1)×Di} and Pd ∈ R^{(C+1)×Dd}. Eq. (16) then defines the fused prototype as P = P̂i + P̂d, which is undefined unless Di = Dd. No projection, linear layer, or fusion MLP appears between Eqs. (15) and (16). The residual MLPs in Eqs. (10) and (15) return each prototype to its native dimension, so they do not resolve the mismatch. Moreover, Eq. (17) requires the final prototype to have the same dimension as the intrinsic support features Fsi (Di), implying an unstated projection. Please specify the common dimension and the projection used before fusion, or explicitly state that Di = Dd in the implementation; otherwise the central 'big-capacity prototype' is not actually constructed by the paper's own mathematics.
  2. [Experiment, Implementation Details] The Diffusion Learner is pre-trained with an 80% masked reconstruction objective, but the text does not specify on which data this pre-training is performed. If the diffusion encoder is pre-trained on the full S3DIS/ScanNet scenes, including the Ctest classes, then the few-shot generalization claim is compromised because novel-class geometry is observed during self-supervised pre-training. Please state clearly that pre-training uses only base-class scenes (Ctrain), or, if an external dataset is used, describe it and justify its relationship to the few-shot splits.
  3. [Tables 1, 2, and 5] All reported numbers are single mean mIoU values without standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests across episodes. Given the stochastic nature of episodic few-shot evaluation, the word 'significantly' in the abstract is not statistically supported. In addition, the PAM iteration count is ablated in Table 5 on the same S3DIS test splits used to report the final results, and the best value M=2 is then adopted; λ=1 appears to be chosen in the same way. This constitutes test-set hyperparameter selection and can inflate the reported margins. Please provide a validation-based selection procedure and report variance across multiple runs or episodes.
  4. [Table 2] Several ScanNet PAP3D averages are arithmetically inconsistent with the S0/S1 entries. For example, in 2-way 1-shot, (57.08 + 66.08)/2 = 61.58, not the reported 55.94; in 2-way 5-shot, (56.51 + 64.55)/2 = 60.53, not 62.10. Please correct the table or explain how these averages were computed. If they are copied from prior work, verify the source values and ensure the comparison is accurate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Appendix] The abstract states 'The code is provided in the Appendix,' but the submitted manuscript contains no appendix. Please either include the code or supplementary material, or remove this claim.
  2. [Implementation Details] The 80% mask ratio is attributed to '(He et al. 2023)', but the Diffusion Learner design is earlier described as inspired by PointDif (Zheng et al. 2024b). The citation seems mismatched; please correct it.
  3. [Methodology, PAM] The text says the push-pull blocks are stacked for 'N iterations' and later 'the number of iterations in the PAM is set to N=2', while Table 5 uses the symbol M. Please unify the notation (N vs. M) throughout.
  4. [Eq. (2)] The notation F^v, C^v, and Pos^v is not fully defined in the main text. Please clarify the patch features, patch-center coordinates, and position embedding dimensions.
  5. [Table 3] The checkmark-based module inclusion is ambiguous for rows such as PENet-D and PENet-E, which have the same number of checkmarks. Please make the included/excluded modules explicit for each ablation variant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PENet is an empirical method paper; claims rest on external benchmarks and standard training losses, with no self-citation load-bearing or fitted-input-called-prediction.

full rationale

The paper is a few-shot point cloud segmentation method with an empirical evaluation. The central claim—that dual-stream prototypes from a supervised Intrinsic Learner and a diffusion-based Diffusion Learner can be fused and aligned to improve query segmentation—is not circular: the method is trained with a segmentation loss on base classes and evaluated on disjoint novel classes on external benchmarks (S3DIS, ScanNet). The Diffusion Learner is pre-trained with a masked reconstruction objective (Eq. 3) independent of the downstream few-shot task; the Prototype Assimilation Module uses attention over query features, not labels, to align prototypes; the Prototype Calibration Mechanism (Eqs. 17-18) is a supervised auxiliary loss on support labels, which is a standard training regularizer, not a prediction. There are no self-citations by the present authors, no uniqueness theorems imported from prior work, and no fitted parameter that is renamed as a prediction. The reported gains are relative to external SOTA methods, so the empirical claims are falsifiable. The only notable mathematical issue is the dimension mismatch in Eq. 16 (Pi in R^{(C+1)xDi}, Pd in R^{(C+1)xDd}, added without a projection), which is a consistency gap in the stated equations, not a circular dependency. Overall, no circular reasoning is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on engineering choices and transfer assumptions rather than on fitted physical constants. The main unexamined assumptions are the transferability of the frozen diffusion features and the dimensional compatibility of the two feature streams, the latter being contradicted by the paper's own equations.

free parameters (3)
  • PAM iteration count M = 2
    Selected based on ablation on the test benchmark (Table 5). M=1 drops 2.82%, M=3 drops 1.97%, so M=2 is tuned to the reported test set.
  • Calibration loss weight λ = 1
    Set by hand in Implementation Details with no sensitivity study and no validation-based selection.
  • Diffusion masking ratio = 80%
    Chosen following prior masking practice. It controls the difficulty of the diffusion pretraining task and therefore the learned features, but no analysis of its effect is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Episodic few-shot setup with disjoint train and test classes yields transferable prototypes.
    Standard meta-learning premise borrowed from prior FS-PCS work; the paper does not validate this transfer assumption independently.
  • domain assumption A diffusion conditional encoder trained to reconstruct masked point clouds learns class-agnostic geometric priors that transfer to novel classes.
    Core motivation for the Diffusion Learner; asserted from the generative capability of diffusion models, with no direct evidence other than final mIoU.
  • ad hoc to paper Prototypes from two feature spaces can be aligned via channel-wise cross attention and merged by simple addition.
    Equations 6 through 16 assume the attention operations and final addition are valid across Di and Dd, which Eq 1 says differ. No projection is specified.
  • domain assumption Frozen pretrained IL and DL remain useful when class labels change.
    Both learners are frozen during meta-learning; the premise is that base-class pretraining transfers to novel classes. This is the standard few-shot assumption but is not tested in isolation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Few to Big: Prototype Expansion Network via Diffusion Learner for Point Cloud Few-shot Semantic Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BHUOKQXM

@misc{pith2026250912878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Few to Big: Prototype Expansion Network via Diffusion Learner for Point Cloud Few-shot Semantic Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BHUOKQXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.12878}
}
read the original abstract

Few-shot 3D point cloud semantic segmentation aims to segment novel categories using a minimal number of annotated support samples. However, prototypes derived from the limited non-structural point cloud support set are often misaligned and have a small capacity, hindering effective gen eralization to novel categories. This stems from two core issues: i) the prototype possess limited representational capacity fails to cover the full intra-class diversity of a novel category, and ii) the prototypes suffer from misalignment with the query space due to the inter-set inconsistency between support and query sets. To address these issues, our work focuses on leveraging the few support samples to construct a well-aligned big-capacity prototype. Motivated by the powerful generative capabilities of diffusion models, we re-purpose its pre-trained conditional encoder to provide rich feature components for prototype ex pansion. Subsequently, a push-pull force aligns this expanded prototype towards the query feature space. Under this setup, we introduce the Prototype Expansion Network (PENet), a framework that constructs aligned big-capacity prototypes from two complementary feature sources. Specifically, PENet employs a dual-stream learner architecture: it retains a conventional fully supervised Intrinsic Learner (IL) to distill representative features, while introducing a novel Diffusion Learner (DL) to provide rich generalizable features. The resulting dual prototypes are then processed by a Prototype Assimilation Module (PAM), which adopts a push-pull attention block to align the prototypes with the query space. Furthermore, a Prototype Calibration Mechanism (PCM) regularizes the final big-capacity prototype to prevent semantic drift. Extensive experiments on the S3DIS and ScanNet datasets demonstrate that PENet outperforms state-of-the-art methods across various few-shot settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.12878 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The motivation of proposed approach. a) The initial distribution in FS-PCS presents two challenges: inter￾set inconsistency between support and query spaces, and intra-class diversity within the query features. b) A conven￾tional learner yields a prototype with a limited representa￾tional range, failing to cover the full class diversity. c) By introducing an additional novel source of generalizable fea￾tures, the pr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overall architecture of our proposed PENet. The upper part illustrates the pre-training of the Diffusion Learner’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of Prototype Assimilation Module [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Model generalizability validation through N-way [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    An, Z.; Sun, G.; Liu, Y.; Liu, F.; Wu, Z.; Wang, D.; Van Gool, L.; and Belongie, S. 2024. Rethinking few-shot 3d point cloud semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3996--4006

    2024

  4. [4]

    R.; Jiang, H.; Brilakis, I.; Fischer, M.; and Savarese, S

    Armeni, I.; Sener, O.; Zamir, A. R.; Jiang, H.; Brilakis, I.; Fischer, M.; and Savarese, S. 2016. 3d semantic parsing of large-scale indoor spaces. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 1534--1543

    2016

  5. [5]

    Bar, A.; Maimon, Y.; and Gafni, Y. 2022. Visual prompting via image inpainting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, 32800--32813

    2022

  6. [6]

    X.; Savva, M.; Halber, M.; Funkhouser, T.; and Nie ner, M

    Dai, A.; Chang, A. X.; Savva, M.; Halber, M.; Funkhouser, T.; and Nie ner, M. 2017. Scannet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 5828--5839

    2017

  7. [7]

    Fei, H.; Wu, S.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, M.; Chua, T.-S.; and Yan, S. 2024. Enhancing video-language representations with structural spatio-temporal alignment. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    2024

  8. [8]

    Gandikota, R.; O'Brien, J.; Zhang, J.; Bao, J.; and Bablani, B. 2023. Erasing concepts from diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07345

    arXiv 2023

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    He, S.; Jiang, X.; Jiang, W.; and Ding, H. 2023. Prototype adaption and projection for few-and zero-shot 3d point cloud semantic segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 32: 3199--3211

    2023

  2. [10]

    Ho, J.; Jain, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2020. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, 6840--6851

    2020

  3. [11]

    Hu, X.; Zhong, B.; Liang, Q.; Zhang, S.; Li, N.; and Li, X. 2024. Towards Modalities Correlation for RGB-T Tracking. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology

    2024

  4. [12]

    Huang, X.; Lin, J.; Chen, J.; Ma, X.; Chen, B.; and Lu, G. 2024. Progressive Stepwise Diffusion Model with Dual Decoders for Semi-Supervised Medical Image Segmentation. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 2060--2067

    2024

  5. [13]

    Huang, Y.; Lei, Y.; Han, J.; and Xu, L. 2023. Part-aware prototypical network for few-shot 3d point cloud semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 1017--1025

    2023

  6. [14]

    Lai, X.; Liu, J.; Jiang, L.; Wang, L.; Zhao, H.; Liu, S.; Qi, X.; and Jia, J. 2022. Stratified transformer for 3d point cloud segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8500--8509

    2022

  7. [15]

    C.; Prabhudesai, M.; Duggal, S.; Brown, E.; and Pathak, D

    Li, A. C.; Prabhudesai, M.; Duggal, S.; Brown, E.; and Pathak, D. 2023. Your diffusion model is secretly a zero-shot classifier. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2206--2217

    2023

  8. [16]

    Li, Y.; Yu, K.; Yang, F.; Shen, C.; Chang, J.; Li, Z.; and Liu, K. 2025. Hierarchical feature-guided prototypical network for few-shot knowledge graph completion. Neural Networks, 107702

    2025

  9. [17]

    Lyu, X.; Lin, P.; Dai, C.; and Li, C. 2022. Lion: Latent point diffusion models for 3d shape generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, 3328--3341

    2022

  10. [18]

    Mao, Y.; Guo, Z.; Xiaonan, L. I. U.; Yuan, Z.; and Guo, H. 2022. Bidirectional Feature Globalization for Few-shot Semantic Segmentation of 3D Point Cloud Scenes. In International Conference on 3D Vision, 505--514

    2022

  11. [19]

    Nichol, A.; Jun, H.; Dhariwal, P.; Mishkin, P.; and Chen, M. 2022. Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08751

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Q.; and Dhariwal, P

    Nichol, A. Q.; and Dhariwal, P. 2021. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 8162--8171

    2021

  13. [21]

    Ning, Z.; Tian, Z.; Lu, G.; and Pei, W. 2023. Boosting few-shot 3d point cloud segmentation via query-guided enhancement. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Multimedia, 1895--1904

    2023

  14. [22]

    Peebles, W.; and Xie, S. 2023. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 4195--4205

    2023

  15. [23]

    J.; and Isenberg, T

    Sereno, M.; Wang, X.; Besan c on, L.; McGuffin, M. J.; and Isenberg, T. 2020. Collaborative work in augmented reality: A survey. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 28(6): 2530--2549

    2020

  16. [24]

    Snell, J.; Swersky, K.; and Zemel, R. 2017. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 4077--4087

    2017

  17. [25]

    Soori, M.; Arezoo, B.; and Dastres, R. 2023. Artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning in advanced robotics, a review. Cognitive Robotics, 3: 54--70

    2023

  18. [26]

    Vinyals, O.; Blundell, C.; Lillicrap, T.; Kavukcuoglu, K.; and Wierstra, D. 2016. Matching networks for one shot learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 3630--3638

    2016

  19. [27]

    Wang, R.; Lam, S.-K.; Wu, M.; Hu, Z.; Wang, C.; and Wang, J. 2025. Destination intention estimation-based convolutional encoder-decoder for pedestrian trajectory multimodality forecast. Measurement, 239: 115470

    2025

  20. [28]

    E.; Bronstein, M

    Wang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Liu, Z.; Sarma, S. E.; Bronstein, M. M.; and Solomon, J. M. 2019. Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds. ACM Transactions on Graphics (tog), 38(5): 1--12

    2019

  21. [29]

    Yu, Z.; Chang, H.; Yu, Z.; Guo, B.; and Shi, R. 2021. Location selection for air quality monitoring with consideration of limited budget and estimation error. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 21(11): 4025--4037

    2021

  22. [30]

    Zhang, C.; Wu, Z.; Wu, X.; Zhao, Z.; and Wang, S. 2023. Few-shot 3d point cloud semantic segmentation via stratified class-specific attention based transformer network. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 3410--3417

    2023

  23. [31]

    Zhang, H.; Wang, C.; Yu, L.; Tian, S.; Ning, X.; and Rodrigues, J. 2024. PointGT: A Method for Point-Cloud Classification and Segmentation Based on Local Geometric Transformation. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia

    2024

  24. [32]

    Zhang, L.; Rao, A.; and Agrawala, M. 2023. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 3836--3847

    2023

  25. [33]

    Zhao, N.; Chua, T.-S.; and Lee, G. H. 2021. Few-shot 3d point cloud semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 8873--8882

    2021

  26. [34]

    Zhao, Y.; Li, A.; Du, Z.; Chen, Y.; Sun, H.; and Zhi, Z. 2024. Joint structure detection and multi-scale clustering filtering for tunnel lining extraction from point clouds. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 25(9): 11214--11226

    2024

  27. [35]

    Zheng, C.; Liu, L.; Meng, Y.; Peng, X.; and Wang, M. 2024 a . Few-shot point cloud semantic segmentation via support-query feature interaction. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 34(11): 10753--10763

    2024

  28. [36]

    Zheng, X.; Huang, X.; Mei, G.; Hou, Y.; Lyu, Z.; Dai, B.; Ouyang, W.; and Gong, Y. 2024 b . Point cloud pre-training with diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 22935--22945

    2024

  29. [37]

    Zhu, G.-Z.; Zhou, Y.-T.; Yao, R.; and Zhu, H. 2023. Cross-class bias rectification for point cloud few-shot segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia

    2023

  30. [38]

    Zhu, X.; Zhang, R.; He, B.; Guo, Z.; Liu, J.; Xiao, H.; Fu, C.; Dong, H.; and Gao, P. 2024. No Time to Train: Empowering Non-Parametric Networks for Few-shot 3D Scene Segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 3838--3847

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.