Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Topology-Guided Knowledge Distillation for Efficient Point Cloud Processing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a distillation framework combining topology-aware representations, gradient-guided feature alignment, KLD matching, and a segmentation loss can compress a 46.16M-parameter Point Transformer V3 into a 2.78M-parameter…

desk verdict A useful distillation recipe for LiDAR segmentation, but its headline topology loss rests on a false theorem and an under-specified approximation; the empirical gains are plausible but not yet supported as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08101 v1 pith:FLX2ZHAM submitted 2025-05-12 cs.CV cs.LG

Luu Tung Hai , Thinh D. Le , Zhicheng Ding , Qing Tian , Truong-Son Hy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords knowledgedistillationpointcloudprocessingLiDARsemanticsegmentationtopologicaldataanalysispersistencediagramsgradient-guidedfeaturealignmentmodelcompressionTransformerV3
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

The paper's central claim is that a lightweight point-cloud segmenter can be trained by distilling from a much larger transformer, provided the student is guided by two complementary cues: the global topology of the scene and the task-relevant saliency of feature channels. The topology cue is computed as a Chamfer distance between persistence diagrams of teacher and student features, which the authors argue transfers geometric structure such as connected components, loops, and voids. The saliency cue weights each feature channel by the mean magnitude of its gradient of the segmentation loss, then aligns the teacher and student feature maps in a normalized aggregated form. On nuScenes the resulting 2.78M-parameter student reaches 78.17% mIoU, which the authors report as state-of-the-art among LiDAR-only knowledge-distillation methods, while cutting parameters by about 16x and inference time by 1.64x compared with the 46.16M-parameter teacher. If this claim holds, it would make high-accuracy 3D perception practical on hardware that cannot run large point transformers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the topology-aware knowledge representation: persistence diagrams $D_T$ and $D_S$ computed from teacher and student point-cloud features via Vietoris-Rips filtration, compared with the Chamfer distance $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{topo}} = \mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{CD}}(D_T, D_S)$ (Eq. 1). The second mechanism is gradient-guided feature alignment: channel importance weights $w^l_k$ are the average magnitude of the task-loss gradient with respect to feature activations (Eq. 2), the features are scaled by these weights (Eq. 3), aggregated across channels, normalized, and compared with an L1 loss (Eqs. 4-5). These are combined with KLD and segmentation losses into the total objective (Eq. 6). The persistence-diagram comparison is intended to transfer global geometric structure, while the gradient weighting focuses the student on the feature channels that most affect the segmentation outcome.

What would settle it

Build two persistence diagrams where one diagram contains two identical off-diagonal points and the other contains just one copy of that point; the Chamfer distance is zero because each point can match to an identical partner, but the 2-Wasserstein distance is positive because one of the teacher's points must be matched to the diagonal. Computing both distances refutes the claimed inequality $W_2(D_T,D_S)\le \sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{CD}}(D_T,D_S)}$ in Theorem C.1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that topological signatures of point clouds can be used as a distillation target alongside gradient-weighted feature alignments, and that the two together let a much smaller model preserve the teacher's geometric understanding. Concretely, the framework builds persistence diagrams from a Vietoris-Rips filtration of both teacher and student feature clouds, aligns them with a Chamfer loss, and combines this with a gradient-guided feature matching loss, Kullback-Leibler divergence, and the segmentation loss. The paper reports that this composite objective lifts the student from 76.08% to 78.17% mIoU on nuScenes test, surpasses all LiDAR-only KD baselines, and transfers to SemanticKITTI and Waymo with consistent gains. The efficiency advantages—a 16.6x parameter reduction, a 1.64x faster inference, and 4.5x lower peak CUDA memory—are presented as the practical payoff of the method.

Load-bearing premise

The method's topology loss is justified by a theorem (Theorem C.1) claiming that Chamfer distance between persistence diagrams upper-bounds the 2-Wasserstein distance, but this inequality is not generally true, and the actual implementation computes only fixed-scale approximations of persistence diagrams; therefore the claim that topology guidance transfers meaningful structure rests on an unproven approximation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 2.78M-parameter student can reach 78.17% mIoU on nuScenes test, the highest reported among LiDAR-only knowledge-distillation methods, and within about 5 points of the 83% mIoU teacher.
  • The student runs at roughly 27.7 FPS versus 16.9 FPS for the teacher on the same GPU, with 4.5x lower peak CUDA memory, supporting real-time edge deployment.
  • The same distillation recipe improves the student on SemanticKITTI (from 69.5 to 74.6 mIoU) and Waymo (from 68.2 to 69.5 mIoU), suggesting the method generalizes across outdoor LiDAR datasets.
  • Ablation results show that the topology loss and the gradient-guided alignment each contribute positive gains, and the full loss is best on all three benchmarks, indicating the two mechanisms are complementary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the topology loss is implemented with fixed-scale approximations of persistence diagrams rather than full diagrams, the reported gains may come from this multi-scale snapshot as much as from persistent homology per se; an ablation that replaces the topological term with a simple multi-scale geometric descriptor could separate these effects.
  • The gradient-guided alignment depends only on task-loss gradients, so the same objective could be applied to other dense 3D tasks such as object detection or panoptic segmentation without architectural changes.
  • The authors note the topology loss is sensitive to the filtration scale; an adaptive or learned filtration, or an ensemble of scales, is a natural extension that could improve robustness across scene types.
  • Since the student is a uniformly scaled-down Point Transformer V3, the method's success does not establish that it would work for architecturally different students; testing with a completely different backbone would probe the transferability of the framework.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a knowledge-distillation framework for LiDAR point-cloud semantic segmentation that combines three alignment terms: a topology-aware loss based on the Chamfer distance between persistence diagrams, a gradient-guided feature-alignment loss adapted from prior work, and KLD matching of teacher-student distributions, together with a standard segmentation loss. The student is a heavily reduced Point Transformer V3 variant (2.78M parameters vs. 46.16M for the teacher). On nuScenes, SemanticKITTI, and Waymo the authors report consistent improvements from each loss component, with the full method reaching 78.17% mIoU on the nuScenes test split, a roughly 16x parameter reduction, and a measured 1.64x inference speedup (with a 1.9x figure in the abstract). The paper claims state-of-the-art performance among LiDAR-only knowledge-distillation baselines and provides a public implementation.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the work would be practically useful: it demonstrates large model-size and memory reductions while retaining competitive accuracy, it evaluates on three standard benchmarks, and it releases code. The ablation study is a genuine strength: Table 7 shows consistent gains from each proposed loss across three datasets, and the efficiency measurements in Tables 3, 5, and 6 are concrete and useful. However, the central novelty is the topology loss, and its theoretical justification in Appendix C.1 is invalid as stated, while the implementation described in Section 5 diverges from the persistence-diagram formalism in Eq. (1). Since Table 7 attributes the largest single performance gain to this loss, the significance of the work depends on whether the topology component can be re-derived, re-specified, or re-framed as an empirical heuristic with fully reported hyperparameters. The paper also contains inconsistencies in the headline teacher accuracy and speedup figures that must be resolved before the claims can be assessed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C.1] The claimed inequality W_2(D_T,D_S) <= sqrt(L_CD(D_T,D_S)) is false. The Chamfer distance in Eq. (9) independently matches each point to a nearest neighbor and allows many-to-one matches, so it does not enforce the mass conservation required by the optimal-transport formulation in Eq. (8). For example, with D_T={(0,1)} and D_S={(0,1),(0,1)}, one obtains L_CD=0, while W_2^2(D_T,D_S) > 0 because the unmatched point in D_S must be matched either to the diagonal or to an existing point with positive cost. Thus minimizing L_CD does not in general bound or minimize the 2-Wasserstein distance, and the proof given after Eq. (9) is incorrect: the statement that Chamfer distance 'provides an upper bound' is exactly the claim being proved, and it does not follow from the displayed definitions. Since Table 7 attributes the largest ablation gain to L_topo, this invalid theorem is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.
  2. [Section 5 / Appendix A.2] The implementation does not compute the Vietoris-Rips persistence diagrams used in Eq. (1). Section 5 states that 'our implementation approximates topological characteristics at multiple fixed scales' and explicitly contrasts this with a full filtration, while Appendix A.2 says the filtration scale was 'empirically determined.' Consequently, L_topo as actually optimized is not the Chamfer distance between persistence diagrams D_T and D_S, and the theoretical discussion in Appendix C does not apply to the loss used in training. The fixed scales, the filtration scale, and the gradient bound alpha in Eq. (10) are also not reported. The authors should either implement and report a true persistence-diagram loss, or restate the method and its justification in terms of the fixed-scale approximation and provide the missing hyperparameters.
  3. [Abstract / Tables 1, 5 / Appendix D] There are material inconsistencies in the headline numbers. The abstract and Table 1 report the PTv3 teacher at 83% mIoU on nuScenes test, while Appendix D and the discussion in Section 4.1 state the teacher's mIoU is 80.03%; Table 4 also reports teacher mIoU values of 71.3/69.8 on Waymo. In addition, the abstract claims a 'nearly 1.9x' decrease in inference time, while Table 5 reports a 1.64x speedup (27.70 FPS vs. 16.90 FPS). These discrepancies affect the central efficiency and accuracy comparisons and must be reconciled in a revised version.
  4. [Table 7] All experimental results appear to come from a single training run, and no error bars or variance estimates are provided. Given that the ablation differences attributed to L_topo and L_grad are on the order of 0.9 to 3.5 mIoU, it is not possible to rule out run-to-run noise as the source of at least part of the reported gains. The authors should report results over at least three seeds, or otherwise provide a statistical justification for the single-run comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] The text says 'Our proposed distilled version reaches 78.01% mIoU,' but Table 1 reports 78.17%; please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Table 3] Table 3 lists SalsaNext twice with different FPS values (23.8 and 25.0); please merge the entries or clarify the difference.
  3. [Table 1] The row labeled 'Student w.o KD' appears garbled ('76.0876.14'); the formatting should be fixed.
  4. [Throughout] The dataset name is written inconsistently as 'Nuscenes', 'NuScenes', and 'nuScenes'; please standardize.
  5. [Appendix A.2] Appendix A.2 says the student is 'approximately 20% the depth of the teacher,' but the stated encoder depths are 6 blocks versus 14 blocks, which is about 43% of the depth; please clarify the intended statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No equation-level circularity: reported mIoU is measured against external benchmarks; only minor non-load-bearing self-citation to [32].

full rationale

The proposed losses in Eqs. (1), (5), and (6) are defined directly from teacher and student features and persistence diagrams, and the student is trained by optimizing them; the headline numbers (78.17% mIoU on nuScenes test, 16x parameter reduction, and the measured speedups) come from held-out evaluation against external baselines, not from the loss definitions by construction. The only self-citation is [32] (Lan and Tian, WACV 2024, co-authored by Qing Tian), which is cited in Sec. 3.3 as inspiration ("inspired from [32]") for the gradient-guided alignment mechanism; however, the mechanism is fully specified in Eqs. (2)-(5), so the citation is not load-bearing. The mathematical concern in Appendix C (Chamfer distance does not generally bound the 2-Wasserstein distance, and Sec. 5 admits the implementation approximates topological characteristics at fixed scales rather than computing full Vietoris-Rips persistence diagrams) is a correctness and reproducibility risk, not a circularity: it does not make the topology loss equal to its own input, nor does it rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the score of 2 reflects only the minor self-citation burden.

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

The central empirical claim depends on a small number of unstated or loosely specified choices: the filtration scale(s) for the topological signatures, the loss weighting, the gradient bound, the validity of the Chamfer-Wasserstein bound, and the assumption that a from-scratch PTv3 can represent the official model.

free parameters (3)
  • filtration scale = not reported (empirically determined)
    Appendix A.2: the filtration scale was empirically determined to balance efficiency and fidelity; no value is given, yet it controls all topology loss computations.
  • lambda_1, lambda_2, lambda_3 (Lgrad, LKLD, Lseg weights) = not reported
    Equation (6) defines the objective; the paper never gives the numeric weights, so the reported mIoU could depend on validation-set tuning.
  • alpha (gradient norm bound for L_topo) = not reported
    Appendix C.3, Eq. (10), imposes a constraint with alpha > 0 but the value is unspecified.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Chamfer distance upper-bounds the squared 2-Wasserstein distance between persistence diagrams
    Appendix C.1 uses this to justify L_topo; the stated proof does not establish the inequality, and it is not a standard result.
  • domain assumption Fixed-scale snapshot signatures approximate full persistence diagrams
    Section 5 replaces full Vietoris-Rips filtration with multiple fixed scales, but gives no details or validation that this preserves topological information.
  • domain assumption A from-scratch retrained PTv3 is a faithful stand-in for the official PTv3 teacher
    Appendix A.2 says the authors trained PTv3 from scratch; Appendix D reports 80.03% mIoU while Section 4.1 quotes the official model's 83%, so the comparison relies on an unverified equivalence.
  • domain assumption Deep feature persistence diagrams encode task-relevant topology for LiDAR segmentation
    The method assumes topological structures in intermediate feature spaces correspond to meaningful geometric classes; only a qualitative figure (Figure 3) supports this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Topology-Guided Knowledge Distillation for Efficient Point Cloud Processing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLX2ZHAM

@misc{pith2026250508101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Topology-Guided Knowledge Distillation for Efficient Point Cloud Processing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLX2ZHAM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08101}
}
read the original abstract

Point cloud processing has gained significant attention due to its critical role in applications such as autonomous driving and 3D object recognition. However, deploying high-performance models like Point Transformer V3 in resource-constrained environments remains challenging due to their high computational and memory demands. This work introduces a novel distillation framework that leverages topology-aware representations and gradient-guided knowledge distillation to effectively transfer knowledge from a high-capacity teacher to a lightweight student model. Our approach captures the underlying geometric structures of point clouds while selectively guiding the student model's learning process through gradient-based feature alignment. Experimental results in the Nuscenes, SemanticKITTI, and Waymo datasets demonstrate that the proposed method achieves competitive performance, with an approximately 16x reduction in model size and a nearly 1.9x decrease in inference time compared to its teacher model. Notably, on NuScenes, our method achieves state-of-the-art performance among knowledge distillation techniques trained solely on LiDAR data, surpassing prior knowledge distillation baselines in segmentation performance. Our implementation is available publicly at: https://github.com/HySonLab/PointDistill

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08101 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comprehensive comparisons between our proposed method and state-of-the-art knowl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the proposed knowledge distillation framework for point cloud processing. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of topology-aware analysis through Vietoris–Rips filtration. The top row depicts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of our method on the nuScenes validation set. (a) Ground truth, (b) teacher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SCoDA: Self-supervised Continual Domain Adaptation

    cs.CV 2025-09 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    SCoDA combines an EMA teacher-student setup and a space similarity loss, starting from an SSL-pretrained model, to adapt to unlabeled target domains, but reports lower accuracy than prior methods on the tested Office-...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Semantickitti: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of lidar sequences

    Jens Behley, Martin Garbade, Andres Milioto, Jonas Quenzel, Sven Behnke, Cyrill Stachniss, and Jurgen Gall. Semantickitti: A dataset for semantic scene understanding of lidar sequences. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 9297– 9307, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving.Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11621–11631, 2020

    Holger Caesar, Alex Bankiti, Alexander H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Venice Erin Liong, Qiang Xu, Anush Krishnan, Yu Pan, Giancarlo Baldan, and Oscar Beijbom. nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving.Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 11621–11631, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    3d point cloud compression: A survey

    Chao Cao, Marius Preda, and Titus Zaharia. 3d point cloud compression: A survey. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on 3D Web Technology, Web3D ’19, page 1–9, New York, NY , USA, 2019. Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Cmdfusion: Bidirectional fusion network with cross-modality knowledge distillation for lidar semantic segmentation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(1):771– 778, 2024

    Jun Cen, Shiwei Zhang, Yixuan Pei, Kun Li, Hang Zheng, Maochun Luo, Yingya Zhang, and Qifeng Chen. Cmdfusion: Bidirectional fusion network with cross-modality knowledge distillation for lidar semantic segmentation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 9(1):771– 778, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Multi-view 3d object detection network for autonomous driving

    Xiaozhi Chen, Huimin Ma, Ji Wan, Bo Li, and Tian Xia. Multi-view 3d object detection network for autonomous driving. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1907–1915, 2017

    1907

  6. [6]

    Accurate and efficient 2-bit quantized neural networks

    Jungwook Choi, Swagath Venkataramani, Vijayalakshmi (Viji) Srinivasan, Kailash Gopalakrish- nan, Zhuo Wang, and Pierce Chuang. Accurate and efficient 2-bit quantized neural networks. In A. Talwalkar, V . Smith, and M. Zaharia, editors,Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, volume 1, pages 348–359, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks

    Christopher Choy, JunYoung Gwak, and Silvio Savarese. 4d spatio-temporal convnets: Minkowski convolutional neural networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3075–3084, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    SalsaNext: Fast, Uncertainty-Aware Semantic Segmentation of LiDAR Point Clouds

    Tiago Cortinhal, George Tzelepis, and Eren Erdal Aksoy. SalsaNext: Fast, Uncertainty-Aware Semantic Segmentation of LiDAR Point Clouds. InAdvances in Visual Computing: 15th International Symposium, ISVC 2020, San Diego, CA, USA, October 5–7, 2020, Proceedings, Part II, volume 12510 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 207–222. Springer, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Salsanext: Fast, uncertainty-aware semantic segmentation of lidar point clouds

    Tiago Cortinhal, George Tzelepis, and Eren Erdal Aksoy. Salsanext: Fast, uncertainty-aware semantic segmentation of lidar point clouds. InAdvances in Visual Computing: 15th Interna- tional Symposium, ISVC 2020, San Diego, CA, USA, October 5–7, 2020, Proceedings, Part II 15, pa...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Finding the task-optimal low-bit sub-distribution in deep neural networks

    Runpei Dong, Zhanhong Tan, Mengdi Wu, Linfeng Zhang, and Kaisheng Ma. Finding the task-optimal low-bit sub-distribution in deep neural networks. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5343–5359. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, and Raquel Urtasun. Are we ready for autonomous driving? the kitti vision benchmark suite. In2012 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3354–3361. IEEE, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    Tornado-net: multiview total variation semantic segmentation with diamond inception module

    Martin Gerdzhev, Ryan Razani, Ehsan Taghavi, and Liu Bingbing. Tornado-net: multiview total variation semantic segmentation with diamond inception module. In2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 9543–9549. IEEE, 2021. 10

    2021

  5. [13]

    Real-time point cloud compression

    Tim Golla and Reinhard Klein. Real-time point cloud compression. In2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 5087–5092, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    Pl-svo: Semi-direct monocu- lar visual odometry by combining points and line segments

    Ruben Gomez-Ojeda, Jesus Briales, and Javier Gonzalez-Jimenez. Pl-svo: Semi-direct monocu- lar visual odometry by combining points and line segments. In2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 4211–4216. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    Pct: Point cloud transformer.Computational Visual Media, 7:187–199, 2021

    Meng-Hao Guo, Jun-Xiong Cai, Zheng-Ning Liu, Tai-Jiang Mu, Ralph R Martin, and Shi-Min Hu. Pct: Point cloud transformer.Computational Visual Media, 7:187–199, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Liga-stereo: Learning lidar geometry aware representations for stereo-based 3d detector

    Xiaoyang Guo, Shaoshuai Shi, Xiaogang Wang, and Hongsheng Li. Liga-stereo: Learning lidar geometry aware representations for stereo-based 3d detector. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 3153–3163, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Self-knowledge distillation in natural language processing

    Sangchul Hahn and Heeyoul Choi. Self-knowledge distillation in natural language processing. InProceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing (RANLP), pages 423–430, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Point cloud based scene segmentation: A survey, 2025

    Dan Halperin and Niklas Eisl. Point cloud based scene segmentation: A survey, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Song Han, Huizi Mao, and William J. Dally. Deep compression: Compressing deep neural networks with pruning, trained quantization and huffman coding. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Distiller: A systematic study of model distillation methods in natural language processing

    Haoyu He, Xingjian Shi, Jonas Mueller, Sheng Zha, Mu Li, and George Karypis. Distiller: A systematic study of model distillation methods in natural language processing. InProceedings of the Second Workshop on Simple and Efficient Natural Language Processing, pages 119–133, Vir...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), pages 1–2, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Distilling the knowledge in a neural network

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Point-to-voxel knowledge distillation for lidar semantic segmentation

    Yuenan Hou, Xinge Zhu, Yuexin Ma, Chen Change Loy, and Yikang Li. Point-to-voxel knowledge distillation for lidar semantic segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8479–8488, June 2022

    2022

  16. [25]

    Point-to-voxel knowledge distillation for lidar semantic segmentation

    Yuenan Hou, Xinge Zhu, Yuexin Ma, Chen Change Loy, and Yikang Li. Point-to-voxel knowledge distillation for lidar semantic segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 8479–8488, 2022

    2022

  17. [26]

    Searching for mobilenetv3

    Andrew Howard, Mark Sandler, Grace Chu, Liang-Chieh Chen, Bo Chen, Mingxing Tan, Weijun Wang, Yukun Zhu, Ruoming Pang, Vijay Vasudevan, et al. Searching for mobilenetv3. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 1314–1324, 2019

    2019

  18. [27]

    Leveraging topological guidance for improved knowledge distillation

    Eun Som Jeon, Rahul Khurana, Aishani Pathak, and Pavan Turaga. Leveraging topological guidance for improved knowledge distillation. InProceedings of the ICML 2024 Workshop on Geometry-grounded Representation Learning and Generative Modeling, 2024

    2024

  19. [28]

    Do topological characteristics help in knowledge distillation? InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    Jungeun Kim, Junwon You, Dongjin Lee, Ha Young Kim, and Jae-Hun Jung. Do topological characteristics help in knowledge distillation? InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  20. [29]

    Kprnet: Improving projection- based lidar semantic segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.12668, 2020

    Deyvid Kochanov, Fatemeh Karimi Nejadasl, and Olaf Booij. Kprnet: Improving projection- based lidar semantic segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.12668, 2020

    2007 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Kullback-leibler divergence, 1951

    Solomon Kullback. Kullback-leibler divergence, 1951. 11

    1951

  22. [31]

    Spherical transformer for lidar- based 3d recognition

    Xin Lai, Yukang Chen, Fanbin Lu, Jianhui Liu, and Jiaya Jia. Spherical transformer for lidar- based 3d recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 17545–17555, 2023

    2023

  23. [32]

    Gradient-guided knowledge distillation for object detectors

    Qizhen Lan and Qing Tian. Gradient-guided knowledge distillation for object detectors. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 423–432, 2024

    2024

  24. [33]

    Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds

    Alex H Lang, Sourabh V ora, Holger Caesar, Lubing Zhou, Jiong Yang, and Oscar Beijbom. Pointpillars: Fast encoders for object detection from point clouds. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12697–12705, 2019

    2019

  25. [34]

    Vehicle detection from 3d lidar using fully convolutional network

    Bo Li, Tianlei Zhang, and Tian Xia. Vehicle detection from 3d lidar using fully convolutional network. InProceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2016

    2016

  26. [35]

    Tpv-igkd: Image- guided knowledge distillation for 3d semantic segmentation with tri-plane-view.IEEE Transac- tions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 25(8):10405–10416, 2024

    Jia-Chen Li, Jun-Guo Lu, Ming Wei, Hong-Yi Kang, and Qing-Hao Zhang. Tpv-igkd: Image- guided knowledge distillation for 3d semantic segmentation with tri-plane-view.IEEE Transac- tions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 25(8):10405–10416, 2024

    2024

  27. [36]

    Self-distillation for robust lidar semantic segmentation in autonomous driving

    Jiale Li, Hang Dai, and Yong Ding. Self-distillation for robust lidar semantic segmentation in autonomous driving. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 659–676. Springer, 2022

    2022

  28. [37]

    Mseg3d: Multimodal 3d semantic segmentation for autonomous driving

    Jiale Li, Hang Dai, Hao Han, and Yong Ding. Mseg3d: Multimodal 3d semantic segmentation for autonomous driving. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 21694–21704, 2023

    2023

  29. [38]

    Amvnet: Assertion-based multi-view fusion network for lidar semantic segmentation

    Venice Erin Liong, Thi Ngoc Tho Nguyen, Sergi Widjaja, Dhananjai Sharma, and Zhuang Jie Chong. Amvnet: Assertion-based multi-view fusion network for lidar semantic segmentation. CoRR, abs/2012.04934, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Structured knowledge distillation for semantic segmentation

    Yifan Liu, Ke Chen, Chris Liu, Zengchang Qin, Zhenbo Luo, and Jingdong Wang. Structured knowledge distillation for semantic segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2604–2613, 2019

    2019

  31. [40]

    Metapruning: Meta learning for automatic neural network channel pruning

    Zechun Liu, Haoyuan Mu, Xiangyu Zhang, Zichao Guo, Xin Yang, Kwang-Ting Cheng, and Jian Sun. Metapruning: Meta learning for automatic neural network channel pruning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 3296–3305, 2019

    2019

  32. [41]

    Christos Louizos, Max Welling, and Diederik P. Kingma. Learning sparse neural networks throughl0 regularization. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations (ICLR), 2018

    2018

  33. [42]

    Shufflenet v2: Practical guidelines for efficient cnn architecture design

    Ningning Ma, Xiangyu Zhang, Hai-Tao Zheng, and Jian Sun. Shufflenet v2: Practical guidelines for efficient cnn architecture design. InProceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), pages 116–131, 2018

    2018

  34. [43]

    Rethinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework

    Xu Ma, Can Qin, Haoxuan You, Haoxi Ran, and Yun Fu. Rethinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022

    2022

  35. [44]

    Rangenet++: Fast and accurate lidar semantic segmentation

    Andres Milioto, Ignacio Vizzo, Jens Behley, and Cyrill Stachniss. Rangenet++: Fast and accurate lidar semantic segmentation. In2019 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pages 4213–4220. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  36. [45]

    Data-free quantization through weight equalization and bias correction

    Markus Nagel, Mart van Baalen, Tijmen Blankevoort, and Max Welling. Data-free quantization through weight equalization and bias correction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1325–1334, 2019

    2019

  37. [46]

    Development of small robot for home floor cleaning

    Yong-Joo Oh and Yoshio Watanabe. Development of small robot for home floor cleaning. In Proceedings of the 41st SICE Annual Conference. SICE 2002., volume 5, pages 3222–3223. IEEE, 2002. 12

    2002

  38. [47]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 652–660, 2017

    2017

  39. [48]

    Gfnet: Geometric flow network for 3d point cloud semantic segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.02605, 2022

    Haibo Qiu, Baosheng Yu, and Dacheng Tao. Gfnet: Geometric flow network for 3d point cloud semantic segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.02605, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Towards zero-shot knowledge distillation for natural language processing

    Ahmad Rashid, Vasileios Lioutas, Abbas Ghaddar, and Mehdi Rezagholizadeh. Towards zero-shot knowledge distillation for natural language processing. InProceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6551–6561, 2021

    2021

  41. [50]

    Efficient 3d semantic segmentation with superpoint transformer

    Damien Robert, Hugo Raguet, and Loic Landrieu. Efficient 3d semantic segmentation with superpoint transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 17195–17204, 2023

    2023

  42. [51]

    Fitnets: Hints for thin deep nets

    Adriana Romero, Nicolas Ballas, Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Antoine Chassang, Carlo Gatta, and Yoshua Bengio. Fitnets: Hints for thin deep nets. In Yoshua Bengio and Yann LeCun, editors, 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, May 7-...

    2015

  43. [52]

    Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: Smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108, pages 1–2, 2019

    Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. Distilbert, a distilled version of BERT: Smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108, pages 1–2, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Semantic scene completion from a single depth image

    Shuran Song, Fisher Yu, Andy Zeng, Angel X Chang, Manolis Savva, and Thomas Funkhouser. Semantic scene completion from a single depth image. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1746–1754, 2017

    2017

  45. [54]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset.Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2446–2454, 2020

    Pei Sun, Henrik Kretzschmar, Xerxes Dotiwalla, Alexandre Chouard, Anand Patnaik, Paul Tsui, Yin Guo, Yuning Zhou, Yuning Chai, Benjamin Caine, et al. Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset.Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and ...

    2020

  46. [55]

    Tianfang Sun, Zhizhong Zhang, Xin Tan, Yong Peng, Yanyun Qu, and Yuan Xie. Uni-to-multi modal knowledge distillation for bidirectional lidar-camera semantic segmentation.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(12):11059–11072, 2024

    2024

  47. [56]

    Searching efficient 3d architectures with sparse point-voxel convolution

    Haotian Tang, Zhijian Liu, Shengyu Zhao, Yujun Lin, Ji Lin, Hanrui Wang, and Song Han. Searching efficient 3d architectures with sparse point-voxel convolution. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXVIII, ...

    2020

  48. [57]

    Kpconv: Flexible and deformable convolution for point clouds

    Hugues Thomas, Charles R Qi, Jean-Emmanuel Deschaud, Beatriz Marcotegui, François Goulette, and Leonidas J Guibas. Kpconv: Flexible and deformable convolution for point clouds. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 6411–6420, 2019

    2019

  49. [58]

    Similarity-preserving knowledge distillation

    Frederick Tung and Greg Mori. Similarity-preserving knowledge distillation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 1365–1374, 2019

    2019

  50. [59]

    Springer, 2009

    Cédric Villani.Optimal Transport: Old and New, volume 338 ofGrundlehren der mathematis- chen Wissenschaften. Springer, 2009

    2009

  51. [60]

    O-cnn: Octree-based convolutional neural networks for 3d shape analysis.ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG), 36(4):1–11, 2017

    Peng-Shuai Wang, Yang Liu, Yu-Xiao Guo, Chun-Yu Sun, and Xin Tong. O-cnn: Octree-based convolutional neural networks for 3d shape analysis.ACM Transactions On Graphics (TOG), 36(4):1–11, 2017

    2017

  52. [61]

    Point transformer v3: Simpler, faster, stronger

    Xiaoyang Wu, Li Jiang, Peng-Shuai Wang, Zhijian Liu, Xihui Liu, Yu Qiao, Wanli Ouyang, Tong He, and Hengshuang Zhao. Point transformer v3: Simpler, faster, stronger. In2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4840–4851, 2024. 13

    2024

  53. [62]

    Point transformer v2: Grouped vector attention and partition-based pooling.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:33330–33342, 2022

    Xiaoyang Wu, Yixing Lao, Li Jiang, Xihui Liu, and Hengshuang Zhao. Point transformer v2: Grouped vector attention and partition-based pooling.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:33330–33342, 2022

    2022

  54. [63]

    Point transformer v2: Grouped vector attention and partition-based pooling

    Xiaoyang Wu, Yixing Lao, Li Jiang, Xihui Liu, and Hengshuang Zhao. Point transformer v2: Grouped vector attention and partition-based pooling. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2022

    2022

  55. [64]

    Rpvnet: A deep and efficient range-point-voxel fusion network for lidar point cloud segmentation

    Jianyun Xu, Ruixiang Zhang, Jian Dou, Yushi Zhu, Jie Sun, and Shiliang Pu. Rpvnet: A deep and efficient range-point-voxel fusion network for lidar point cloud segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 16024–16033, 2021

    2021

  56. [65]

    2dpass: 2d priors assisted semantic segmentation on lidar point clouds

    Xu Yan, Jiantao Gao, Chaoda Zheng, Chao Zheng, Ruimao Zhang, Shuguang Cui, and Zhen Li. 2dpass: 2d priors assisted semantic segmentation on lidar point clouds. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 677–695. Springer, 2022

    2022

  57. [66]

    Swin3d: A pretrained transformer backbone for 3d indoor scene understanding

    Yu-Qi Yang, Yu-Xiao Guo, Jian-Yu Xiong, Yang Liu, Hao Pan, Peng-Shuai Wang, Xin Tong, and Baining Guo. Swin3d: A pretrained transformer backbone for 3d indoor scene understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06906, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Lidarmultinet: Towards a unified multi-task network for lidar perception.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.09385, 2022

    Dongqiangzi Ye, Zixiang Zhou, Weijia Chen, Yufei Xie, Yu Wang, Panqu Wang, and Hassan Foroosh. Lidarmultinet: Towards a unified multi-task network for lidar perception.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.09385, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Deep fusionnet for point cloud semantic segmentation

    Feihu Zhang, Jin Fang, Benjamin Wah, and Philip Torr. Deep fusionnet for point cloud semantic segmentation. InComputer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XXIV 16, pages 644–663. Springer, 2020

    2020

  60. [69]

    Pointdistiller: Structured knowledge distillation towards efficient and compact 3d detection

    Linfeng Zhang, Runpei Dong, Hung-Shuo Tai, and Kaisheng Ma. Pointdistiller: Structured knowledge distillation towards efficient and compact 3d detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 21791– 21801, June 2023

    2023

  61. [70]

    Zhang, J

    S. Zhang, J. Deng, L. Bai, et al. Hvdistill: Transferring knowledge from images to point clouds via unsupervised hybrid-view distillation.International Journal of Computer Vision, 132:2585–2599, 2024

    2024

  62. [71]

    Gpu-accelerated computation of vietoris-rips persistence barcodes

    Simon Zhang, Mengbai Xiao, and Hao Wang. Gpu-accelerated computation of vietoris-rips persistence barcodes. In36th International Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG 2020). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2020

    2020

  63. [72]

    Polarnet: An improved grid representation for online lidar point clouds semantic segmentation

    Yang Zhang, Zixiang Zhou, Philip David, Xiangyu Yue, Zerong Xi, Boqing Gong, and Hassan Foroosh. Polarnet: An improved grid representation for online lidar point clouds semantic segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, ...

    2020

  64. [73]

    Pointweb: Enhancing local neigh- borhood features for point cloud processing

    Hengshuang Zhao, Li Jiang, Chi-Wing Fu, and Jiaya Jia. Pointweb: Enhancing local neigh- borhood features for point cloud processing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5565–5573, 2019

    2019

  65. [74]

    Hengshuang Zhao, Li Jiang, Jiaya Jia, Philip H. S. Torr, and Vladlen Koltun. Point transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 16259–16268, 2021

    2021

  66. [75]

    Svaseg: Sparse voxel-based attention for 3d lidar point cloud semantic segmentation.Remote Sensing, 14(18):4471, 2022

    Lin Zhao, Siyuan Xu, Liman Liu, Delie Ming, and Wenbing Tao. Svaseg: Sparse voxel-based attention for 3d lidar point cloud semantic segmentation.Remote Sensing, 14(18):4471, 2022

    2022

  67. [76]

    V oxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection

    Yin Zhou and Oncel Tuzel. V oxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2018. 14

    2018

  68. [77]

    Cylindrical and asymmetrical 3d convolution networks for lidar segmentation

    Xinge Zhu, Hui Zhou, Tai Wang, Fangzhou Hong, Yuexin Ma, Wei Li, Hongsheng Li, and Dahua Lin. Cylindrical and asymmetrical 3d convolution networks for lidar segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9939–9948, 2021

    2021

  69. [78]

    Perception-aware multi-sensor fusion for 3d lidar semantic segmentation

    Zhuangwei Zhuang, Rong Li, Kui Jia, Qicheng Wang, Yuanqing Li, and Mingkui Tan. Perception-aware multi-sensor fusion for 3d lidar semantic segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 16280–16290, 2021. A Experimental De...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.