Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative evaluation of segmentation architectures for 3D reconstruction in adverse conditions, highlighting implications for sensor fusion.
Reliable person segmentation with sparse 3D sensors degrades significantly under adverse atmospheric conditions. This work presents a controlled comparative evaluation of four segmentation architectures—U-Net, Mask R-CNN, DeepLabV3+, and FCN-ResNet—on a fused Radar–LiDAR dataset for binary person–background segmentation and applies a dual-domain evaluation procedure that formally links 2D pixel-level overlap (IoU, Dice) to 3D geometric fidelity (Chamfer distance, Completeness) through mask back-projection onto fused point clouds. Raw point clouds are rasterized into range–intensity grids enriched with Radar reflectivity; the predicted masks are then reprojected into 3D space and evaluated using Chamfer distance and Completeness under three controlled visibility conditions. U-Net achieves the highest 2D overlap (IoU = 0.82, Dice = 0.89), while DeepLabV3+ delivers the best 3D reconstruction fidelity (Chamfer = 0.021 m, Completeness = 93.4%) and the highest overall accuracy (97.9%). This dissociation between 2D overlap and 3D fidelity is explained by DeepLabV3+’s multi-scale Atrous Spatial Pyramid Pooling (ASPP), which reduces boundary fragmentation during back-projection; more than 70% of the Chamfer deviation across competing architectures originates at object contours. Mask R-CNN performs well when instances are clearly separated, and FCN-ResNet offers the lowest computational cost at reduced boundary precision. Radar–LiDAR fusion sustains an IoU within 3% of clear-weather performance under dense fog, whereas LiDAR-only inputs degrade by more than 12%. Due to the 12:1 background-to-person class imbalance, overlap-based metrics (IoU, Dice) are prioritized over raw accuracy in all reported comparisons. These results provide actionable deployment guidance and constitute a reproducible evaluation procedure for future sparse-sensor fusion studies, independently of the architectures evaluated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paipa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: