Adaptive Augmentation-Aware Latent Learning for Robust LiDAR Semantic Segmentation
Wangkai Li, Zhaoyang Li, Yuwen Pan, Rui Sun, Yujia Chen, Tianzhu Zhang

TL;DR
This paper introduces A3Point, an adaptive latent learning framework that improves LiDAR semantic segmentation robustness under adverse weather by effectively utilizing diverse augmentations and mitigating semantic shifts.
Contribution
A3Point is a novel framework that leverages semantic confusion prior and semantic shift localization to adaptively optimize augmentation effects, enhancing robustness in LiDAR segmentation.
Findings
Achieves state-of-the-art results on multiple benchmarks.
Effectively mitigates semantic shift caused by weather-related augmentations.
Demonstrates robustness improvements under adverse weather conditions.
Abstract
Adverse weather conditions significantly degrade the performance of LiDAR point cloud semantic segmentation networks by introducing large distribution shifts. Existing augmentation-based methods attempt to enhance robustness by simulating weather interference during training. However, they struggle to fully exploit the potential of augmentations due to the trade-off between minor and aggressive augmentations. To address this, we propose A3Point, an adaptive augmentation-aware latent learning framework that effectively utilizes a diverse range of augmentations while mitigating the semantic shift, which refers to the change in the semantic meaning caused by augmentations. A3Point consists of two key components: semantic confusion prior (SCP) latent learning, which captures the model's inherent semantic confusion information, and semantic shift region (SSR) localization, which decouples…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
1. New idea 2. Clearly identifies the weaknesses of existing weather-augmentation approaches 3. The method that separates SSR from SCR is highly sophisticated 4. Through performance gains and ablations, the authors show strong effectiveness for LiDAR semantic segmentation under adverse weather. Notably, there are large improvements on SynLiDAR → SemanticSTF, where prior methods achieved limited gains.
1. The method appears applicable to domain generalization beyond adverse weather; there is no compelling reason it must be evaluated specifically on SemanticSTF. 2. By the same logic, even if strong augmentation produces SSR, wouldn’t training those regions with the original ground truth still be effective? Why deliberately block cross-entropy learning there? Is there any convincing reason that training with GT in SSR is not good? In real weather conditions, distortions can be just as strong. 3.
(Problem definition) This paper defines two factors that affect to the prediction performance: semantic confusion and semantic shift. The proposed framework is based on a clear observation that that semantic confusion is consistent across domains (raw and augmented data) while semantic shift occurs only in augmented data. (Effectiveness) Experimental results verify the effectiveness of the proposed framework under various conditions, consistently outperforming previous approaches.
(Universality of semantic confusion) As the semantic confusion is identified using a learned model, the semantic confusion might have a sort of dependency with the learned model. For example, I guess the semantic confusion identified based on the consistency in predictions (the key idea of this paper) is not consist across models used for prediction with different discriminative power. (i.e., the confusion matrix shown in Figure 2-(a) could be different when a smaller/larger model is used for pr
1. A3Point is well-motivated and the proposed semantic shift detection method makes a lot of sense. 2. The experiments are thorough and extensive. 3. The results show the effectiveness of the proposed method.
1. The authors do not discuss the computational efficiency during training. To the reviewer's understanding, the VQ-VAE part and distillation loss part only appear during training and are discarded during testing. Thus the computational efficiency during testing remain the same with other methods. However, a quantitative evaluation of the computational and memory consumption overhead during training is not provided. 2. Although demonstrated by the experiment results, the reviewer is concerned a
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Neural Network Applications · Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications · 3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
