# Invascal: Inverse-Vacuity Self-Calibration for Uncertainty-Aware LiDAR Range-View Semantic Segmentation

Source: [Invascal: Inverse-Vacuity Self-Calibration for Uncertainty-Aware LiDAR Range-View Semantic Segmentation](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/6a1e6362dbd7150506f85059>)

Collection index: [llms.txt](<https://www.sota2.com/research/llms.txt>)

Data updated: 2026-06-02T05:00:12.522Z

Authors: Kerim Turacan, Hannes Reichert, Andrei Bolandut, Konrad Doll

Published: 2026-05-20T16:39:29.000Z

## Abstract

LiDAR semantic segmentation is a core perception capability for autonomous vehicles and mobile robots. However, safe operation also depends on knowing when predictions are unreliable. Existing approaches typically rely on softmax confidence, which is often miscalibrated and overconfident, while stronger uncertainty estimates from Monte Carlo dropout or ensembles are often computationally expensive for real-time use. To this end, we introduce a novel, architecture-agnostic uncertainty-aware Adapter Head. It decomposes the prediction into a Preference Head for class ranking and a Strength Head that refines uncertainty assessment, thereby enabling a principled construction of evidential Dirichlet representations. Building on this design, we propose our inverse-vacuity self-calibration objective (Invascal), which directly supervises the strength signal to produce reliable and well-calibrated uncertainty estimates while preventing runaway evidence growth. We evaluate our framework across multiple LiDAR datasets and backbone architectures. We compare against deterministic training, Monte Carlo dropout and ensembles, and prior evidential methods. Our approach consistently improves uncertainty calibration over traditional deterministic methods with minimal computational overhead. At the same time, it preserves competitive segmentation accuracy, where prior evidential methods often suffer performance degradation.

## Recorded benchmark results

A research result applies to its stated dataset, split, metric and evaluation configuration. Compare like-for-like settings, preserve the metric's unit and direction, and distinguish paper-reported results from independent reproduction. The best result recorded here is not a claim of exhaustive, current global coverage.

- [Semantic Segmentation on SemanticTHAB (test)](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/semantic-segmentation-on-semanticthab-test.md>): Semantic segmentation; SemanticTHAB (test); IoU (Person): 75.4.

- [Semantic Segmentation on Panoptic-CUDAL (test)](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/semantic-segmentation-on-panoptic-cudal-test.md>): Semantic segmentation; Panoptic-CUDAL (test); IoU (Person): 22.8.

## Original sources and implementation

[Original paper](<https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00069>)

[PDF](<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.00069.pdf>)
