Out-of-Distribution Detection in LiDAR Semantic Segmentation Using Epistemic Uncertainty from Hierarchical GMMs

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.08631
• Title: Out-of-Distribution Detection in LiDAR Semantic Segmentation Using Epistemic Uncertainty from Hierarchical GMMs
• Authors: Hanieh Shojaei Miandashti, Claus Brenner (Leibniz University Hannover)
• Classification: cs.CV, cs.LG
• Publication Date: October 8, 2025 (arXiv preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08631

Abstract

This paper proposes an epistemic uncertainty estimation method based on hierarchical Bayesian Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) parameter modeling for out-of-distribution (OOD) detection in LiDAR semantic segmentation. The method requires neither auxiliary data nor additional training stages, achieving significant improvements over existing prediction entropy-based methods on the SemanticKITTI dataset: 18% improvement in AUROC, 22% improvement in AUPRC, and reduction of FPR95 from 76% to 40%.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

In safety-critical applications such as autonomous driving, LiDAR semantic segmentation must not only accurately understand known scenes but also identify out-of-distribution (OOD) objects unseen during training, avoiding misclassification of unknown objects as known categories.

Problem Significance

1. Safety Requirements: Autonomous driving systems need to identify anomalous objects on roads (e.g., trash bins, signs, animals)
2. Reliability Demands: Deep models tend to produce overconfident but incorrect predictions for OOD inputs
3. Practical Considerations: Real-world environments contain numerous object categories not covered in training datasets

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Supervised Methods: Rely on auxiliary OOD datasets, which are difficult to obtain in the LiDAR domain
2. Unsupervised Methods: Primarily depend on prediction entropy, conflating epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty
3. Uncertainty Confusion: Prediction entropy mixes model uncertainty with data noise, leading to misclassification of ambiguous in-distribution regions as OOD

Core Contributions

1. Proposed OOD detection method based on epistemic uncertainty: Separates epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty through hierarchical Bayesian modeling of GMM parameters
2. Unsupervised Framework: Requires neither auxiliary OOD data nor additional training stages, enhancing practicality
3. Significant Performance Improvements: Substantially surpasses existing methods on the SemanticKITTI dataset
4. Theoretical Contribution: Demonstrates the advantages of epistemic uncertainty over prediction entropy in OOD detection

Method Details

Task Definition

Given range view representations of LiDAR point clouds, the objectives are:

1. Perform pixel-level semantic segmentation
2. Identify pixel regions belonging to OOD
3. Quantify prediction uncertainty

Model Architecture

1. Generative-Discriminative Hybrid Framework

Based on the GMMSeg architecture, employing deep neural networks to extract pixel-level feature representations z ∈ R^D, then modeling class-conditional Gaussian mixture distributions for each semantic class c in feature space:

p(z | c) = Σ(k=1 to K) π_k^(c) N(z | μ_k^(c), Σ_k^(c))

where π_k^(c), μ_k^(c), Σ_k^(c) represent the mixture weight, mean, and covariance of the k-th Gaussian component, respectively.

2. Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling

The key innovation lies in hierarchical Bayesian modeling of GMM parameters:

• Prior Distribution: Gaussian-inverse-gamma conjugate priors for the mean and variance of each Gaussian component
• Posterior Update: Updates parameter posterior distributions based on training data
• Parameter Sampling: Samples multiple sets of GMM parameters from the posterior distribution during inference

Specifically:

μ_k^(c) ~ N(μ_0, σ_k^2(c)/κ_0)
σ_k^2(c) ~ Inv-Gamma(α_0, β_0)

3. Epistemic Uncertainty Estimation

By sampling n sets of GMM parameters, computes the frequency distribution of class predictions for each pixel, then calculates entropy:

H[y | z] = -Σ(c=1 to C) p̄_c log p̄_c

where p̄_c = (1/n)Σ(i=1 to n)Iy^(i) = c represents the empirical probability of class c.

Technical Innovations

1. Uncertainty Separation: Directly estimates epistemic uncertainty through parameter sampling, avoiding the conflation of two uncertainty types in prediction entropy
2. No Retraining Required: Leverages the feature space of existing segmentation networks, achieving uncertainty estimation through GMM modeling
3. Theoretical Foundation: Based on mutual information theory, epistemic uncertainty is defined as Iy; θ | x = H(p(y|x)) - E_θH(p(y|x,θ))

Experimental Setup

Datasets

• SemanticKITTI: LiDAR point cloud dataset with 19 semantic classes
• OOD Classes: Uses the outlier class in the dataset as OOD samples (trash bins, signs, animals, etc.)
• Input Format: 64×1024×5 range view images (x, y, z coordinates, intensity, distance)
• Feature Dimension: 32-dimensional features extracted using SalsaNext backbone network

Evaluation Metrics

• AUROC: Area under the ROC curve, measuring overall classification performance
• AUPRC: Area under the precision-recall curve, suitable for imbalanced class scenarios
• FPR95: False positive rate when true positive rate is 95%, measuring safety
• mIoU: Mean intersection over union for semantic segmentation

Comparison Methods

• MSP: Maximum Softmax Probability
• ODIN: Temperature scaling and input perturbation method
• MC Dropout: Monte Carlo Dropout
• Deep Ensembles (DE): Deep ensemble methods
• GMMSeg: Original GMM segmentation method (without uncertainty modeling)

Implementation Details

• Backbone Network: SalsaNext
• GMM Components: 2 Gaussian components per class
• Number of Samples: 20 GMM parameter samples
• Threshold Strategy: Unsupervised percentile threshold (top 5%)

Experimental Results

Main Results

Key Findings

1. Significant Performance Improvement: Compared to the best baseline (GMMSeg), AUROC improves by 3.44%, AUPRC improves by 11.53%
2. Enhanced Safety: FPR95 reduces from 76.48% (Deep Ensembles) to 40.14%
3. Segmentation Performance: Semantic segmentation accuracy shows slight improvement through voting mechanism

Qualitative Analysis

Through visualization comparison:

• Proposed Method: Accurately identifies genuine OOD objects (signs, trash bins, etc.), maintains moderate uncertainty for ambiguous ID regions
• Deep Ensembles: Produces excessive false positives at semantic boundaries, misses genuine OOD objects

Uncertainty Distribution Analysis

Comparing prediction entropy and epistemic uncertainty distributions:

• Prediction entropy exhibits substantial overlap between ID and OOD samples
• Epistemic uncertainty achieves clearer separation, with ID samples concentrated in low uncertainty regions

Related Work

OOD Detection Method Classification

1. Supervised Methods: Rely on auxiliary datasets for outlier exposure training
2. Unsupervised Methods: Based on uncertainty estimation, including deterministic methods (MSP, ODIN) and Bayesian methods (MC Dropout, Deep Ensembles)

Uncertainty Estimation

• Prediction Entropy Methods: Mix epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty
• Mutual Information Methods: Theoretically capable of separating two uncertainty types, but difficult to compute accurately in deep networks
• Contribution of This Work: Achieves direct estimation of epistemic uncertainty through Bayesian modeling of GMM parameters

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Epistemic uncertainty is more effective than prediction entropy in OOD detection
2. Hierarchical Bayesian GMM modeling provides a practical method for estimating epistemic uncertainty
3. The unsupervised framework eliminates dependence on auxiliary data

Limitations

1. False Positive Issues: May still produce high uncertainty for semantically ambiguous or incorrectly segmented ID regions
2. Threshold Selection: Depends on percentile threshold strategy, which may not be applicable to all scenarios
3. Computational Complexity: Requires multiple parameter samplings, increasing inference time

Future Directions

1. Investigate strategies to reduce ambiguity in boundary regions
2. Improve uncertainty threshold selection methods
3. Explore more efficient uncertainty estimation methods

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Contribution: Clearly articulates the advantages of epistemic uncertainty in OOD detection with theoretical foundation
2. Method Innovation: Cleverly achieves epistemic uncertainty estimation through Bayesian modeling of GMM parameters
3. Comprehensive Experiments: Conducts thorough comparisons with multiple baselines on standard datasets
4. Strong Practicality: Requires neither auxiliary data nor retraining, facilitating deployment

Weaknesses

1. Generalization Verification Needed: Validated only on SemanticKITTI dataset; requires verification on additional datasets
2. Parameter Sensitivity: Lacks detailed analysis of hyperparameter selection such as GMM component numbers
3. Computational Overhead: Insufficient analysis of computational costs for multiple samplings
4. Theoretical Analysis: Lacks in-depth theoretical explanation of why GMM modeling better separates uncertainty types

Impact

1. Academic Value: Provides new research directions for OOD detection in LiDAR semantic segmentation
2. Practical Value: Significant importance for safety-critical applications such as autonomous driving
3. Reproducibility: Clear method description with relatively straightforward implementation

Applicable Scenarios

1. Autonomous Driving: Detection of anomalous objects on roads
2. Robot Navigation: Identification of obstacles in unknown environments
3. Security Monitoring: Detection of anomalous behaviors or objects
4. Industrial Inspection: Identification of defective products on production lines

References

The paper cites important works in related fields, including:

• GMMSeg 18: Foundational work in generative semantic segmentation
• Deep Ensembles 16: Classical method for uncertainty estimation
• MC Dropout 7: Representative work in Bayesian deep learning
• SemanticKITTI 1: Standard dataset for LiDAR semantic segmentation

This paper makes important contributions to the field of OOD detection in LiDAR semantic segmentation. Through clever technical design, it achieves effective estimation of epistemic uncertainty, providing valuable solutions for improving the safety and reliability of autonomous driving systems.