CO-REGISTRATION OF PHOTOGRAMMETRIC AND LIDAR DATA: METHODOLOGY AND CASE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Registration activities combine data from different sources in order to attain higher accuracy and derive more information than available from one source. The increasing availability of a wide variety of sensors capable of capturing high quality and complementary data requires parallel efforts for developing accurate and robust registration techniques. Currently, photogrammetric and LIDAR systems are being incorporated in a wide spectrum of mapping applications such as city modeling, surface reconstruction, and object recognition. Photogrammetric processing of overlapping imagery provides accurate information regarding object space break-lines in addition to an explicit semantic description of the photographed objects. On the other hand, LIDAR systems supply dense geometric surface information in the form of non-selective points. Considering the properties of photogrammetric and LIDAR data, it is clear that the two technologies provide complementary information. However, the synergic characteristics of both systems can be fully utilized only after successful registration of the photogrammetric and LIDAR data relative to a common reference frame. The registration methodology has to deal with three issues: registration primitives, transformation function, and similarity measure. This paper presents two methodologies for utilizing straight-line features derived from both datasets as the registration primitives. The first methodology directly incorporates the LIDAR lines as control information in the photogrammetric triangulation. The second methodology starts by generating a photogrammetric model relative to an arbitrary datum. Then, LIDAR features are used as control information for the absolute orientation of the photogrammetric model. In addition to the registration methodologies, the paper presents a comparative analysis between two approaches for extracting linear features from raw and processed/interpolated LIDAR data. Also, a comparative analysis between metric analog and amateur digital cameras within the registration process will be presented. The performance analysis is based on the quality of fit of the final alignment between the LIDAR and photogrammetric models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".