MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992850481 · doi:10.3390/s141224156

Recognizing Objects in 3D Point Clouds with Multi-Scale Local Features

2014· article· en· W1992850481 on OpenAlexaff
Min Lu, Yulan Guo, Jun Zhang, Yanxin Ma, Yinjie Lei

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsClutterPoint cloudComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Set (abstract data type)Feature (linguistics)Scale (ratio)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionPoint (geometry)Object (grammar)Computer visionTask (project management)MathematicsRadar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognizing 3D objects from point clouds in the presence of significant clutter and occlusion is a highly challenging task. In this paper, we present a coarse-to-fine 3D object recognition algorithm. During the phase of offline training, each model is represented with a set of multi-scale local surface features. During the phase of online recognition, a set of keypoints are first detected from each scene. The local surfaces around these keypoints are further encoded with multi-scale feature descriptors. These scene features are then matched against all model features to generate recognition hypotheses, which include model hypotheses and pose hypotheses. Finally, these hypotheses are verified to produce recognition results. The proposed algorithm was tested on two standard datasets, with rigorous comparisons to the state-of-the-art algorithms. Experimental results show that our algorithm was fully automatic and highly effective. It was also very robust to occlusion and clutter. It achieved the best recognition performance on all of these datasets, showing its superiority compared to existing algorithms.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207