ANALYSIS OF TWO TRIANGLE-BASED MULTI-SURFACE REGISTRATION ALGORITHMS OF IRREGULAR POINT CLOUDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The registration of multiple surface point clouds into a common reference frame is a well addressed topic, and the Iterative Closest Point (ICP) is – perhaps – the most used method when registering laser scans due to their irregular nature. In this paper, we examine the proposed Iterative Closest Projected Point (ICPP) algorithm for the simultaneous registration of multiple point clouds. First, a point to triangular patch (i.e. closest three points) match is established by checking if the point falls within the triangular dipyramid, which has the three triangular patch points as a base and a user-chosen normal distance as the height to establish the two peaks. Then, the point is projected onto the patch surface, and its projection is then used as a match for the original point. It is also shown through empirical experimentation that the Delaunay triangles are not a requirement for establishing matches. In fact, Delaunay triangles in some scenarios may force blunders into the final solution, while using the closest three points leads to avoiding some undesired erroneous points. In addition, we review the algorithm by which the ICPP is inspired, namely, the Iterative Closest Patch (ICPatch); where conjugate point-patch pairs are extracted in the overlapping surface areas, and the transformation parameters between all neighbouring surfaces are estimated in a pairwise manner. Then, using the conjugate point-patch pairs, and applying the transformation parameters from the pairwise registration as initial approximations, the final surface transformation parameters are solved for simultaneously. Finally, we evaluate the assumptions made and examine the performance of the new algorithm against the ICPatch.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".