MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010786893 · doi:10.1117/12.2043984

Target registration error for rigid shape-based registration with heteroscedastic noise

2014· article· en· W2010786893 on OpenAlexaff
Burton Ma, Joy Choi, Hong M. Huai

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStylusFiducial markerArtificial intelligenceNoise (video)CovarianceComputer visionImage registrationComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an analytic equation for approximating expected root mean square (RMS) target registration error (TRE) for rigid shape-based registration where measured noisy data points are matched to a rigid shape. The noise distribution of the data points is assumed to be zero-mean, independent, and non-identical; i.e., the noise covariance may be different for each data point. The equation was derived by extending a previously published spatial stiffness model of registration. The equation was validated by performing registration experiments with both synthetic registration data and data collected using an optically tracked pointing stylus. The synthetic registration data were generated from the surface of an ellipsoid. The optically tracked data were collected from three plastic replicas of human radii and registered to isosurface models of the radii computed from CT scans. Noise covariances for the data points were computed by considering the pose of the tracked stylus, the positions of the individual fiducial markers on the stylus coordinate reference frame, and the calibrated position of the stylus tip; these quantities and an estimate of the fiducial localization covariance of the tracking system were used as inputs to a previously published algorithm for estimating the covariance of TRE for point-based (fiducial) registration. Registration simulations were performed using a modified version of the iterated closest point algorithm and the resulting RMS TREs were compared to the values predicted by our analytic equation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207