MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045050577 · doi:10.1117/12.679694

Surface registration technique for close-range mapping applications

2006· article· en· W2045050577 on OpenAlexaff
Ayman Habib, Rita W. T. Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Processing and 3D Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIterative closest pointPoint cloudComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionLaser scanningImage registrationMatching (statistics)Range (aeronautics)LaserImage (mathematics)MathematicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Close-range mapping applications such as cultural heritage restoration, virtual reality modeling for the entertainment industry, and anatomical feature recognition for medical activities require 3D data that is usually acquired by high resolution close-range laser scanners. Since these datasets are typically captured from different viewpoints and/or at different times, accurate registration is a crucial procedure for 3D modeling of mapped objects. Several registration techniques are available that work directly with the raw laser points or with extracted features from the point cloud. Some examples include the commonly known Iterative Closest Point (ICP) algorithm and a recently proposed technique based on matching spin-images. This research focuses on developing a surface matching algorithm that is based on the Modified Iterated Hough Transform (MIHT) and ICP to register 3D data. The proposed algorithm works directly with the raw 3D laser points and does not assume point-to-point correspondence between two laser scans. The algorithm can simultaneously establish correspondence between two surfaces and estimates the transformation parameters relating them. Experiment with two partially overlapping laser scans of a small object is performed with the proposed algorithm and shows successful registration. A high quality of fit between the two scans is achieved and improvement is found when compared to the results obtained using the spin-image technique. The results demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed algorithm for registering 3D laser scanning data in close-range mapping applications to help with the generation of complete 3D 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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicImage Processing and 3D ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207