MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Automatic Point Clouds Registration Based on the Method of Least Squares

2009· article· en· W2085067995 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueKey engineering materials · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudCoordinate systemSurface (topology)Moving least squaresPoint (geometry)Least-squares function approximationComputer visionPoint set registrationProjection (relational algebra)Transformation (genetics)Matching (statistics)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceRigid transformationObject (grammar)Surface reconstructionMathematicsComputer scienceIterative closest pointGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An object has to be measured to recover its 3D shape in reverse engineering applications. The object surface is sampled point by point using a fringe projection. The method of least squares is used to match overlapping surfaces to estimate transformation parameters between a local coordinate system and the template coordinate system. The Gauss–Markoff model can minimize the sum of squares of Euclidean distances between surfaces for matching arbitrarily oriented 3D surface patches. This research uses the least squares method for the registration of point clouds. A relief example shows the feasibility of the proposed method. It takes about 4 seconds for the registration of 1531209 points with the error less than 0.03mm, and the iteration number is only 20. The surface profile is complete and smooth after the registration, which can meet the requirement of surface reconstruction.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · 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