RANSAC approach for automated registration of terrestrial laser scans using linear features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The registration process of terrestrial laser scans (TLS) targets the problem of how to combine several laser scans in order to attain better information about features than what could be obtained through single scan. The main goal of the registration process is to estimate the parameters which determine geometrical variation between the origins of datasets collected from different locations. Scale, shifts, and rotation parameters are usually used to describe such variation. This paper presents a framework for the registration of overlapping terrestrial laser scans by establishing an automatic matching strategy that uses 3D linear features. More specifically, invariant separation characteristics between 3D linear features extracted from laser scans will be used to establish hypothesized conjugate linear features between the laser scans. These candidate matches are then used to geo-reference scans relative to a common reference frame. The registration workflow simulates the well-known RANndom Sample Consensus method (RANSAC) for determining the registration parameters, whereas the iterative closest projected point (ICPP) is utilized to determine the most probable solution of the transformation parameters from several solutions. The experimental results prove that the proposed methodology can be used for the automatic registration of terrestrial laser scans using linear features.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".