Autonomous space resection using Point‐ and Line‐Based representation of FREE‐FORM control Linear Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Automatic single photo resection (SPR) remains one of the challenging problems in digital photogrammetry. Visibility and uniqueness of distinct control points in the input imagery limit robust automation of the space resection procedure. Recent advances in photogrammetry mandate adopting higher‐level primitives, such as free‐form control linear features, for replacing traditional control points. Linear features can be automatically extracted from the image space. On the other hand, object space control linear features can be obtained from an existing GIS layer containing 3D vector data such as road networks or from newly developed terrestrial mobile mapping systems (MMS). In this paper, two different approaches are presented for simultaneously determining the position and attitude of the imagery as well as the correspondence between image and object space linear features. These approaches are based on two representation schemes of the linear features. The first one represents the linear feature by a sequence of 2D and 3D points along the linear feature in the image and object space, respectively. The second scheme assumes that the feature is modelled by polylines (a sequence of straight‐line segments). Neither approach requires one‐to‐one correspondence between image and object space primitives, which makes the suggested methodology robust against changes and/or discrepancies between the data‐sets involved. This characteristic will be helpful in detecting and dealing with changes between object and image space linear features (due to temporal effects for example). The parameter estimation and matching follow an optimal sequential procedure that is developed and described within this paper, which depends on the sensitivity of the mathematical model relating corresponding primitives at various image regions to incremental changes in the exterior orientation parameters (EOP). Experiments are conducted to compare the algorithms’ efficiency and the accuracy of the estimated EOP using both approaches. Experimental results using real data demonstrate the feasibility and robustness of both representation schemes as well as the methodologies developed. Moreover, different generalisation levels of the polylines representing the free‐form linear features are compared.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".