Error Budget of Lidar Systems and Quality Control of the Derived Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lidar systems have been widely adopted for the acquisition of dense and accurate topographic data over extended areas. Although the utilization of this technology has increased in different applications, the development of standard methodologies for the quality assurance of lidar systems and quality control of the derived data has not followed the same trend. In other words, a lack of reliable, practical, cost-effective, and commonly-acceptable methods for quality evaluation is evident. A frequently adopted procedure for quality evaluation is the comparison between lidar data and ground control points. Besides being expensive, this approach is not accurate enough for the verification of the horizontal accuracy, which is known to be worse than the vertical accuracy. This paper is dedicated to providing an accurate, economical, and convenient quality control methodology for the evaluation of lidar data. The paper starts with a brief discussion of the lidar mathematical model, which is followed by an analysis of possible random and systematic errors and their impact on the resulting surface. Based on the discussion of error sources and their impact, a tool for evaluating the quality of the derived surface is proposed. In addition to the verification of the data quality, the proposed method can be used for evaluating the system parameters and measurements. Experimental results from simulated and real data demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed tool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it