Distribution of Target Registration Error for Anisotropic and Inhomogeneous Fiducial Localization Error
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
In point-based rigid-body registration, target registration error (TRE) is an important measure of the accuracy of the performed registration. The registration's accuracy depends on the fiducial localization error (FLE) which, in turn, is due to the measurement errors in the points (fiducials) used to perform the registration. FLE may have different characteristics and distributions at each point of the registering data sets, and along each orthogonal axis. Previously, the distribution of TRE was estimated based on the assumption that FLE has an independent, identical, and isotropic or anisotropic distribution for each point in the registering data sets. In this article, we present a general solution based on the Maximum Likelihood (ML) algorithm that estimates the distribution of TRE for the cases where FLE has an independent, identical or inhomogeneous, isotropic or anisotropic, distribution at each point in the registering data sets, and when an algorithm is available that is capable of calculating the optimum registration to first order. Mathematically, we show that the proposed algorithm simplifies to the one proposed by Fitzpatrick and West when FLE has an independent, identical, and isotropic distribution in the registering data sets. Furthermore, we use numerical simulations to show that the proposed algorithm accurately estimates the distribution of TRE when FLE has an independent, inhomogeneous, and anisotropic distribution in the registering data sets.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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