Performance of parameter-domain and spatial-domain pole-like feature segmentation using single and multiple terrestrial laser scans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) systems have been established as a leading tool for the acquisition of high density three-dimensional point clouds from physical objects. The collected point clouds by these systems can be utilized for a wide spectrum of object extraction, modelling, and monitoring applications. Pole-like features are among the most important objects that can be extracted from TLS data especially those acquired in urban areas and industrial sites. However, these features cannot be completely extracted and modelled using a single TLS scan due to significant local point density variations and occlusions caused by the other objects. Therefore, multiple TLS scans from different perspectives should be integrated through a registration procedure to provide a complete coverage of the pole-like features in a scene. To date, different segmentation approaches have been proposed for the extraction of pole-like features from either single or multiple-registered TLS scans. These approaches do not consider the internal characteristics of a TLS point cloud (local point density variations and noise level in data) and usually suffer from computational inefficiency. To overcome these problems, two recently-developed PCA-based parameter-domain and spatial-domain approaches for the segmentation of pole-like features are introduced, in this paper. Moreover, the performance of the proposed segmentation approaches for the extraction of pole-like features from a single or multiple-registered TLS scans is investigated in this paper. The alignment of the utilized TLS scans is implemented using an Iterative Closest Projected Point (ICPP) registration procedure. Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the extracted pole-like features from single and multiple-registered TLS scans, using both of the proposed segmentation approaches, is conducted to verify the extraction of more complete pole-like features using multipleregistered TLS scans.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".