MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166892589 · doi:10.1109/crv.2015.13

Simultaneous Scene Reconstruction and Auto-Calibration Using Constrained Iterative Closest Point for 3D Depth Sensor Array

2015· article· en· W2166892589 on OpenAlexafffund
Meng Xi Zhu, Christian Scharfenberger, Alexander Wong, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsIterative closest pointComputer visionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceOverhead (engineering)Point cloudCalibrationRobotPlanarPoint (geometry)Camera resectioningDepth mapField of viewMatching (statistics)Tracking (education)Computer graphics (images)Image (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Being able to monitor a large area is essential for intelligent warehouse automation. Complete depth map of a plant floor allows Automated Guided Vehicles (AGV) to navigate the environment and safely interact with nearby people and equipment, eliminating the need for installation of guide tracks and range sensors on individual robots. A single camera does not have sufficient field of view irresolution to monitor a large scene, and a camera mounted on a moving platform introduces delays and blind spots that could put people at risk in busy areas. Multi-camera arrays are needed in order to reconstruct the scene from simultaneous captures. Existing iterative closest point (ICP) based algorithms fail to produce meaningful results due to ICP attempting to minimize Euclidean distance between non-matching pairs. This paper describes a method for accurate and computationally efficient simultaneous scene reconstruction and auto-calibration using depth maps captured with multiple downward looking overhead cameras. The proposed method extends upon standard ICP algorithm by incorporating constraints imposed by the camera setup. The common field of view constraint imposed on the ICP algorithm matches a subset of points that are simultaneously in two camera's field of view. The planar constraint restricts the search space for closest points between 2point clouds to be on a projected planar surface. To simulate a typical warehouse environment, depth maps captured from two overhead Microsoft Kinect cameras were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. The results indicate the proposed algorithm successfully reconstructed the scene and produced auto-calibrated extrinsic camera matrix, where as standard ICP algorithm did not generate meaningful results.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207