MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169866651 · doi:10.1109/im.2001.924426

A nearest neighbor method for efficient ICP

2002· article· en· W2169866651 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Greenspan, Guy Godin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Triangle inequalityk-nearest neighbors algorithmPoint (geometry)MathematicsIterative closest pointAlgorithmCombinatoricsSet (abstract data type)Iterative methodTree (set theory)Computational geometryComputer sciencePoint cloudGeometryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel solution is presented to the Nearest Neighbor Problem that is specifically tailored for determining correspondences within the Iterative Closest Point Algorithm. The reference point set P is preprocessed by calculating for each point p/spl I.oarr//sub i//spl isin/P that neighborhood of points which lie within a certain distance /spl epsiv/ of p/spl I.oarr//sub i/. The points within each /spl epsiv/-neighborhood are sorted by increasing distance to their respective p/spl I.oarr//sub i/. At runtime, the correspondences are tracked across iterations, and the previous correspondence is used as an estimate of the current correspondence. If the estimate satifies a constraint, called the Spherical Constraint, then the nearest neighbor falls within the /spl epsiv/-neighborhood of the estimate. A novel theorem, the Ordering Theorem, is presented which allows the Triangle Inequality to efficiently prune points from the sorted /spl epsiv/-neighborhood from further consideration. The method has been implemented and is demonstrated to be more efficient than both the k-d tree and Elias methods. After /spl sim/40 iterations, fewer than 2 distance calculations were required on average per correspondence, which is close to the theoretical minimum of 1. Furthermore, after 20 iterations the time expense per iteration was demonstrated to be negligibly more than simply looping through the points.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations103
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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