Error Analysis of a Mobile Terrestrial LiDar System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The understanding of the effects of error on Mobile Terrestrial LiDAR (MTL) point clouds has not increased with their popularity. In this study, comprehensive error analyses based on error propagation theory and global sensitivity study were carried out to quantitatively describe the effects of various error sources in a MTL system on the point cloud. Two scenarios were envisioned; the first using the uncertainties for measurement and calibration variables that are normally expected for MTL systems as they exist today, and the second using an ideal situation where measurement and calibration values have been well adjusted. It was found that the highest proportion of error in the point cloud can be attributed to the boresight and lever arm parameters for MTL systems calibrated using non-rigours methods. In particular, under a loosely controlled error condition, the LiDAR to INS Z lever arm and the LiDAR to INS roll angle contributed more error in the output point cloud than any other parameter, including the INS position. Under tightly controlled error conditions, the INS position became the dominant source of error in the point cloud. In addition, conditional variance analysis has shown that the majority of the error in a point cloud can be attributed to the individual variables. Errors caused by the interactions between the diverse variables are minimal and can be regarded as insignificant.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".