MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

KALMAN FILTER BASED RAILWAY TRACKING FROM MOBILE LIDAR DATA

2015· article· en· W2283531031 on OpenAlexaff
Y. Jwa, G. Sonh

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersMinistry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
KeywordsTrack (disk drive)Computer scienceTrajectoryLidarKalman filterProcess (computing)Computer visionTracking (education)Track geometryBayesian probabilityArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This study introduces a new method to reconstruct 3D model of railway tracks from a railway corridor scene captured by mobile LiDAR data. The proposed approach starts to approximate the orientation of railway track trajectory from LiDAR point clouds and extract a strip, which direction is orthogonal to the trajectory of railway track. Within the strip, a track region and its track points are detected based on the Bayesian decision process. Once the main track region is localized, rail head points are segmented based on the region growing approach from the detected track points and then initial track models are reconstructed using a third-degree polynomial function. Based on the initial modelling result, a potential track region with varying lengths is dynamically predicted and the model parameters are updated in the Kalman Filter framework. The key aspect is that the proposed approach is able to enhance the efficiency of the railway tracking process by reducing the complexity for detecting track points and reconstructing track models based on the use of the track model previously reconstructed. An evaluation of the proposed method is performed over an urban railway corridor area containing multiple railway track pairs.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207