MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326878767 · doi:10.1115/detc2009-86431

A Robust Initial Matching Scheme for Free-Form Object Geometry

2009· article· en· W2326878767 on OpenAlexaff
Hsi-Yung Steve Feng, Daoshan OuYang, Nimun A. Jahangir, Hao Song

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsHusky Injection Molding Systems (Canada)Ontario Power GenerationUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudMatching (statistics)Iterative closest pointMeasure (data warehouse)AlgorithmPoint set registrationTransformation (genetics)MathematicsComputer scienceIterative methodDelaunay triangulationRigid transformationFocus (optics)Euclidean distance3-dimensional matchingIterative refinementObject (grammar)Blossom algorithmComputer visionArtificial intelligencePoint (geometry)Data miningGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of matching two point cloud data sets, or identifying the correct rigid-body transformation between them, arises in various areas such as manufacturing inspection and object recognition. Existing methods establish the correspondence between the two data sets via the measure of shortest Euclidean distance and rely on an iterative procedure to converge to the solution. The effectiveness of such methods is highly dependent on the initial condition for the numerical iteration. This paper proposes a robust scheme to automatically generate the needed initial matching condition. The initial matching scheme undertakes the alignment in a global manner and yields a rough match of the data sets. Instead of directly minimizing the distance measure between the data sets, the focus of the initial matching is on the alignment of shape features. This is achieved by evaluating Delaunay pole spheres for the point cloud data sets and analyzing their distributions to map out the intrinsic features of the underlying surface shape. The initial matching result is then fine-tuned by the final matching step via existing methods such as the iterative closest point method. Extensive case studies have shown that the proposed initial matching scheme is able to significantly improve the matching accuracy.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207