MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A FAST METHOD FOR MEASURING THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN 3D MODEL AND 3D POINT CLOUD

2016· article· en· W2470496469 on OpenAlexaff
Zongliang Zhang, Jonathan Li, Xin Li, Yangbin Lin, Shanxin Zhang, Cheng Wang

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudSimilarity (geometry)Measure (data warehouse)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)Similarity measureObject (grammar)AlgorithmData miningCloud computingImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper proposes a fast method for measuring the partial Similarity between 3D Model and 3D point Cloud (SimMC). It is crucial to measure SimMC for many point cloud-related applications such as 3D object retrieval and inverse procedural modelling. In our proposed method, the surface area of model and the Distance from Model to point Cloud (DistMC) are exploited as measurements to calculate SimMC. Here, DistMC is defined as the weighted distance of the distances between points sampled from model and point cloud. Similarly, Distance from point Cloud to Model (DistCM) is defined as the average distance of the distances between points in point cloud and model. In order to reduce huge computational burdens brought by calculation of DistCM in some traditional methods, we define SimMC as the ratio of weighted surface area of model to DistMC. Compared to those traditional SimMC measuring methods that are only able to measure global similarity, our method is capable of measuring partial similarity by employing distance-weighted strategy. Moreover, our method is able to be faster than other partial similarity assessment methods. We demonstrate the superiority of our method both on synthetic data and laser scanning data.

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)0.005
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œinternational archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences/International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207