MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472068560 · doi:10.1109/lgrs.2016.2571121

Junction-Based Correspondence Estimation of Plant Point Cloud Data Using Subgraph Matching

2016· article· en· W2472068560 on OpenAlexaff
Ayan Chaudhury, Mark Brophy, John A. Barron

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint cloudMatching (statistics)AlgorithmIterative closest pointComputer scienceMathematicsEuclidean distanceCluster analysisArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laser scanner-captured 3-D point cloud data analysis is becoming more commonly used for remote sensing and plant science applications. Because of nonrigidity and complexity, reconstructing a 3-D model of a plant is extremely challenging. Existing algorithms often fail to find correct correspondences for plantlike thin structures. We address the problem of finding 3-D junction points in plant point cloud data as a first step of this correspondence matching process. Temporarily, we transform the 3-D problem into 2-D by performing appropriate coordinate transformations to the neighborhood of each 3-D point. Our proposed method has two steps. First, a statistical dip test of multimodality is performed to detect the nonlinearity of the local 2D structure. Then, each branch is approximated by sequential random-sample-consensus line fitting and a Euclidean clustering technique. The straight line parameters of each branch are extracted using total-least-squares estimation. Finally, the straight line equations are solved to determine if they intersect in the local neighborhood. Such junction points are good candidates for subsequent correspondence algorithms. Using these detected junction points, we formulate a correspondence algorithm as a subgraph matching problem and show that, without using traditional descriptor similarity-based matching, good correspondences can be obtained by simply considering geodesic distances among graph nodes. Experiments on synthetic and real ( Arabidopsis plant) data show that the proposed method outperforms the state of the art.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing LettersSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207