MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AN EFFICIENT, HIERARCHICAL VIEWPOINT PLANNING STRATEGY FOR TERRESTRIAL LASER SCANNER NETWORKS

2018· article· en· W2806791586 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Fengman Jia, Derek D. Lichti

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsComputer scienceWorkspaceLaser scanningScannerViewpointsTable (database)Object (grammar)Plan (archaeology)Quality (philosophy)VisibilityComputer visionArtificial intelligenceMathematical optimizationData miningMathematicsLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) techniques have been widely adopted in a variety of applications. However, unlike in geodesy or photogrammetry, insufficient attention has been paid to the optimal TLS network design. It is valuable to develop a complete design system that can automatically provide an optimal plan, especially for high-accuracy, large-volume scanning networks. To achieve this goal, one should look at the “optimality” of the solution as well as the computational complexity in reaching it. In this paper, a hierarchical TLS viewpoint planning strategy is developed to solve the optimal scanner placement problems. If one targeted object to be scanned is simplified as discretized wall segments, any possible viewpoint can be evaluated by a score table representing its visible segments under certain scanning geometry constraints. Thus, the design goal is to find a minimum number of viewpoints that achieves complete coverage of all wall segments. The efficiency is improved by densifying viewpoints hierarchically, instead of a “brute force” search within the entire workspace. The experiment environments in this paper were simulated from two buildings located on University of Calgary campus. Compared with the “brute force” strategy in terms of the quality of the solutions and the runtime, it is shown that the proposed strategy can provide a scanning network with a compatible quality but with more than a 70 % time saving.

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)0.002
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 score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207