How to Efficiently Determine the Range Precision of 3D Terrestrial Laser Scanners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As laser scanning technology has improved a lot in recent years, terrestrial laser scanners (TLS) have become popular devices for surveying tasks with high accuracy demands, such as deformation analyses. For this reason, finding a stochastic model for TLS measurements is very important in order to get statistically reliable results. The measurement accuracy of laser scanners-especially of their rangefinders-is strongly dependent on the scanning conditions, such as the scan configuration, the object surface geometry and the object reflectivity. This study demonstrates a way to determine the intensity-dependent range precision of 3D points for terrestrial laser scanners that measure in 3D mode by using range residuals in laser beam direction of a best plane fit. This method does not require special targets or surfaces aligned perpendicular to the scanner, which allows a much quicker and easier determination of the stochastic properties of the rangefinder. Furthermore, the different intensity types-raw and scaled-intensities are investigated since some manufacturers only provide scaled intensities. It is demonstrated that the intensity function can be derived from raw intensity values as written in literature, and likewise-in a restricted measurement volume-from scaled intensity values if the raw intensities are not available.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".