Strip Adjustment of Airborne LiDAR Data in Urban Scenes Using Planar Features by the Minimum Hausdorff Distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Airborne Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data acquisition practice, discrepancies exist between adjacent strips even though careful system calibrations have been performed. A strip adjustment method using planar features acquired by the Minimum Hausdorff Distance (MHD) is proposed to eliminate these discrepancies. First, semi-suppressed fuzzy C-means and restricted region growing algorithms are used to extract buildings. Second, a binary image is generated from the minimum bounding rectangle that covers overlapping regions. Then, connected components labeling algorithm is applied to process the binary image to extract individual buildings. After that, building matching is performed based on MHD. Third, a coarse-to-fine approach is used to segment building roof planes. Then, plane matching is conducted under the constraints of MHD and normal vectors similarity. The last step is the calculation of the parameters based on Euclidean distance minimization between matched planes. Two different types of datasets, one of which was acquired by a dual-channel LiDAR system Trimble AX80, were selected to verify the proposed method. Experimental results show that the corresponding planar features that meet adjustment requirements can be successfully detected without any manual operations or auxiliary data or transformation of raw data, while the discrepancies between strips can be effectively eliminated. Although adjustment results of the proposed method slightly outperform the comparison alternative, the proposed method also has the advantage of processing the adjustment in a more automatic manner than the comparison method.
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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".