MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMATIC ERRORS OF MOBILE LiDAR SYSTEMS: A SIMULATION APPROACH

2020· article· en· W3047395065 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohsen Hassanzadeh Shahraji, Christian Larouche, Marc Cocard

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersMitacsUniversité Laval
KeywordsSystematic errorOffset (computer science)Computer sciencePoint cloudLidarPlanarRemote sensingAlgorithmComputer visionSimulationMathematicsGeologyComputer graphics (images)Statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The systematic error analysis of the mobile LiDAR system (MLS) is always a challenging task in real-world situations. This challenge is mainly due to the mixture of systematic errors with non-systematic errors. To tackle this issue, in this paper, we introduce a conceptual model of an MLS simulator. The main advantage of the simulation-based approach is the full control over the erroneous systematic and non-systematic parameters that affect an MLS’s output. In the proposed simulation approach, we only take into account systematic errors that affect the simulated georeferenced point cloud. These systematic errors are as follows, POS-LiDAR boresight angles, POS-LiDAR leverarms, range offset, and scan angle offset. To simplify our analysis, we concentrate only on modeling the effects of systematic errors on planar targets and we focus solely on the terrestrial platform. Based on an independent analysis performed on each of the eight systematic errors of an MLS, to obtain strong visibility over systematic errors of an MLS, we suggest two planar targets of 1m x 1m dimensions with vertical and inclined orientations and a five-line pattern for MLS, two parallel and three side-looking passages. The proposed configuration generates an ideal input point cloud for the detection of systematic errors (except for the Z-Leverarm error) and ultimately it will lead to the proper input data for calibration of a terrestrial MLS. To validate our methodology, with an in-house assembled terrestrial MLS, we scanned a set of planar targets with three different orientations (vertical, inclined, and horizontal). This real-data validation test illustrated that with only two out of three planar targets (vertical and inclined) and with five out of six passages (two parallel to the planar targets and three side-looking passages), we will obtain expected visibility over the systematic errors of a terrestrial MLS, which approves the results with the simulation 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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.303
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 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
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS annals of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciencesSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207