MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120679064 · doi:10.18280/ts.370614

Clustering-Based Plane Refitting of Non-planar Patches for Voxel-Based 3D Point Cloud Segmentation Using K-Means Clustering

2020· article· en· W3120679064 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ali Sağlam, Hasan Bilgehan Maki̇neci̇, Ömer Kaan Baykan, Nurdan Akhan Baykan

Bibliographic record

VenueTraitement du signal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
KeywordsPoint cloudVoxelCluster analysisSegmentationPlanarArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePlane (geometry)Computer visionPoint (geometry)Process (computing)Pattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsGeometryComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Point cloud processing is a struggled field because the points in the clouds are three-dimensional and irregular distributed signals. For this reason, the points in the point clouds are mostly sampled into regularly distributed voxels in the literature. Voxelization as a pretreatment significantly accelerates the process of segmenting surfaces. The geometric cues such as plane directions (normals) in the voxels are mostly used to segment the local surfaces. However, the sampling process may include a non-planar point group (patch), which is mostly on the edges and corners, in a voxel. These voxels can cause misleading the segmentation process. In this paper, we separate the non-planar patches into planar sub-patches using k-means clustering. The largest one among the planar sub-patches replaces the normal and barycenter properties of the voxel with those of itself. We have tested this process in a successful point cloud segmentation method and measure the effects of the proposed method on two point cloud segmentation datasets (Mosque and Train Station). The method increases the accuracy success of the Mosque dataset from 83.84% to 87.86% and that of the Train Station dataset from 85.36% to 87.07%.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraitement du signalSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207