Automated Accuracy Assessment of a Mobile Mapping System with Lightweight Laser Scanning and MEMS Sensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accuracy assessment of mobile mapping system (MMS) outputs is usually reliant on manual labor to inspect the quality of a vast amount of collected geospatial data. This paper presents an automated framework for the accuracy assessment and quality inspection of point cloud data collected by MMSs operating with lightweight laser scanners and consumer-grade microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) sensors. A new, large-scale test facility has been established in a challenging navigation environment (downtown area) to support the analyses conducted in this research work. MMS point cloud data are divided into short time slices for comparison with the higher-accuracy, terrestrial laser scanner (TLS) point cloud of the test facility. MMS data quality is quantified by the results of registering the point cloud of each slice with the TLS datasets. Experiments on multiple land vehicle MMS point cloud datasets using a lightweight laser scanner and three different MEMS devices are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. The mean accuracy of a consumer grade MEMS (<$100) was found to be 1.13 ± 0.47 m. The mean accuracy of two commercial MEMS (>$100) was in the range of 0.48 ± 0.23 m to 0.85 ± 0.52 m. The method presented here in can be straightforwardly implemented and adopted for the accuracy assessment of other MMSs types such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".