A Practical Algorithm for the Viewpoint Planning of Terrestrial Laser Scanners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applications using terrestrial laser scanners (TLS) have been skyrocketing in the past two decades. In a scanning project, the configuration of scans is a critical issue as it has significant effects on the project cost and the quality of the product. In this paper, a practical strategy is proposed to resolve the problem of the optimal placement of the terrestrial laser scanner. The method attempts to reduce the number of viewpoints under the premise that the scenes are fully covered. In addition, the approach is designed in a way that the solutions can be efficiently explored. The method has been tested on 540 polygons simulated with different sizes and complexities. The results have also been compared with a benchmark strategy in terms of the optimality of the solutions and runtime. It is concluded that our proposed algorithm ties or reduces the number of viewpoints in the benchmark paper in 85.6% of the 540 tests. For complex environments, the method can potentially reduce the project cost by 10%. Although with relatively lower efficiency, our method can still reach the solution within a few minutes for a polygon with up to 500 vertices.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it