Suppressing Laser Triangulation Sensors Optical Aberrations by Replacing the Lens with a Slit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a new capture method for laser triangulation sensors consisting in replacing the lens with a slit—effectively making it a pinhole camera—and exploiting diffraction effects. This new method circumvents optical aberrations such as spherical, defocusing, coma, field curvature, and lens distortion, as well as lens flare to a point where it can be virtually ignored. Moreover, using a slit reduces the number of optical parts and simplifies the modeling of the laser spot to find its center. To test our proposed method, we generated data sets taking pictures with both a lens and a slit on different materials placed on a worm gear with its position controlled by a high-precision step motor. With this data, we extracted the center of the laser spot with different image processing algorithms. It was then possible to assess the goodness of fit of the triangulation curve using the sets of captured points by both methods. We show that not only we circumvent the adverse effects of optical aberrations and lens flares, we obtain a more accurate estimation of the actual known distance of the target.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".