MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412981505 · doi:10.1016/j.ophoto.2025.100096

Asynchronous Lidar: Proof-of-concept simulation and demonstration tests

2025· article· en· W4412981505 on OpenAlexaff
Craig Glennie, Luyen K. Bui, Francisco Haces‐Garcia, Derek D. Lichti

Bibliographic record

VenueISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCold Regions Research and Engineering LaboratoryU.S. Army Corps of EngineersDirectorate for GeosciencesNational Geospatial-Intelligence AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsProof of conceptLidarAsynchronous communicationComputer scienceRemote sensingGeographyComputer networkOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes an asynchronous airborne lidar design in which the laser transmitter and detectors/receivers are disconnected and carried on separate platforms. This design is more advantageous than conventional synchronous lidar systems operating in monostatic mode because redundant lidar observations can be captured. First, proof-of-concept experiments are conducted based on Monte Carlo simulations assuming a transmitter is combined with different numbers of receivers. In this way, different receiver configurations, i.e., the locations of the transmitter and receivers relative to each other, are tested with both single beam (nadir and slant range) and multi beam transmitters. Networks with the transmitter, receivers, and ground point forming a plane result in very high dilution of precision corresponding to high ground point uncertainties, which are weak configurations and should be avoided. A laboratory demonstration of an asynchronous lidar system is also presented. The results from the lab demo validate the observations made by the simulation studies. Networks with three or four receivers appear to be a reasonable balance between the number of receivers used and the ground point uncertainties. Ground point uncertainties are also dependent on the transmitter and receiver flight altitudes; multi beam simulations of four-receiver networks with varying transmitter/receiver flight heights show that the horizontal uncertainties are almost completely dependent on the transmitter flight altitude, however, both flight altitudes affect the vertical uncertainty with the receiver flight altitude having a greater influence. The best configuration with the lowest uncertainties is obtained by maximizing the ratio of transmitter height to receiver height.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISPRS Open Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote SensingSame topicRemote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207