ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparison of Point Cloud Registration Techniques on Scanned Physical Objects.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Massive Point Cloud Processing for Efficient Construction Quality Inspection and Control.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative analysis of six prominent registration techniques for solving CAD model alignment problems. Unlike the typical approach of assessing registration algorithms with synthetic datasets, our study utilizes point clouds generated from the Cranfield benchmark. Point clouds are sampled from existing CAD models and 3D scans of physical objects, introducing real-world complexities such as noise and outliers. The acquired point cloud scans, including ground-truth transformations, are made publicly available. This dataset includes several cleaned-up scans of nine 3D-printed objects. Our main contribution lies in assessing the performance of three classical (GO-ICP, RANSAC, FGR) and three learning-based (PointNetLK, RPMNet, ROPNet) methods on real-world scans, using a wide range of metrics. These include recall, accuracy and computation time. Our comparison shows a high accuracy for GO-ICP, as well as PointNetLK, RANSAC and RPMNet combined with ICP refinement. However, apart from GO-ICP, all methods show a significant number of failure cases when applied to scans containing more noise or requiring larger transformations. FGR and RANSAC are among the quickest methods, while GO-ICP takes several seconds to solve. Finally, while learning-based methods demonstrate good performance and low computation times, they have difficulties in training and generalizing. Our results can aid novice researchers in the field in selecting a suitable registration method for their application, based on quantitative metrics. Furthermore, our code can be used by others to evaluate novel methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.