skip to main content

Title: Mapping of Sparse 3D Data Using Alternating Projection
We propose a novel technique to register sparse 3D scans in the absence of texture. While existing methods such as KinectFusion or Iterative Closest Points (ICP) heavily rely on dense point clouds, this task is particularly challenging under sparse conditions without RGB data. Sparse texture-less data does not come with high-quality boundary signal, and this prohibits the use of correspondences from corners, junctions, or boundary lines. Moreover, in the case of sparse data, it is incorrect to assume that the same point will be captured in two consecutive scans. We take a different approach and first re-parameterize the point-cloud using a large number of line segments. In this re-parameterized data, there exists a large number of line intersection (and not correspondence) constraints that allow us to solve the registration task. We propose the use of a two-step alternating projection algorithm by formulating the registration as the simultaneous satisfaction of intersection and rigidity constraints. The proposed approach outperforms other top-scoring algorithms on both Kinect and LiDAR datasets. In Kinect, we can use 100X downsampled sparse data and still outperform competing methods operating on full-resolution data.
Authors:
; ; ; ;
Editors:
Ishikawa, H.; Liu, CL.; Pajdla, T.; Shi, J.
Award ID(s):
1764071
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10296127
Journal Name:
Lecture notes in computer science
Volume:
12622
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
295 - 313
ISSN:
0302-9743
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 3D scan registration is a classical, yet a highly useful problem in the context of 3D sensors such as Kinect and Velodyne. While there are several existing methods, the techniques are usually incremental where adjacent scans are registered first to obtain the initial poses, followed by motion averaging and bundle-adjustment refinement. In this paper, we take a different approach and develop minimal solvers for jointly computing the initial poses of cameras in small loops such as 3-, 4-, and 5-cycles1. Note that the classical registration of 2 scans can be done using a minimum of 3 point matches to compute 6 degrees of relative motion. On the other hand, to jointly compute the 3D reg- istrations in n-cycles, we take 2 point matches between the first n−1 consecutive pairs (i.e., Scan 1 & Scan 2, . . . , and Scan n − 1 & Scan n) and 1 or 2 point matches between Scan 1 and Scan n. Overall, we use 5, 7, and 10 point matches for 3-, 4-, and 5-cycles, and recover 12, 18, and 24 degrees of transformation variables, respectively. Using simulations and real-data we show that the 3D registration using mini n-cycles are computationally efficient,more »and can provide alternate and better initial poses compared to standard pairwise methods.« less
  2. This paper addresses the problem of learning to complete a scene's depth from sparse depth points and images of indoor scenes. Specifically, we study the case in which the sparse depth is computed from a visual-inertial simultaneous localization and mapping (VI-SLAM) system. The resulting point cloud has low density, it is noisy, and has nonuniform spatial distribution, as compared to the input from active depth sensors, e.g., LiDAR or Kinect. Since the VI-SLAM produces point clouds only over textured areas, we compensate for the missing depth of the low-texture surfaces by leveraging their planar structures and their surface normals which is an important intermediate representation. The pre-trained surface normal network, however, suffers from large performance degradation when there is a significant difference in the viewing direction (especially the roll angle) of the test image as compared to the trained ones. To address this limitation, we use the available gravity estimate from the VI-SLAM to warp the input image to the orientation prevailing in the training dataset. This results in a significant performance gain for the surface normal estimate, and thus the dense depth estimates. Finally, we show that our method outperforms other state-of-the-art approaches both on training (ScanNet [1] andmore »NYUv2 [2]) and testing (collected with Azure Kinect [3]) datasets.« less
  3. Abstract Background and Aims Terrestrial laser scanners (TLSs) have successfully captured various properties of individual trees and have potential to further increase the quality and efficiency of forest surveys. However, TLSs are limited to line of sight observations, and forests are complex structural environments that can occlude TLS beams and thereby cause incomplete TLS samples. We evaluate the prevalence and sources of occlusion that limit line of sight to forest stems for TLS scans, assess the impacts of TLS sample incompleteness, and evaluate sampling strategies and data analysis techniques aimed at improving sample quality and representativeness. Methods We use a large number of TLS scans (761), taken across a 255 650-m2 area of forest with detailed field survey data: the Harvard Forest Global Earth Observatory (ForestGEO) (MA, USA). Sets of TLS returns are matched to stem positions in the field surveys to derive TLS-observed stem sets, which are compared with two additional stem sets derived solely from the field survey data: a set of stems within a fixed range from the TLS and a set of stems based on 2-D modelling of line of sight. Stem counts and densities are compared between the stem sets, and four alternative derivations ofmore »area to correct stem densities for the effects of occlusion are evaluated. Representation of diameter at breast height and species, drawn from the field survey data, are also compared between the stem sets. Key Results Occlusion from non-stem sources was the major influence on TLS line of sight. Transect and point TLS samples demonstrated better representativeness of some stem properties than did plots. Deriving sampled area from TLS scans improved estimates of stem density. Conclusions TLS sampling efforts should consider alternative sampling strategies and move towards in-progress assessment of sample quality and dynamic adaptation of sampling.« less
  4. Obeid, Iyad ; Selesnick, Ivan ; Picone, Joseph (Ed.)
    The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus (TUSZ) [1] has been in distribution since April 2017. It is a subset of the TUH EEG Corpus (TUEG) [2] and the most frequently requested corpus from our 3,000+ subscribers. It was recently featured as the challenge task in the Neureka 2020 Epilepsy Challenge [3]. A summary of the development of the corpus is shown below in Table 1. The TUSZ Corpus is a fully annotated corpus, which means every seizure event that occurs within its files has been annotated. The data is selected from TUEG using a screening process that identifies files most likely to contain seizures [1]. Approximately 7% of the TUEG data contains a seizure event, so it is important we triage TUEG for high yield data. One hour of EEG data requires approximately one hour of human labor to complete annotation using the pipeline described below, so it is important from a financial standpoint that we accurately triage data. A summary of the labels being used to annotate the data is shown in Table 2. Certain standards are put into place to optimize the annotation process while not sacrificing consistency. Due to the nature of EEG recordings, some recordsmore »start off with a segment of calibration. This portion of the EEG is instantly recognizable and transitions from what resembles lead artifact to a flat line on all the channels. For the sake of seizure annotation, the calibration is ignored, and no time is wasted on it. During the identification of seizure events, a hard “3 second rule” is used to determine whether two events should be combined into a single larger event. This greatly reduces the time that it takes to annotate a file with multiple events occurring in succession. In addition to the required minimum 3 second gap between seizures, part of our standard dictates that no seizure less than 3 seconds be annotated. Although there is no universally accepted definition for how long a seizure must be, we find that it is difficult to discern with confidence between burst suppression or other morphologically similar impressions when the event is only a couple seconds long. This is due to several reasons, the most notable being the lack of evolution which is oftentimes crucial for the determination of a seizure. After the EEG files have been triaged, a team of annotators at NEDC is provided with the files to begin data annotation. An example of an annotation is shown in Figure 1. A summary of the workflow for our annotation process is shown in Figure 2. Several passes are performed over the data to ensure the annotations are accurate. Each file undergoes three passes to ensure that no seizures were missed or misidentified. The first pass of TUSZ involves identifying which files contain seizures and annotating them using our annotation tool. The time it takes to fully annotate a file can vary drastically depending on the specific characteristics of each file; however, on average a file containing multiple seizures takes 7 minutes to fully annotate. This includes the time that it takes to read the patient report as well as traverse through the entire file. Once an event has been identified, the start and stop time for the seizure is stored in our annotation tool. This is done on a channel by channel basis resulting in an accurate representation of the seizure spreading across different parts of the brain. Files that do not contain any seizures take approximately 3 minutes to complete. Even though there is no annotation being made, the file is still carefully examined to make sure that nothing was overlooked. In addition to solely scrolling through a file from start to finish, a file is often examined through different lenses. Depending on the situation, low pass filters are used, as well as increasing the amplitude of certain channels. These techniques are never used in isolation and are meant to further increase our confidence that nothing was missed. Once each file in a given set has been looked at once, the annotators start the review process. The reviewer checks a file and comments any changes that they recommend. This takes about 3 minutes per seizure containing file, which is significantly less time than the first pass. After each file has been commented on, the third pass commences. This step takes about 5 minutes per seizure file and requires the reviewer to accept or reject the changes that the second reviewer suggested. Since tangible changes are made to the annotation using the annotation tool, this step takes a bit longer than the previous one. Assuming 18% of the files contain seizures, a set of 1,000 files takes roughly 127 work hours to annotate. Before an annotator contributes to the data interpretation pipeline, they are trained for several weeks on previous datasets. A new annotator is able to be trained using data that resembles what they would see under normal circumstances. An additional benefit of using released data to train is that it serves as a means of constantly checking our work. If a trainee stumbles across an event that was not previously annotated, it is promptly added, and the data release is updated. It takes about three months to train an annotator to a point where their annotations can be trusted. Even though we carefully screen potential annotators during the hiring process, only about 25% of the annotators we hire survive more than one year doing this work. To ensure that the annotators are consistent in their annotations, the team conducts an interrater agreement evaluation periodically to ensure that there is a consensus within the team. The annotation standards are discussed in Ochal et al. [4]. An extended discussion of interrater agreement can be found in Shah et al. [5]. The most recent release of TUSZ, v1.5.2, represents our efforts to review the quality of the annotations for two upcoming challenges we hosted: an internal deep learning challenge at IBM [6] and the Neureka 2020 Epilepsy Challenge [3]. One of the biggest changes that was made to the annotations was the imposition of a stricter standard for determining the start and stop time of a seizure. Although evolution is still included in the annotations, the start times were altered to start when the spike-wave pattern becomes distinct as opposed to merely when the signal starts to shift from background. This cuts down on background that was mislabeled as a seizure. For seizure end times, all post ictal slowing that was included was removed. The recent release of v1.5.2 did not include any additional data files. Two EEG files had been added because, originally, they were corrupted in v1.5.1 but were able to be retrieved and added for the latest release. The progression from v1.5.0 to v1.5.1 and later to v1.5.2, included the re-annotation of all of the EEG files in order to develop a confident dataset regarding seizure identification. Starting with v1.4.0, we have also developed a blind evaluation set that is withheld for use in competitions. The annotation team is currently working on the next release for TUSZ, v1.6.0, which is expected to occur in August 2020. It will include new data from 2016 to mid-2019. This release will contain 2,296 files from 2016 as well as several thousand files representing the remaining data through mid-2019. In addition to files that were obtained with our standard triaging process, a part of this release consists of EEG files that do not have associated patient reports. Since actual seizure events are in short supply, we are mining a large chunk of data for which we have EEG recordings but no reports. Some of this data contains interesting seizure events collected during long-term EEG sessions or data collected from patients with a history of frequent seizures. It is being mined to increase the number of files in the corpus that have at least one seizure event. We expect v1.6.0 to be released before IEEE SPMB 2020. The TUAR Corpus is an open-source database that is currently available for use by any registered member of our consortium. To register and receive access, please follow the instructions provided at this web page: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/tuh_eeg/html/downloads.shtml. The data is located here: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/tuh_eeg/downloads/tuh_eeg_artifact/v2.0.0/.« less
  5. Recovering rigid registration between successive camera poses lies at the heart of 3D reconstruction, SLAM and visual odometry. Registration relies on the ability to compute discriminative 2D features in successive camera images for determining feature correspondences, which is very challenging in feature-poor environments, i.e. low-texture and/or low-light environments. In this paper, we aim to address the challenge of recovering rigid registration between successive camera poses in feature-poor environments in a Visual Inertial Odometry (VIO) setting. In addition to inertial sensing, we instrument a small aerial robot with an RGBD camera and propose a framework that unifies the incorporation of 3D geometric entities: points, lines, and planes. The tracked 3D geometric entities provide constraints in an Extended Kalman Filtering framework. We show that by directly exploiting 3D geometric entities, we can achieve improved registration. We demonstrate our approach on different texture-poor environments, with some containing only flat texture-less surfaces providing essentially no 2D features for tracking. In addition, we evaluate how the addition of different 3D geometric entities contributes to improved pose estimation by comparing an estimated pose trajectory to a ground truth pose trajectory obtained from a motion capture system. We consider computationally efficient methods for detecting 3D points, linesmore »and planes, since our goal is to implement our approach on small mobile robots, such as drones.« less