skip to main content
10.1145/3627341.3627342acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiccvitConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Fitting Two Point Sets with Soft Dissimilarity

Published:15 December 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Estimating transformation parameters between 3D point sets is crucial for various motion-based 3D vision tasks, such as point cloud registration, pose estimation, 3D object recognition, and tracking. Traditional methods rely on optimizing parameters from a subset of physical point pairs with hard correspondences. However, these approaches face challenges in complex scenes with sparse or partially overlapping point sets, lacking sufficient corresponding points. In this paper, we propose a novel transformation estimation approach based on soft dissimilarity, a metric that quantifies point-to-point correlation using spatial distance. Our method leverages soft dissimilarity to obtain ample corresponding point pairs for each raw point, improving the estimation process. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method achieves superior accuracy and robustness compared to traditional correspondence-based transformation estimation methods across various scenarios.

References

  1. Sheng Ao, Qingyong Hu, Bo Yang, Andrew Markham, and Yulan Guo. 2021. Spinnet: Learning a general surface descriptor for 3d point cloud registration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 11753–11762.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. K Somani Arun, Thomas S Huang, and Steven D Blostein. 1987. Least-squares fitting of two 3-D point sets. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence5 (1987), 698–700.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Simon Baker and Iain Matthews. 2004. Lucas-kanade 20 years on: A unifying framework. International journal of computer vision 56 (2004), 221–255.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Paul J Besl and Neil D McKay. 1992. Method for registration of 3-D shapes. In Sensor fusion IV: control paradigms and data structures, Vol. 1611. Spie, 586–606.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Seth D Billings, Emad M Boctor, and Russell H Taylor. 2015. Iterative most-likely point registration (IMLP): A robust algorithm for computing optimal shape alignment. PloS one 10, 3 (2015), e0117688.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Sungjoon Choi, Qian-Yi Zhou, and Vladlen Koltun. 2015. Robust reconstruction of indoor scenes. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 5556–5565.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Christopher Choy, Wei Dong, and Vladlen Koltun. 2020. Deep global registration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2514–2523.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Christopher Choy, Jaesik Park, and Vladlen Koltun. 2019. Fully convolutional geometric features. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. 8958–8966.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. David W Eggert, Adele Lorusso, and Robert B Fisher. 1997. Estimating 3-D rigid body transformations: a comparison of four major algorithms. Machine vision and applications 9, 5-6 (1997), 272–290.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Olivier D Faugeras and Martial Hebert. 1983. A 3-D recognition and positioning algorithm using geometrical matching between primitive surfaces. In Proceedings of the Eighth international joint conference on Artificial intelligence-Volume 2. 996–1002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Berthold KP Horn. 1987. Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using unit quaternions. Josa a 4, 4 (1987), 629–642.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Berthold KP Horn, Hugh M Hilden, and Shahriar Negahdaripour. 1988. Closed-form solution of absolute orientation using orthonormal matrices. JOSA A 5, 7 (1988), 1127–1135.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Shengyu Huang, Zan Gojcic, Mikhail Usvyatsov, Andreas Wieser, and Konrad Schindler. 2021. Predator: Registration of 3D Point Clouds With Low Overlap. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 4267–4276.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Shengyu Huang, Zan Gojcic, Mikhail Usvyatsov, Andreas Wieser, and Konrad Schindler. 2021. Predator: Registration of 3d point clouds with low overlap. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 4267–4276.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. TS Huang, SD Blostein, and EA Margerum. 1986. Least-squares estimation of motion parameters from 3-D point correspondences. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Vol. 10. IEEE Computer Soc. Press Washington DC, 112–115.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Zheng Qin, Hao Yu, Changjian Wang, Yulan Guo, Yuxing Peng, and Kai Xu. 2022. Geometric transformer for fast and robust point cloud registration. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 11143–11152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Szymon Rusinkiewicz and Marc Levoy. 2001. Efficient variants of the ICP algorithm. In Proceedings third international conference on 3-D digital imaging and modeling. IEEE, 145–152.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Michael W Walker, Lejun Shao, and Richard A Volz. 1991. Estimating 3-D location parameters using dual number quaternions. CVGIP: image understanding 54, 3 (1991), 358–367.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Hao Yu, Fu Li, Mahdi Saleh, Benjamin Busam, and Slobodan Ilic. 2021. Cofinet: Reliable coarse-to-fine correspondences for robust pointcloud registration. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 23872–23884.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Andy Zeng, Shuran Song, Matthias Nießner, Matthew Fisher, Jianxiong Xiao, and Thomas Funkhouser. 2017. 3dmatch: Learning local geometric descriptors from rgb-d reconstructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 1802–1811.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Fitting Two Point Sets with Soft Dissimilarity

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ICCVIT '23: Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Computer, Vision and Intelligent Technology
      August 2023
      378 pages
      ISBN:9798400708701
      DOI:10.1145/3627341

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 15 December 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      ICCVIT '23 Paper Acceptance Rate54of142submissions,38%Overall Acceptance Rate54of142submissions,38%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format