Technical Report Template 39

Istituto di Elettronica e di Ingegneria dell’Informazione e delle Telecomunicazioni
Technical Report
Title: Robust Registration of Noisy Point Sets
(IT/101220)
Authors: A. Chimienti, R. Nerino, G. Pettiti
IEIIT-CNR
Istituto di Elettronica ed Ingegneria

dell’Informazione e delle Telecomunicazioni
Politecnico di Torino
Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129-Torino (Italy)
Tel. +39 011 5645412, Fax +39 011 5645429
Email: roberto.nerino@polito.it
Torino, 20th December 2010
________________________________________________ 1/15 __________________________________________________

Torino, Bologna, Genova, Milano, Pisa, Padova
www.ieiit.cnr.it
Headquarters: IEIIT - CNR - c/o Politecnico di Torino - Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24 – 10129 Torino – Italia
tel.: +39 011 564 5400/02/03 - fax: +39 011 564 5429 - e-mail: segreteria@ieiit.cnr.it; direttore@ieiit.cnr.it
Abstract
An algorithm for the pair-wise coarse registration of three-dimensional (3D) point sets sampled from piecewise
smooth surfaces is presented.
The algorithm is unsupervised and robust and can handle both clean and noisy data sets with outliers.
The approach is based on a representation of the two data sets by sparse local features, invariant to rigid
transformations, corresponding to the absolute maxima of the mean curvature field.
The feature parameters are differential invariants extracted by means of a robust statistic approach.
First the normal vector field of the data sets is evaluated by a two-step process to remove outliers and to refine
the normal estimation near sharp features.
Then the normal field is used to robustly estimate the local curvature tensor and the points of maxima of the
mean curvature field. These maxima represent the feature points of the data sets, and are characterized by
signature vectors of invariant parameters.
The signature vectors are build on relative distance, principal curvatures and projections of normals and principal
directions.
The estimation of the best rigid transformation which aligns the two 3D data sets is obtained by the matching of
pairs of triplets of feature points, one triplet per each data set.
To reduce the memory requirements and speed up the match, triplet matching is serialized into the sequential
matching of its three elementary structures, the segments, made by pairs of feature points.
Segment matching is performed in a multidimensional signature space. Triplet matches allow the estimation of
the roto-translation which align the two data sets.
The effectiveness of the proposed registration algorithm is evaluated on synthetic and real 3D data sets and the
preliminary results are given.
Keywords
pair-wise registration; robust estimation; curvature, principal directions, shape tensor, invariant features
Introduction
Registration is the process which identifies the transformation that best aligns multiple partial representations of
the same shape, when they are given in arbitrary initial positions.
Registration is an instance of partial matching, a fundamental problem in computer vision and shape modeling.
In the context of the 3D shape acquisition and modeling pipeline [37], recent advances in scanning technology
have lead to the production of huge amount of 3D data in the form of multiple partial scans.
The production of meaningful 3D model requires as intermediate step the registration of the scans into a
common coordinate frame [14], possibly by means of an automatic (unsupervised) procedure.
The global registration of multiple scans is usually performed as a sequence of pair-wise registrations.
Common approaches to registration are voting methods and matching of local features.
The matching approaches cast the pairwise registration problem in the correspondence problem, where the
sought solution is the correspondence map between subset of features of the two scans.
Given the correspondences, the rigid transformation that best aligns the two set of features and hence the
scans can be computed.
To reduce the prohibitive computational effort of an exhaustive search, geometric descriptors are associated with
3D feature points. Some metric on the descriptors is defined, and only compatible point pairs are considered as
potential matches.
Many geometrical descriptors have been proposed (spin images, local surface signatures in scale-space,
extremal points based on differential geometric invariants, or principal curvatures evaluated by integral
invariants. An important point to be considered in the registration issue is the quality of the data.
________________________________________________ 2/15 __________________________________________________

www.ieiit.cnr.it
Noise and outlier easily break-down registration methods that normally perform well on "clean" data sets.
The algorithm we propose aims at the registration of noisy data sets with outliers, and it is based on the
matching of local descriptors.
Contributions
The main contributions to the problem of pair-wise registration of the proposed approach are as follows:
 The approach is robust, that is it is able to deal with a significant amount of noise and outliers in the
data sets.
 The approach take advantage of a simple representation of the data sets based on both sparse local
features (points of maxima of curvature) and global ones (inter-point distances) equipped by differential
geometric invariants robustly evaluated.
 The estimation of the differential geometric invariants is relative robust to non-uniformly distributed
samples, outliers, noise, and discontinuities in the data near the borders and junctions of multiple
smooth patches.
 The registration is evaluated by the match of triplets in a sequential process which reduces memory
occupancy and time requirements.
2. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
2.1 Point set registration

The registration of multiple set of 3D data, or simply scans, has log been studied and is a central problem for
many application of shape modeling (See [14, 38, 39] for some recent reviews).
The global registration of multiple scans [42, 9,11] is usually break-down into a sequence of pair-wise
registrations [13]. A further distinction is when an initial guess transformation has to be find (coarse registration)
or is given (fine registration). In this last case a standard approach is ICP [40].
Common approaches to coarse registration fall in two classes: voting or hashing methods, and matching of local
descriptors. The voting approaches [41] takes advantage of the low dimensionality of the transformation by a
procedure which assigns a vote to the transform associated to a matched pair of triplets of points in each of the
two scans. The transform with the highest score is chosen as the optimal transform. The search for the optimal
registering transform can be speed up by RANSAC [27] based approaches [10].
The matching approaches cast the pairwise registration problem in the more general correspondence problem.
A solution to the correspondence problem is a correspondence map from a subset of points of the first scan
onto the corresponding points of the other.
Given the correspondences, the rigid transformation that best align the two scans, while minimizing the
distances between corresponding pairs of points can be computed.
To reduce the prohibitive computational effort of an exhaustive search, geometric local descriptors are
associated with 3D points. Some metric on the descriptors is defined, and only compatible point pairs are
considered as potential matches.
Many geometrical descriptors have been proposed, both high-dimensional like spin images [46,12,11],
frequency domain analysis [48], local surface signatures in a scale-space representation [1], and low-
dimensional ones, like extremal points based on differential geometric invariants [47],
principal curvatures evaluated by integral invariants [43, 44, 45].
________________________________________________ 3/15 __________________________________________________

www.ieiit.cnr.it
2.2 Normal and principal curvatures estimation methods

The estimation of normals and principal curvatures is central in Computer Vision and Graphics.
Different methods have been developed suited to deals with mesh or with point based representations of the
range data.
In mesh based representation [15] two subclass of methods are those based on the local curves and surfaces
fitting and those based on the discrete curvature tensor.
Local curve fitting is based on the estimation of the normal curvature in the direction of edges leaving a vertex
[16], while surface fitting methods fit low-order analytic functions to points locally and then compute curvatures
from the surface parameters [17]. The approaches are similar differing in the type of fitted model.
Discrete curvature tensor methods estimate the curvature tensor by using normal curvatures in the direction of
[19] or triangles [4] around a vertex, or are based on normal cycle theory [20].
Point set based representation, even if more flexible than mesh based, lacks of connectivity and topological
information respect to mesh based one. This makes difficult to define the set of neighbor of a point and hence
the geometric differential invariant estimation is harder.
Two common curvature and normal estimation methods for point set representation are statistic methods and
MLS methods.
Statistic methods [21,22,23], [7] are a class of methods which estimate a limited amount of information (normal,
mean curvature) from statistical descriptors such as eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the sample covariance
matrix, evaluated in a neighbor of the point where the geometric differential descriptors are to be estimated.
Moving Least-square (MLS) [25, 26] based methods compute derivatives of a local implicit surface
reconstruction from the point set [24].
Statistic methods are simple and fast, but in general are suitable for estimating normal and mean curvature only,
while MSL estimates a richer local description of the differential properties of the underlying surface.
Real data are generally non-uniformly sampled, can contain noise and outliers, discontinuities and sharp
features at the conjunction of multiple smooth surfaces.
All these methods work fine with "clean" data but lack of robustness when the former problems occur.
Recently a global registration method [35] based on the persistence of feature points in the scale-space
representation has been proposed to identify true features and discard outliers.
2.3 Robust methods

The lack of robustness of the former methods in presence of noise and outliers has drawn interest in developing
estimation methods based on robust statistics.
Starting from RANSAC (RANdom Sample Consensus ) [27], many other robust estimators (LMedS, MINPRAN,
MUSE, MDPE, [28,29,30], [2]) have been developed ( See [2] for a short review).
In [3] a robust moving least-squares technique for the reconstruction of piecewise smooth surfaces from point
clouds is presented. The approach locally classify subsets of points to multiple smooth regions by a a forward
search [31] approach.
In the context of surface reconstruction from noisy set of points with outliers, the MDPE (maximum power density
estimation) estimator is applied to robust estimation of normals [6]. MDPE tries to satisfy two reasonable and
contrasting criteria for a robust estimator [2]: maximize the number of inliers, and minimize inlier residuals.
In [5] a robust statistics approach to curvature tensor estimation on discretely sampled surfaces, namely polygon
meshes and point clouds, is presented. The algorithm rejects noise and structured outliers by a robust M-
estimation procedure and an Iteratively Reweighed Least Squares (IRLS) scheme.
Another class of methods make use perceptual principles in the tensor voting methodology [34] to infer
curvatures from sparse and noisy data by mean of voting fields.
Very recently [32] a robust method for extracting principal curvatures, sharp features and normal directions of
piecewise smooth surfaces from its point cloud sampling is presented. The method is based on integral
invariants and is supported by theoretical guarantees on the estimates.
3. ROBUST ESTIMATION OF NORMALS AND CURVATURES

________________________________________________ 4/15 __________________________________________________
www.ieiit.cnr.it
3.1 Normal field estimation method

The estimation of the normal vectors associated to 3D point set data is a central problem and a critical step of
many Computer Graphic applications (surface reconstruction, rendering, etc.).
Deterministic approaches [22] to normal estimation can be hindered by the presence of outlier and noise in the
data. Even discontinuities as borders or junctions of multiple smooth surfaces can produce large errors or
smoothing effects in estimates [50].
To cope with these problems recent approaches introduce robust statistics techniques in the context of surface
denoising [51,52], surface reconstruction [6,3,33], curvature estimation [5,32],
In contrast to non-robust approaches, which are more efficient but better suited for noise and outlier free data,
we aim to estimate normal vectors by a robust estimator which allows us to reconstruct normals even close to
discontinuities at the junction of multiple smooth regions.
This is a necessary requirement to provide reliable normals to the next processing step where the curvature
tensor is evaluated.
The robust estimations of normals is realized by a two step process.
In the first estimation step we do not attempt to obtain accurate normal everywhere in the point sets for the
following reason.
We assume that not only outliers, but also multiple instances of smooth surfaces can be present in the local
support where normals are evaluated. Hence, as in [3], points belonging to multiple instances of smooth
surfaces are considered as outlier.
According to [54], the probability P that a outlier-free set can be chosen from m p-subsets of p points is relate to
the fraction ε of outliers by :
Our assumption regarding outliers requires that the value of ε has to be increased by considering the expected
number of local multiple surface instances.
It turns out that when outliers and multiple smooth surface are present in the data, to obtain a reasonable value
P of success in finding a outlier-free set of p points in one step is impractical due to the required execution time
of the search.
For this reason in this first step we accept to obtain some wrong normals near outliers and multiple surface
junctions by applying the robust estimation approach of the Maximum Power Density Estimation in its quick
version QMDPE [2].
This estimator, according to experimental results [2,6], outperform other robust estimators with an higher
breakdown point by satisfying two reasonable criteria for a robust estimator:
 (1) data points close to the model (inliers) should be as many as possible
 (2) the inlier residuals should be as small as possible
These requirements are translated in the MDPE assumptions for the correct estimate the residuals of inliers
should be as close to zero as possible, that is they should satisfy a zero mean unimodal distribution. At the same
time the probability density of the data points on or near the fitted structure should be high.
Given a set of n data points {Xi} i=1 ・・ n, is possible to define a multivariate density estimator f of the point
distribution and an objective function ψ whose maximization satisfies the two former requirements (see [2] for
details).
The objective function ψ is then defined :
________________________________________________ 5/15 __________________________________________________

www.ieiit.cnr.it
where the two factors are :

(1) the probability density f(Xc) of points associated to the mode or peak of high concentration in
the signed residual space
(2) a function of the the value of the peak in the signed residual space
We note that for high values of the objective function ψ the probability density function is related to the
percentage of inliers and h determines the maximum acceptable absolute residual.
The mean shift search approach is applied with window size h to find the peak value |Xc| in the signed residual
space (See [2] and [53]).
3.2 Two step procedure
In the first step the MDPE procedure is repeated for every point in the data set as follows:
First step: evaluate normals and their reliability
1. Chose a a search window radius h ( as in [6] we set h to twice the average of point set distances ) and a
repetition count m
2. Chose a reference point p, a neighbor set of points Sp
3. Randomly choose three points in the neighbor of p, estimate the interpolating plane, and calculate the
signed residuals of all points Sp
4. Calculate the value of the peak |Xc| in the signed residual space by Mean Shift algorithm and the
probability density f(Xc) of points associated to the peak
5. Evaluate the associated power density (Eq.2)
6. Repeat step(2) to step (5) m times
7. Fit a plane to the inliers related to the maximum power density evaluated in steps (2) to (5) and associate
the normal vector and the maximum power density to the point
8. Repeat steps (2)-(7) until no more points in Sp remain to be processed
We are aware that the estimates of the normals are reliable only where the associate value of maximum
power density is high enough; this means that the point and its related normal has enough support from
neighbors.
The second step of the normal estimation process is more expensive but it is performed only on the subset Snrp
of the set Sp made of points with unreliable normals that have low values of the power density .
The remaining points l are in the reliable set Srp ≡ {Sp ∩ Snrp}.
Snrp is obtained from Sp by an acceptance threshold Tresh on the maximum power density values of the
points. Tresh selects unreliable normals from the global set of normals. The acceptance threshold Tresh is
globally defined for the entire model and experimentally determined from the maximum acceptable noise level
present in the data sets.
As noted before this threshold is related to percentage of inliers and h determines the maximum acceptable
absolute residual. Hence, in principle, Tresh could be defined directly from these parameters.
________________________________________________ 6/15 __________________________________________________

www.ieiit.cnr.it
The rationale behind the second step is to search for neighbors of a point p with unreliable normal which have
reliable normals. If their number is high enough, then they are classified as belonging to one or more local
smooth surfaces. A check is done on all the points with unreliable normals in the neighbors of p (included) that
can be classified analogously, hence correcting their normals accordingly. In this way the correct normals
propagates from the reference point as far as it is possible in the neighbors.
This second step is repeated for every point in the subset Snrp as follows:
Second step: refine unreliable normals

1. Chose a percentage value perc for points of maximum power density values in the set of points Sp . This
percentage value depends on the expected number of multiple smooth surfaces present in neighbor set
window ( we assume a maximum of 4 surfaces) and on the expected outlier percentage. Choose the local
neighbor set window radius w ( we set w to four times the average inter-point distances in the set Snrp), the
minimum number of points mn it can contains and the maximum tolerated residual MaxRes.
2. Chose a reference point p in the set of points Snrp and the neighbor set of points Slp in the local
neighbor window centered in p
3. Search in the neighbor set the points q ∈ Sq ≡ {Slp ∩ Srp} with high power density values
4. If the percentage of points q (compared to the total number of points in Slp ) is less then perc then repeat
step (2)( not enough reliable points belong to some surface).
5. else start the Local classification procedure procedure with p, Slp, Snrp , and Srp as parameters to
estimate the number of surfaces and to classify neighbor points
6. Repeat steps (2)-(4) until no more points in Snrp remain to be processed
Local classification procedure

1. Choose a repetition count m , the local acceptance threshold LocTresh ( a fraction of Tresh because we
could have multiple surfaces in the reliable point set) and the minimum number mnrp of reliable points
q ∈ {Slp ∩ Srp}
2. Randomly choose three reliable points q in Sq ≡ {Slp ∩Srp}, estimate the interpolating plane, and calculate
the signed residuals of all points in Sq.
3. Evaluate the associated power density (2)
5. Fit a plane to the inliers iq ∈ Scorrlr ( reliable points which are inliers) related to the maximum power
density evaluated in steps (2) to (4) ( here a surface is estimated)
6. Fit the same plane to unreliable points nr ≡ {Slp ∩ Snrp} , and select from these the inliers inr ∈ Scorrlnr
(unreliable points which are inliers) and then associate to them the normal vector of the plane
7. Update the global sets Snrp and Srp with the classified points inr
8. Update the local sets Sq and Slp removing points iq and inr respectively
9. Check the number of remaining reliable points q;
if it is greater than the minimum mnrp repeat steps (2)-(8) (if less we have not enough reliable points to
estimate a surfaces ) else classify the remaining unreliable points in the neighbor as outliers and exit.
________________________________________________ 7/15 __________________________________________________

www.ieiit.cnr.it
3.3 Curvature tensor estimation

The reliable normals estimated in the preceding subsection are used as known data to estimate the curvature
tensor on every point the data sets. The curvature tensor is expressed in terms of the shape operator [55] based
on the derivative of the normal vector field in a local neighbor around the estimation reference point p:
where and
In the former equation the curvature tensor expressed in the first matrix is estimated from the known vector quantities
projected on the vectors of a local planar parametrization of the surface.
Two different point pairs produce a solution for the unknown parameters of curvature
tensor matrix.
The curvature tensor estimation algorithm starts collecting a minimum number of pairs of normal variations and
point distances from a neighbor of the point of interest p, then evaluates an estimate of the curvature tensor by
solving the system of equation of the curvature tensor and then evaluate the goodness of fit by the QMDPE
approach. To evaluate the residuals we use a second order surface approximation parameterized by ( )
obtained from the curvature tensor diagonalization.
As for normal estimation the procedure is repeated for a fixed number of times and the fit which give the
maximum power density is chosen. The estimation is then refined by fitting with the contribution of all inliers.
Curvature tensor estimation method

1. Chose a a search window radius h and a repetition count m
2. Chose a reference point p, a neighbor set of points Slp
3. Randomly choose two other points in the neighbor of p, evaluate normal variations and sample distances
of the pairs
4. Solve the curvature tensor equation, estimate from its elements the second order surface approximation
and evaluate the residuals of the other neighbor points
5. Evaluate the associated power density (2)
7. Choose the tensor estimate related to the maximum power density evaluated in steps (2) to (6)
8. Evaluate a better tensor estimate by least square fitting all the inliers
9. Repeat steps (2)-(8) until no more points in Sp remain to be processed
4. FEATURE POINT DETECTION AND SIGNATURE GENERATION
________________________________________________ 8/15 __________________________________________________

www.ieiit.cnr.it
4.1 Feature point detection

The information on curvature tensor is used to evaluate the mean curvature associated to every reliable data
point. Local maxima of the mean curvature are used as feature points of the data set pair to be matched. These
maxima are searched for as local maxima in a moving window. The size of the window is set according to the
peak of the mean curvature histogram evaluated on the data set.
4.2 Signature generation

The feature points of the two data set to be registered are characterized by attributes like normals and directions
and values of principal curvatures, and are collected in two sets of sparse feature points.
The best rigid transformation which aligns the two 3D data sets is estimated by the matching of pairs of
triplets of characterized feature points, one triplet (See Fig.1 ) per each data set.
Fig. 1 A triplet of feature points with estimated attributes
To reduce the memory requirements and speed up the match the triplet is decomposed in three more
elementary structures we call segments with attributes (See Fig.2), and the matching is serialized into a
sequential matching of these elementary structures (as explained in the next subsection). The segments are
pairs of feature points equipped with their relative distance and attributes.
________________________________________________ 9/15 __________________________________________________

www.ieiit.cnr.it
Fig. 2 A segment of feature points with estimated attributes
A signature vector of 12 elements is associated to every segment. The signature elements are made by
invariants such as relative point distance lij of the point pairs Pi, Pj, by the projections of the two normals ,
and the two principal directions , associated to the greater (r1i) of curvature values (r1i, r1j ) along the
unit vector
Further signature elements are the projections of the two normals , on the plane perpendicular to
t he rotation angle θij between these last projections and finally by the two pairs of curvature values, r1i, r2i,
r1j , r2j. Note that the unit vectors form an orthogonal basis, and hence some projection contains
redundant information.
5. TRIPLET MATCHING
The estimation of the correct roto-translation which aligns the two 3D data sets (A, B) is obtained by finding the
best match between pairs of triplets made by points from the (N,M) feature points of the data sets.
In a naif attempt to the triplet matching problem, we should try all the possible combinations of three points
chosen from the N, generating a number of triplets of the order O(N3) and a number of comparisons of
the order O(N6), which is obviously impractical.
The signatures can reduce the complexity of the match by representing the O(N3) triplets of a data set A as
points in a 12-dimensional signature space organized in a k-d tree. Then the triplets of the other data set B can
be represented in the same signature space.
By looking for proximity relations between points associated to triplets of different data sets, possible matches
can be found.
In a previous work we attempt to follow this approach by a RANSAC based approach to reduce the
complexity [56]. Here we propose a simplification of the triplet matching process in the spirit of a prediction-
verification paradigm, by a decomposition of the triplet match in a sequence of three matches of segment,
discarding early incorrect matching hypothesis along the sequence of matches (See Fig.2).
We still use a a 12-dimensional signature space and a k-d tree structure to manage proximity relations, but now
the number of segments generated by N feature points is of the order of O(N2), hence the the memory
requirements are reduced by one order.
Further we address the O(N2) signature points by a table of indices i, j. We supplement the information in
the signature space with the indices i, j of the points of the set A generating the signature for a backward
________________________________________________ 10/15 __________________________________________________
www.ieiit.cnr.it
referencing purpose.
The match process proceed as for triplet, looking for possible matches in the signature space based on
proximity relations controlled by a global threshold MaxDist of maximum allowable distance between compatible
point matches. This threshold is defined experimentally.
When a match is found between a pair of segments PAi, PAj and PBl, Pbm, a second match between the pair PBl,
PBn having a common point PBl with the former is seek in the signature space. A compatible pair PAi, PAk in A is
found only if one of the feature point indices associated to the matched signature point of A (backward
reference) is one of the feature point indices i, j of the former match.
In case it matches, we simplify the last step of the sequence by verifying if the distances |PAj −PAk| and
|PBm − Pbn| are compatible.
5.1 Roto-translation estimation

Given a triplet match, we can estimate the associated roto-translation [8] and apply it to the entire set of feature
points. If the percentage of transformed feature points of B which are close to feature points of A under a
specified distance threshold (inliers) is greater than a predefined level of acceptance, we can refine the roto-
translation by re-fitting the inliers.
6. RESULTS
A preliminary version of the registration algorithm has been implemented in a high level language (Matlab ©) and
tested on both synthetic data sets corrupted by adding noise and outliers and on real data sets. A last data set
acquired by our structured light acquisition system has been processed also. At moment the non-optimized
implementation does not allow a direct comparison on execution times with other implementations based on
different approaches; this is sought as a future development.
The first example is a synthetic data set (Fig.3) where noise and some outlier have been added to the original
model on the left. The corrupted model (center) is processed by the algorithm and the robust estimated normals
has produced a clean surface reconstruction shown on the right.
The second example is the Bunny data set, where noise and some outlier have been added to two scans (Fig.
4). The mean curvature field and the feature points are shown in the upper part of Fig.4. In the lower are shown
the registered scan pair.
A third example is the Thinker data set (Fig. 5), acquired by our structured light acquisition system.
The scan sets are noisy, with some ghosts points (outliers) present near sharp features. The mean curvature
field of the scans is shown on the left and central part of the image. On the right is shown the registered scan
pair, where outliers have been removed.
The experimental results demonstrate a relatively accurate registration even for this real data set. A further
processing by ICP did not produce substantial improvements.
Fig. 3 The synthetic model: original (left), corrupted by noise and outliers (center), reconstructed (right).
________________________________________________ 11/15 __________________________________________________

www.ieiit.cnr.it
Fig. 4 Bunny scan pair: Mean curvatures, feature points and registered scans (down).
Fig. 5 The Thinker.
Fig. 6 Two scans of the Thinker: Mean curvatures, feature points and registered scans (right).
________________________________________________ 12/15 __________________________________________________
www.ieiit.cnr.it
7 CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes a new approach to automatic coarse pair-wise registration of noisy point sets commonly
generated by laser scanners, structured light systems or stereo. The approach consists of two steps; the first
one is the robust detection of feature points (local curvature maxima) present in the data of the two scans. The
second one is the feature point characterization by signatures vectors of geometric invariant and their match.
Main contributions of the approach are the following:
• the design of a robust estimation algorithm for normal and curvatures, able to deal with noise and outliers,
with non-uniform distributed samples and with the presence of multiple surfaces and sharp features.
• the simplification of the match of triplets of of feature points in a sequential process which reduce memory
occupancy and time requirements.
The results show the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm for the registration of real data but some
improvements remain to be made concerning the optimization and threshold control.. In perspective, we aim to
implement the algorithm in a more efficient language, to compare the performance with other approaches.
Further we want to investigate a multi-scale approach to feature detection.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The models in this paper are courtesy of Stanford University repository.
References
[1] X. Li, I. Guskov Multi-scale features for approximate alignment of point-based surfaces Proceedings of SGP
’05: The third Eurographics symposium on Geometry processing, Vienna, Austria, 2005: 217-228
[2] H Wang, D Suter. MDPE: A Very Robust Estimator for Model Fitting and Range Image Segmentation. Int.
J. Comput. Vision 2004, 59(2): 139-166. Hingham, MA, USA, Kluwer Academic
[3] S Fleishman, D Cohen-Or, C Silva. Robust moving least-squares fitting with sharp features. SIGGRAPH
’05: ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 Papers, Los Angeles, California, 2005: 544-552.
[4] S Rusinkiewicz. Estimating Curvatures and Their Derivatives on Triangle Meshes. Proceedings of the
3DPVT ’04, Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society, 2004: 486-493.
[5] E Kalogerakis, P Simari, D Nowrouzezahrai,K Singh. Robust statistical estimation of curvature on
discretized surfaces. Proceedings of the SGP ’07, Barcelona, Spain, 2007: 13-22.
[6] H Sheung, Charlie C. L. Wang . Robust mesh reconstruction from unoriented noisy points. SPM ’09: 2009
SIAM/ACM Joint Conference on Geometric and Physical Modeling. San Francisco, California, 2009: 13-24
[7] S. Gumhold , X. Wang, R. McLeod Feature extraction from point clouds. Proceedings of the 10th IMR (Oct.
2001): 293305.
[8] P. J. Besl , N. D. McKay. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans. PAMI 14(2) (1992):
239256.
[9] Chen Y., Medioni G. Object modelling by registration of multiple range images. Image Vision Comput.
10(3), 1992: 145155.
[10] C.S. Chen , Y.P. Hung , J.B. Cheng Ransac-based darces: A new approach to fast automatic registration of
partially overlapping range images. IEEE Trans. PAMI 21(11) 1999: 1229 1234.
[11] D. Huber , M. Hebert.: Fully automatic registration of multiple 3D data sets. Image and Vision Computing
21(7), 2003: 637650
[12] A. E. Johnson , M. Hebert.: Surface registration by matching oriented points. Proceedings 3DIM ,1997,
IEEE Computer Society.
________________________________________________ 13/15 __________________________________________________

www.ieiit.cnr.it
[13] G. Dalley, P. Flynn Pair-wise range image registration: a study in outlier classification Computer Vision and
Image Understanding 87(1-3), 2002, 104115
[14] J. Salvi, C. Matabosch, D. Fofi, J. Forest A review of recent range image registration methods with
accuracy evaluation Image Vision Comput. 25(5), 2007: 578-596
[15] S. Petitjean A survey of methods for recovering quadrics in triangle meshes. ACM Computing Surveys
34(2), 2002: 161.
[16] E. Hameiri, I. Shimshoni Estimating the Principal Curvatures and the Darboux Frame from Real 3D Range
Data. In Proc. 3DPVT , 2002.
[17] J. Goldfeather ,V. Interrante A Novel Cubic-Order Algorithm for Approximating Principal Direction Vectors.
ACM Transactions on Graphics, 23(1), 2004.
[18] T. Gatzke, C. Grimm Estimating curvature on triangular meshes. International Journal of Shape Modeling,
12(1),2006: 129.
[19] G. Taubin Estimating the tensor of curvature of a surface from a polyhedral approximation Proc. ICCV’95
IEEE Computer Society, 1995: 902909.
[20] D. Cohen-Steiner, J. M. Morvan Restricted delaunay triangulations and normal cycle Symposium on
Computational geometry, 2003: 312321.
[21] M. Pauly, R. Keiser, M. Gross Multi-scale Feature Extraction on Point-sampled Surfaces EUROGRAPHICS
2003, 22(3), 2003
[22] H. Hoppe, T. DeRose, T. Duchamp, J. McDonald, W. Stuetzle, Surface reconstruction from unorganized
points ACM SIGGRAPH92, 1992: 71-78
[23] Pauly, M., Gross, M., Kobbelt, L.: Efficient Simplification of point-sampled surfaces. IEEE Visualization 02
(2002)
[24] P. Yang, X. Qian, Direct computing of surface curvatures for point-set surfaces Proceedings of 2007
IEEE/Eurographics Symposium on Point-based Graphics(PBG), Prague, Czech Republic, Sep. 2007.
[25] N. Amenta, Y. J. Kil Defining point-set surfaces. ACM Trans. Graph. (2004), 23(3), 264-270.
[26] D. Levin Mesh-independent surface interpolation. In: Brunnett, G., Hamann, B., Muller, H. and Linsen, L.
(Eds.), Geometric Modelling for Scientific Visualization , Springer-Verlag, 2003,37-49.
[27] Fischler, M.A. and Rolles, R.C. 1981. Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with
applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun. ACM, 24(6):381 395.
[28] Rousseeuw, P.J. and Leroy, A. 1987. Robust Regression and Outlier Detection. John Wiley & Sons: New
York.
[29] Stewart, C.V. 1995.MINPRAN:Anewrobust estimator for computer vision. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and
Machine Intelligence, 17(10):925938.
[30] Miller, J.V. and Stewart, C.V. 1996. MUSE: Robust surface fitting using unbiased scale estimates. In Proc.
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, San Francisco, pp. 300 306.
[31] A. C. Atkinson, M. Riani, Robust Diagnostic Regression Analysis, Springer Ed., 2000
[32] Robust Voronoi-based Curvature and Feature Estimation Q. Mérigot, M. Ovsjanikov, L. Guibas SPM ’09,
SIAM/ACM Joint Conference on Geometric and Physical Modeling 2009): 1-12.
[33] Oztireli, Cengiz and Guennebaud, Gael and Gross, Markus", Feature Preserving Point Set Surfaces based
on Non-Linear Kernel Regression", Computer Graphics Forum",28(2), 2009
[34] W. Tong, and C. Tang, Robust Estimation of Adaptive Tensors of Curvature by Tensor Voting IEEE Trans.
PAMI, 27(3), 2005: 434-449
[35] Robust Global Registration N. Gelfand, N. J. Mitra y L. J. Guibas, H. Pottmann Eurographics Symposium
on Geometry Processing (2005) M. Desbrun, H. Pottmann (Editors)
[36] D. Aiger, N. J. Mitra, and D. Cohen-Or. 4-points congruent sets for robust pairwise surface registration.
ACM Trans. Graph., 27(3), 2008.
[37] The 3d model acquisition pipeline. F. Bernardini, H. Rushmeier, Computer Graphics forum 21(2), 2002,
149172.
[38] A survey of freeform object representation and recognition techniques. R. CAMPBELL, P.J.FLYNN,
Computer Vision and Image Understanding 81(2), 2001,166-210.
________________________________________________ 14/15 __________________________________________________
www.ieiit.cnr.it
[39] M. RODRIGUES , R. FISHER, Y. LIU, Special issue on registration and fusion of range images, Computer
Vision and Image Understanding 87(1-3), July 2002.
[40] S. Rusinkiewicz, M. Levoy, Efficient variants of the icp algorithm, Proc. 3D Digital Imaging and Modeling,
2001, 145152.
[41] H. Wolfson, I. Rigoutsos, Geometric hashing: an overview IEEE Comp. Sci. and Eng., 1997,10-21.
[42] K. PULLI, Multiview registration for large datasets, In Proc. 3DIM, 1999.
[43] H. Pottmann,J. Wallner, Y.L.Yang, Y.K. Lai, S.M. Hu, Principal curvatures from the integral invariant
viewpoint, Comput. Aided Geom. Des. , 24(8-9) 2007: 428-442
[44] Reassembling Fractured Objects by Geometric Matching Q.X.Huang, S. Flöry, N. Gelfand, M. Hofer, H.
Pottmann, Reassembling fractured objects by geometric matching, ACM Trans. Graph. 25(3), 2006: 569-
578
[45] Y.K. Lai, S.M. Hu, T. Fang, Robust principal curvatures using feature adapted integral invariants, SPM ’09:
SIAM/ACM Joint Conference on Geometric and Physical Modeling, 2009: 325-330
[46] A.Johnson,M. Hebert, Using spin-images for efficient multiple model recognition in cluttered 3-d scenes,
IEEE Tran. on PAMI, 1999: 433-449
[47] J.Thirion , New feature points based on geometric invariants for 3D image registration, Int. Jou. of Comp.
Vis., 18(2), 1996: 121137.
[48] L. Lucchese, G. Doretto, G. Cortelazzo, A frequency domain technique for range data registration, IEEE
Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 24(11), 2002: 1468 1484.
[49] U. Clarenz, M. Rumpf, and A.Telea Robust Feature Detection and Local Classification for Surfaces Based
on Moment Analysis IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VISUALIZATION AND COMPUTER GRAPHICS, 10(5),
2004: 516-524
[50] Surface and normal ensembles for surface reconstruction M. Yoona, Y. Leea, S. Leea, I. Ivrissimtzis, H. P.
Seidel Computer-Aided Design 39, 2007: 408420
[51] S. Fleishman , I. Drori, D. Cohen-Or, Bilateral mesh denoising, Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 22(3),
2003: 950953.
[52] T. R. Jones , F. Durand, M. Desbrun , Noniterative, feature-preserving mesh smoothing. ACM Transactions
on Graphics 22(3), 2003: 943949.
[53] D. Comaniciu, P. Meer, Mean shift: A robust approach towards feature space a analysis IEEE Trans. PAMI,
2002, 24(5):603619.
[54] P. J. Rousseeuw, A. Leroy, Robust Regression and Outlier Detection, 1987, John Wiley & Sons: New York.
[55] Do Carmo, Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces, Prentice-Hall, 1976
[56] Automatic coarse registration by invariant features M. M. Cadoni, A. Chimienti, R. Nerino Proceedings of
VAST, Cyprus, 2006
________________________________________________ 15/15 __________________________________________________

www.ieiit.cnr.it

Technical Report Template 39

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report Template 39

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Istituto di Elettronica e di Ingegneria dell’Informazione e delle Telecomunicazioni

Title: Robust Registration of Noisy Point Sets

Authors: A. Chimienti, R. Nerino, G. Pettiti

Istituto di Elettronica ed Ingegneria

Torino, 20th December 2010

________________________________________________ 1/15 __________________________________________________

________________________________________________ 2/15 __________________________________________________

2. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK

2.1 Point set registration

________________________________________________ 3/15 __________________________________________________

2.2 Normal and principal curvatures estimation methods

2.3 Robust methods

3. ROBUST ESTIMATION OF NORMALS AND CURVATURES

3.1 Normal field estimation method

The objective function ψ is then defined :

________________________________________________ 5/15 __________________________________________________

where the two factors are :

3.2 Two step procedure

First step: evaluate normals and their reliability

________________________________________________ 6/15 __________________________________________________

Second step: refine unreliable normals

Local classification procedure

________________________________________________ 7/15 __________________________________________________

3.3 Curvature tensor estimation

Curvature tensor estimation method

4. FEATURE POINT DETECTION AND SIGNATURE GENERATION

________________________________________________ 8/15 __________________________________________________

4.1 Feature point detection

4.2 Signature generation

Fig. 1 A triplet of feature points with estimated attributes

________________________________________________ 9/15 __________________________________________________

Fig. 2 A segment of feature points with estimated attributes

5.1 Roto-translation estimation

________________________________________________ 11/15 __________________________________________________

Fig. 5 The Thinker.

________________________________________________ 13/15 __________________________________________________

________________________________________________ 15/15 __________________________________________________

You might also like

1/15 __

2/15 __

3/15 __

5/15 __

6/15 __

7/15 __

8/15 __

9/15 __

11/15 __

13/15 __

15/15 __