Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SPROSAC: Streamlined progressive sample consensus for coarse–fine point cloud registration

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the development of 3D matching technology, point cloud registration (PCR) based on corresponding points has received increasing attention in the field of computer vision. Unfortunately, 3D keypoint technology inevitably produces a large number of outliers. To solve the problems of poor stability, low efficiency and the high number of iterations required to calculate the accepted solution of random sampling consistency (RANSAC) and its variants under a high outlier rate, a streamlined progressive sample consensus (SPROSAC) algorithm is proposed in this paper. SPROSAC is an improved estimator of progressive sample consensus that guides the sampling process by increasing the use of 3D point cloud surface information and optimizes the model verification process based on registration error decision acceptance. Compared to classic RANSAC-family algorithms, SPROSAC has a greater probability of obtaining an accepted solution more quickly. The experiments demonstrate that SPROSAC achieves significantly smaller and more stable registration errors with fewer iterations across three datasets. In the performance experiments based on evaluation metrics such as recall, 1-precision, and F1 score for inlier classification, SPROSAC demonstrates the best performance across the three datasets, with outlier rates exceeding 95%. Furthermore, we propose a coarse–fine PCR algorithm based on SPROSAC and ICP to address the issues of high initialization requirements, susceptibility to local optima, and low efficiency in traditional ICP algorithms. The experimental results of coarse–fine registration show that our algorithm provides initial values for the ICP, which can reduce the number of iterations of the ICP by 50%, 64.4%, and 57.4%.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Li B, Zhang YH, Zhao B, Shao HY (2020) 3D-ReConstnet: A Single-View 3D-Object Point Cloud Reconstruction Network, (in English). IEEE Access, Article 8:83782–83790. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2020.2992554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Feng HJ et al (2021) A novel feature-guided trajectory generation method based on point cloud for robotic grinding of freeform welds, (in English). Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol 115(5–6):1763–1781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-07095-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee WH, Lee KH, Lee JM, Nam BW (2020) Registration method for maintenance-work support based on augmented-reality-model generation from drawing data," (in English). J. Comput. Des. Eng. 7(6):775–787. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcde/qwaa056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yue XF, Liu ZY, Zhu J, Gao XL, Yang BJ, Tian YS (2022) Coarse-fine point cloud registration based on local point-pair features and the iterative closest point algorithm, (in English). Appl. Intell. 52(11):12569–12583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03201-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Besl PJ, Mckay ND (1992) A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering 14(3):239–256

    Google Scholar 

  6. Martin A, Fischler Robert C, Bolles, (1981) Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Communications of the ACM 24(6):381–395. https://doi.org/10.1145/358669.358692

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Segal A, Hhnel D, Thrun S, (2009) Generalized-ICP. Robotics: Science and Systems V 2(4):435. MIT. USA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8727.003.0022

  8. Serafin J, Grisetti G (2015) NICP: dense normal based point cloud registration. In: 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 742–749. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2015.7353455

  9. Yang JL, Li HD, Campbell D, Jia YD (2016) Go-ICP: A Globally Optimal Solution to 3D ICP Point-Set Registration, (in English). IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 38(11):2241–2254. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpami.2015.2513405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Servos J, Waslander SL (2017) Multi-Channel Generalized-ICP: A robust framework for multi-channel scan registration, (in English). Robot. Auton. Syst. 87:247–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2016.10.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ao S, Hu Q, Yang B, Guo Y (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. IEEE, pp 11753–11762

  12. Liu XS, Li AH, Sun JF, Lu ZY (2023) Trigonometric projection statistics histograms for 3D local feature representation and shape description (in English). Pattern Recognit 143(13):109727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2023.109727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shi CH, Wang CY, Liu XL, Sun SY, Xi G, Ding YY (2023) Point cloud object recognition method via histograms of dual deviation angle feature," (in English). Int. J. Remote Sens. 44(9):3031–3058. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2023.2214276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rusu RB, Blodow N, Beetz M (2009) Fast point feature histograms (FPFH) for 3D registration. In: 2009 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, pp 3212–3217. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.2009.5152473

  15. Zeng A, Xiao J (2017) 3DMatch: learning local geometric descriptors from RGB-D reconstructions. In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, pp 1802–1811

  16. You B, Chen HY, Li JY, Li CF, Chen H (2022) Fast Point Cloud Registration Algorithm Based on 3DNPFH Descriptor," (in English). Photonics. 9(6):414. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics9060414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Torr PH, Zisserman A (2000) MLESAC: A new robust estimator with application to estimating image geometry. Comput Vis Image Underst 78(1):138–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chum O, Matas J (2005) Matching with PROSAC - progressive sample consensus. In: 2005 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR'05), vol 1. IEEE, pp 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2005.221

  19. Tordoff BJ, Murray DW (2005) Guided-MLESAC: Faster image transform estimation by using matching priors. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 27(10):1523–1535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Matas J, Chum O (2004) Randomized RANSAC with Td, d test. Image Vis Comput 22(10):837–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Raguram et al (2012) USAC: a universal framework for random sample consensus. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 35(8):2022–2038. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2012.257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Li J, Hu Q, Ai M (2020) GESAC: Robust graph enhanced sample consensus for point cloud registration,". ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 167:363–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang X, Chen QJ, Wang H, Li XE, Yang H (2023) Automatic registration framework for multi-platform point cloud data in natural forests (in English). Int J Remote Sens 44(15):4596–4616. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2023.2235636

  24. Hartley R, Zisserman A (2003) Multiple view geometry in computer vision / 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press

  25. Hoppe H (1992) Surface Reconstruction from Unorganized Points (PhD Thesis). Acm Siggraph Computer Graphics 26(2):71–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhao H, Tang M, Ding H (2020) HoPPF: A novel local surface descriptor for 3D object recognition. Pattern Recognit 103:107272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li J, Hu Q, Zhang Y, Ai M (2022) Robust symmetric iterative closest point. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 185:219–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Curless B, Levoy M (1996) A volumetric method for building complex models from range images. In: Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. ACM, pp 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1145/237170.237269

  29. Tombari F, Salti S, Di Stefano L (2010) Unique signatures of histograms for local surface description. Computer Vision–ECCV 2010: 11th European Conference on Computer Vision, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, September 5–11, 2010, Proceedings, Part III 11. Springer, pp 356–369

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Pomerleau F, Liu M, Colas F, Siegwart R (2012) Challenging data sets for point cloud registration algorithms. The International Journal of Robotics Research 31(14):1705–1711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen H, Bhanu B (2007) 3D free-form object recognition in range images using local surface patches. Pattern Recogn Lett 28(10):1252–1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sipiran I, Bustos B (2011) Harris 3D: a robust extension of the Harris operator for interest point detection on 3D meshes. Vis Comput 27:963–976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rusu RB, Cousins S (2011) 3d is here: point cloud library (pcl). In: 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, pp 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2011.5980567

  34. Zhong Y (2009) Intrinsic shape signatures: a shape descriptor for 3D object recognition. In: 2009 IEEE 12th international conference on computer vision workshops, ICCV Workshops. IEEE, pp 689–696. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCVW.2009.5457637

  35. Mian A, Bennamoun M, Owens R (2010) On the repeatability and quality of keypoints for local feature-based 3d object retrieval from cluttered scenes. Int J Comput Vision 89:348–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zaharescu A, Boyer E, Varanasi K, Horaud R (2009) Surface feature detection and description with applications to mesh matching. In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. IEEE, pp 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2009.5206748

  37. Steder B, Rusu RB, Konolige K, Burgard W (2010) NARF: 3D range image features for object recognition. In: Workshop on Defining and Solving Realistic Perception Problems in Personal Robotics at the IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), vol 44. IEEE. Citeseer, p 2

  38. Suwajanakorn S, Snavely N, Tompson JJ, Norouzi M (2018) Discovery of latent 3d keypoints via end-to-end geometric reasoning. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 31

  39. Yew ZJ, Lee GH (2018) 3dfeat-net: weakly supervised local 3d features for point cloud registration. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11219. SpringerLink, pp 607–623

  40. Li J, Lee GH (2019) Usip: unsupervised stable interest point detection from 3d point clouds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision (ICCV). IEEE, pp 361–370

  41. Bai X, Luo Z, Zhou L, Fu H, Quan L, Tai CL (2020) D3feat: joint learning of dense detection and description of 3d local features. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). IEEE, pp 6359–6367

  42. Luo Z, Xue W, Chae J, Fu G (2022) Skp: Semantic 3d keypoint detection for category-level robotic manipulation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7(2):5437–5444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rusu RB, Blodow N, Marton ZC, Beetz M (2008) Aligning point cloud views using persistent feature histograms. In: 2008 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. IEEE, pp 3384–3391. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2008.4650967

  44. Shah SAA, Bennamoun M, Boussaid F (2016) A novel feature representation for automatic 3D object recognition in cluttered scenes. Neurocomputing 205:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang J, Cao Z, Zhang Q (2016) A fast and robust local descriptor for 3D point cloud registration. Inf Sci 346:163–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yang J, Zhang Q, Xiao Y, Cao Z (2017) TOLDI: An effective and robust approach for 3D local shape description. Pattern Recognit 65:175–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Drost B, Ulrich M, Navab N, Ilic S (2010) Model globally, match locally: Efficient and robust 3D object recognition. In: 2010 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. IEEE, pp 998–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2010.5540108

  48. Zhao B, Xi J (2020) Efficient and accurate 3D modeling based on a novel local feature descriptor. Inf Sci 512:295–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Guo Y, Sohel F, Bennamoun M, Lu M, Wan J (2013) TriSI: A distinctive local surface descriptor for 3D modeling and object recognition,. International Conference on Computer Graphics Theory and Applications 2:86–93

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lo T-WR, Siebert JP (2009) Local feature extraction and matching on range images: 2.5 D SIFT. Comput Vis Image Underst 113(12):1235–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Matsuda T, Furuya T, Ohbuchi R (2015) Lightweight binary voxel shape features for 3D data matching and retrieval. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia Big Data. IEEE, pp 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigMM.2015.66

  52. Qi CR, Yi L, Su H, Guibas LJ (2017) Pointnet++: deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 30

  53. Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vision 60:91–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Chum O, Matas J, Kittler J (2003) Locally optimized RANSAC. In: Pattern Recognition: 25th DAGM Symposium, vol 252781. Springer. Berlin Heidelberg, pp 236–243

  55. Lebeda K, Matas J, Chum O (2012) Fixing the locally optimized ransac–full experimental evaluation. In: British machine vision conference, vol 2. BMVA, Citeseer

  56. Barath D, Matas J (2018) Graph-cut RANSAC. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR). IEEE, pp. 6733–6741

  57. Ivashechkin M, Barath D, Matas J (2021) USACv20: robust essential, fundamental and homography matrix estimation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.05044. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.05044

  58. Zhang J, Yao Y, Deng B (2021) Fast and robust iterative closest point. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 44(7):3450–3466

    Google Scholar 

  59. Gollob C et al (2023) Measurement of Individual Tree Parameters with Carriage-Based Laser Scanning in Cable Yarding Operations. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering: Journal for Theory and Application of Forestry Engineering 44(2):401–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Changchun University of Technology, Jilin Province, China

    Zeyuan Liu, Xiaofeng Yue & Juan Zhu

Authors
  1. Zeyuan Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaofeng Yue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors Zeyuan Liu and Xiaofeng Yue contributed to the conception of the study, performed the experiment and data analyses and wrote the manuscript. The authors Zeyuan Liu and Juan Zhu contributed significantly to the analysis and manuscript preparation, and they helped perform the analysis with constructive discussions. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaofeng Yue.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Written informed consent for publication of this paper was obtained from Changchun University of Technology and all the authors.

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Z., Yue, X. & Zhu, J. SPROSAC: Streamlined progressive sample consensus for coarse–fine point cloud registration. Appl Intell 54, 5117–5135 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-024-05400-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-024-05400-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation