You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I noticed that you only include voxels from overlapping volumes of point clouds. i.e only voxels that have at least one correspondence in the other cloud have a possibility to be included in the negative loss (and therefore the total loss).
The problem arises when the overlapping volume of the given clouds is not that big: even when the loss is zero, on the validation voxels from non-overlapping areas can produce false positives that corrupt the registration (that is particularly strange to get a wrong result with the zero loss).
I tried to include negative matches from non-overlapping volume and it appears to fix the problem. What do you think about that? If you validate my idea I can propose apr for this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Chris,
I noticed that you only include voxels from overlapping volumes of point clouds. i.e only voxels that have at least one correspondence in the other cloud have a possibility to be included in the negative loss (and therefore the total loss).
The problem arises when the overlapping volume of the given clouds is not that big: even when the loss is zero, on the validation voxels from non-overlapping areas can produce false positives that corrupt the registration (that is particularly strange to get a wrong result with the zero loss).
I tried to include negative matches from non-overlapping volume and it appears to fix the problem. What do you think about that? If you validate my idea I can propose apr for this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: