Advertisement

Improving Rigid-Body Registration Based on Points Affected by Bias and Noise

  • Marek Franaszek
  • Geraldine S. Cheok
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 530)

Abstract

The task of registering two coordinate frames is frequently accomplished by measuring the same set of points in both frames. Noise and possible bias in the measured locations degrade the quality of registration. It was shown that the performance of registration may be improved by filtering out noise from repeated measurements of the points, calculating small corrections to the mean locations and restoring rigid-body condition. In the current study, we investigate experimental conditions in which improvement in registration can still be achieved without cumbersome collection of repeated measurements. We show that for sufficiently small noise relative to bias, the corrections calculated from a single measurement of points can be used and still lead to the improved registration.

Keywords

Rigid-body registration Bias Peg-in-hole 

References

  1. 1.
    Holden, M.: A review of geometric transformations for nonrigid body registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 27(1), 111–128 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tam, G.K.L., et al.: Registration of 3D point clouds and meshes: a survey from rigid to nonrigid. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 19(7), 1199–1217 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wyawahare, M., Patil, P., Abhyankar, H.K.: Image registration techniques: an overview. Int. J. Sig. Process. Image Process. Pattern Recogn. 2(3), 11–28 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Attia, M., Slama, Y., Kamoun, M.A.: On performance evaluation of registration algorithms for 3D point clouds. In: 13th International Conference on Computer Graphics, Imaging and Visualization, pp. 45–50. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Park, D.I., et al.: Assembly phase estimation in the square peg assembly process. In: International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems, pp. 2135–2138. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park, H., et al.: Intuitive peg-in-hole assembly strategy with a compliant manipulator. In: 44th International Symposium on Robotics, pp. 1–5. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, Z., et al.: Laser tracker based robotic assembly system for large scale peg-hole parts. In: International Conference on Cyber Technology in Automation, Control and Intelligent Systems, pp. 574–578. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chhatpar, S., Branicky, M.S.: Search strategies for peg-in-hole assemblies with position uncertainty. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems IROS, pp. 1465–1470. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chhatpar, S., Branicky, M.S.: Localization for robotic assemblies with position uncertainty. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems IROS, pp. 2534–2540. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim, J.Y., Kim, W.S., Cho, H.S.: Misalignment estimation and compensation for robotic assembly with uncertainty. Robotica 23(03), 355–364 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Usubamatov, R., Adam, S.A., Harun, A.: Analyzing the jamming of parts on the shaft in assembly processes. Assem. Autom. 32(4), 340–346 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Usubamatov, R., Leong, K.W.: Analyses of peg-hole jamming in automatic assembly machines. Assem. Autom. 31(4), 358–362 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moghari, M.H., Abolmaesumi, P.: Understanding the effect of bias in fiducial localization error on point-based rigid-body registration. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 29(10), 1730–1738 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franaszek, M., Cheok, G.: Method to improve point-based registration by restoring rigid-body condition. National Institute of Standards and Technology Report NISTIR-8180 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franaszek, M., Cheok, G.S.: Optimization of registration performance metrics. National Institute of Standards and Technology Report NISTIR-8111 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiles, A.D., et al.: A statistical model for point-based target registration error with anisotropic fiducial localizer error. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 27(3), 378–390 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Franaszek, M., Cheok, G.S.: Orientation uncertainty characteristics of some pose measuring systems. Math. Prob. Eng. 2017, 1–13 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the United States; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Standards and TechnologyGaithersburgUSA

Personalised recommendations