Robust Estimation

  • Joseph L. Awange
  • Béla Paláncz


In many fields of geosciences such as robotics [413], computer vision [351], digital photogrammetry [538], surface reconstruction [388], computational geometry [336], digital building modelling [48], forest planning and operational activities [386] to list but a few, it is a fundamental task to extract plane features from three-dimensional (3D) point clouds, – i.e., a vast amount of points reflected from the surface of objects collected – using the cutting edge remote sensing technology of laser scanning, e.g., [450]. Due to the physical limitations of the sensors, occlusions, multiple reflectance, and noise can produce off-surface points, thereby necessitating robust fitting techniques. Robust fitting means an estimation technique, which is able to estimate accurate model parameters not only consisting of small error magnitudes in the data set but occasionally large scale measurement errors (outliers). Outliers definition is not easy. Perhaps considering the problem from a practical point of the view, one can say that data points, whose appearance in the data set causes dramatically change in the result of the estimated parameters can be labeled as outliers. Basically, there are two different methods to handle outliers;
  1. (i)

    weighting out outliers

  2. (ii)

    discarding outliers



Principal Component Analysis Point Cloud Ordinary Little Square Singular Value Decomposition Point Cloud Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 25.
    Awange JL, Grafarend EW (2002) Sylvester resultant solution of planar ranging problem. Allgemeine Vermessungs-Nachrichten 108:143–146Google Scholar
  2. 44.
    Awange JL, Grafarend EW (2005) Solving algebraic computational problems in geodesy and geoinformatics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. 46.
    Awange JL (2010) GNSS environmental monitoring. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 48.
    Armenakis C, Gao Y, Sohn G (2010) Co-registration of lidar and photogrammetric data for updating building databases. In: ISPRS Archives, Haifa, vol 38, pp 96–100Google Scholar
  5. 97.
    Borrmann D, Elseberg J, Lingemann K, Nüchter A (2011) The 3D hough transform for plane detection in point clouds: a review and a new accumulator design. 3D Res 02:02003. 3DR EXPRESSGoogle Scholar
  6. 123.
    Chen CC, Stamos I (2007) Range image segmentation for modeling and object detection in urban scenes. In 3- D Digital Imaging and Modeling, 2007. (3DIM ’07). Sixth International Conference on, pp. 185–192, Quebec, CanadaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 124.
    Chum O, Matas J (2002) Randomized RANSAC with T(d, d) test. In: Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC ’02), Cardiff, vol 2. BMVA, pp 448–457Google Scholar
  8. 127.
    Chum O (2008) Optimal randomized RANSAC. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 30:1472–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 148.
    DalleMole VL, do Rego RLME, Araújo AF (2010) The self-organizing approach for surface reconstruction from unstructured point clouds. In: Matsopoulos GK (ed) Computer and information science, artificial intelligence, “Self-Organizing Maps”. doi:10.5772/9180Google Scholar
  10. 149.
    Deschaud JE, Goulette F (2010) A fast and accurate plane detection algorithm for large noisy point clouds using filtered normals and voxel growing. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on 3DPVT, ParisGoogle Scholar
  11. 150.
    Diebel JR, Thrun S, Brunig M (2006) A Bayesian method for probable surface reconstruction and decimation. ACM Trans Graph 25(1):39–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 153.
    Draelos MT (2012) The kinect up close: modifications for short-range depth imaging. A thesis Master of Science, Electrical Engineering, RaleighGoogle Scholar
  13. 158.
    Faugere JC (2014) Introduction to documentation of the FGb package in Maple.
  14. 165.
    Fernandez JC, Singhania A, Caceres J, Slatton KC, Starek M, Kumar R (2007) An overview of Lidar cloud processing softwares, GEM Center report no. Rep-2007-12-01, Civil and Coastal Engineering Department, University of FloridaGoogle Scholar
  15. 166.
    Fischler MA, Bolles RC (1981) Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Commun ACM 24:381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 196.
    Gordon SJ, Lichti DD (2004) Terrestrial laser scanners with a narrow field of view: the effect on 3D resection solutions. Surv Rev 37:448–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 250.
    Huffel SV, Lemmerling P (2002) Total least square and errors-in-variables modeling: analysis, algorithms and applications. Kluwer Academic, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 252.
    Huang C-M, Tseng Y-H, Plane fitting methods of Lidar point cloud, Department of Geomatics, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, Scholar
  19. 253.
    Hubert M, Rousseeuw PJ, Van den Branden K (2005) ROBPCA: a new approach to robust principal component analysis. Technometrics 47(1):64–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 289.
    Krarup T, Kubik K, Juhl J (1980) Götterdammerung over least squares. In: Proceedings of International Society for Photogrammetry 14-th Congress, Hamburg, pp 370–378Google Scholar
  21. 290.
    Kukelova Z, Bujnak M, Pajdla T (2008) Automatic generator of minimal problem solvers. In: ECCV’08, Part III, Marseille. Volume 5304 of lecture notes in computer science, pp 302–315Google Scholar
  22. 291.
    Kukelova Z (2012) Algebraic methods in computer vision. PhD thesis, Center for Machine Perception, Czech Technical University, PragueGoogle Scholar
  23. 330.
    Lewis RH (2008) Heuristics to accelerate the Dixon resultant. Math Comput Simul 77(4):400–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 332.
    Lakaemper R, Latecki LJ (2006) Extended EM for planar approximation of 3D data. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRa), Orlando, May 2006Google Scholar
  25. 333.
    Lewis RH (2014) Computer algebra system Fermat.
  26. 334.
    Lewis RH, Coutsias EA (2007) Algorithmic search for flexibility using resultants of polynomial systems. In: Botana F, Recio T (eds) Automated deduction in geometry. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 4869. Springer, Berlin, pp 68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 335.
    Lewis RH, Stiller P (1999) Solving the recognition problem for six lines using the Dixon resultant. Math Comput Simul 49:205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 336.
    Lukács G, Martin R, Marshall D (1998) Faithful leat-squares fitting of spheres, cylinders, cones and tori for reliable segmentation. In: Burkhardt H, Neumann B (eds) Computer Vision, ECCV ’98, vol I. LNCS 1406. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 671–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 337.
    Lictbbau D (2009) Cylinders through five points: computational algebra and geometry. Accessed 13 Oct 2009
  30. 351.
    Mitra NJ, Nguyen A (2003) Estimating surface normals in noisy point cloud data. In: Proceeding SCG ’03 Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG’03), 8–10 June, San Diego, ACM, 1-58113-663-3/03/0006, pp 322–328Google Scholar
  31. 384.
    Nievergelt Y (2000) A tutorial history of least squares with applicatons to astronomy and geodesy. J Comput Appl Math 121:37–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 386.
    Norris-Roger M, Behrendt R (2013) From points to products – business benefits from Lidar using ArcGIS, SA Forestry Magazine, 2013 JuneGoogle Scholar
  33. 388.
    Nurunnabi A, Belton D, West G (2012) Diagnostic -Robust statistical analysis for local surface fitting in 3D point cloud data. In: ISPRS Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol I–3, 2012 XXII ISPRS Congress, 25 Aug 2012, Melbourne, pp 269–275Google Scholar
  34. 411.
    Paláncz B, Somogyi A, Lovas T, Molnár B (2013) Plane fitting to point cloud via Gröbner basis, e-publication, Wolfram Research Information Center, MathSource/8491Google Scholar
  35. 412.
    Paláncz B (2014) Fitting data with different error models. Math J. 16, 1–22Google Scholar
  36. 413.
    Poppinga J, Vaskevicius N, Birk A, Pathak K (2006) Fast plane detection and polygonalization in noisy 3D range images. In: International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Nice. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  37. 418.
    Preisendorfer RW (1988) Principal component analysis in meteorology and oceanography. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  38. 434.
    Raguram R, Frahm JM, Pollefeys M (2008) A comparative analysis of RANSAC techniques leading to adaptive real-time random sample consensus. In: Computer Vision – ECCV 2008, Marseille. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5303, pp 500–513Google Scholar
  39. 435.
    Raguram R, Chum O, Pollefeys M, Matas J, Frahm JM (2013) USAC: a universal framework for random sample consensus. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 35(8):2022–38. doi:10.1109/TPAMI.2012.257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 436.
    Rose C, Smith D (2000) Symbolic maximum likelihood estimation with Mathematica. The Statistician 49:229–240Google Scholar
  41. 437.
    Russeeuw PJ, Van Driessen K (1999) A fast algorithm for the minimum covariance determinant estimator. TECHNOMETRICS 41(3):212–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 444.
    Schaffrin B, Wieser A (2008) On weighted total least-squares adjustment for linear regression. J Geod 82(7):415–421. doi:10.1007/s00190-007-0190-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 448.
    See Ref. [447]Google Scholar
  44. 449.
    Sotoodeh S (2006) Outlier detection in laser scanner point clouds. In: IAPRS, Dresden, vol XXXVI/5, pp 297–301Google Scholar
  45. 450.
    Stathas D, Arabatzi O, Dogouris S, Piniotis G, Tsini D, Tsinis D (2003) New monitoring techniques on the determination of structure deformation. In: Proceedings of the 11th FIG Symposium on Deformation Measurements, SantoriniGoogle Scholar
  46. 451.
    Stewènius H (2005) Gröbner basis methods for minimal problems in computer vision. PhD thesis, Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  47. 487.
    Tofallis C (2002) Model fitting for multiple variables by minimizing the geometric mean deviation. In: van Huffel S, Lemmerling P (eds) Total least squares and errors-in-variables modelling: algorithms, analysis and applications. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht/Boston/LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. 512.
    Wang S, Tseng Y-H, Habib AF (2010) Least-squares building model fitting using aerial photos and Lidar data. Least-squares building model fitting using aerial photos and LiDAR data. In Proceedings of the ASPRS 2010 Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 26–30Google Scholar
  49. 518.
    Weingarten JW, Gruener G, Siegwart R (2004) Probabilistic plane fitting in 3D and an application to robotic mapping. IEEE Int Conf 1:927–932Google Scholar
  50. 538.
    Yang MY, Förtsner W (2010) Plane detection in point cloud data, TR-IGG-P-2010-01, Technical report. Nr.1, Department of Photogrammetry Institute of Geodesy and Geo-information, University of BonnGoogle Scholar
  51. 539.
    Yaniv Z (2010) Random sample consensus (RANSAC) algorithm, a generic implementation. Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. Accessed 29 May 2014
  52. 553.
    Zuliani M (2012) RANSAC for Dummies, ∼ zulianiGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph L. Awange
    • 1
  • Béla Paláncz
    • 2
  1. 1.Curtin UniversityPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Budapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations