rewrote more of data chapter green

thesis/Main.tex

@@ -294,19 +294,51 @@ In this chapter, we outline the specific requirements we established for the dat
     %\todo[inline]{screenshots of camera/3d data?}
     %\todo[inline]{difficulties: no ground truth, different lidar sensors/settings, different data shapes, available metadata, ...}
 
+    %\todo[inline, color=green!40]{we require lidar sensor data that was collected in a domain as closely related to our target domain (rescue robots indoors, cave-ins, ) as possible which also includes some kind of appreciable degradation for which we have some kind of labeling possibility. ideally the degradation should be from smoke/dust/aerosol particles. most data should be without degradation (since we require more normal than anormal data to train the method as described in X) but we need enough anormal data so we can confidently evaluate the methods performance}
+
     %Our main requirement for the data was for it to be as closely related to the target domain of rescue operations as possible. Since autonomous robots get largely used in situations where a structural failures occured we require of the data to be subterranean. This provides the additional benefit, that data from this domain oftentimes already has some amount of airborne particles like dust due to limited ventilation and oftentimes exposed rock, which is to be expected to also be present in rescue situations. The second and by far more limiting requirement on the data, was that there has to be appreciable degradation due to airborne particles as would occur during a fire from smoke. The type of data has to at least include lidar but for better understanding other types of visual data e.g., visual camera images would be benefical. The amount of data has to be sufficient for training the learning based methods while containing mostly good quality data without degradation, since the semi-supervised method implicitely requires a larger amount of normal than anomalous training for successful training. Nonetheless, the number of anomalous data samples has to be large enough that a comprehensive evaluation of the methods' performance is possible.
+\newsubsubsectionNoTOC{Requirements}
 
     Our primary requirement for the dataset was that it closely reflects the target domain of rescue operations. Because autonomous robots are predominantly deployed in scenarios involving structural failures, the data should be taken from subterranean environments. This setting not only aligns with the operational context but also inherently includes a larger than normal amount of airborne particles (e.g., dust) from limited ventilation and exposed rock surfaces, which is typically encountered during rescue missions.
 
 A second, more challenging requirement is that the dataset must exhibit significant degradation due to airborne particles, as would be expected in scenarios involving smoke from fires. The dataset should at minimum include LiDAR data, and ideally also incorporate other visual modalities (e.g., camera images) to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the environment.
 
-Additionally, the dataset must be sufficiently large for training learning-based methods. Since our semi-supervised approach relies on a predominance of normal data over anomalous data, it is critical that the dataset predominantly consists of high-quality, degradation-free samples. At the same time, there must be enough anomalous samples to allow for a thorough evaluation of the method’s performance.
+Additionally, the dataset must be sufficiently large for training learning-based methods. Since the semi-supervised approach we utilize relies on a predominance of normal data over anomalous data, it is critical that the dataset predominantly consists of high-quality, degradation-free samples. At the same time, there must be enough anomalous samples to allow for a thorough evaluation of the method’s performance.
+
+\newsubsubsectionNoTOC{Labeling Challenges}
+
+    %\todo[inline, color=green!40]{labeling is an especially problematic topic since ideally we would want an analog value which corresponds with the amount of smoke present for evaluation. for training we only require the possibility to provide labels in the form of normal or anormal targets (binary classification) and these labels do not have to be present for all data, only for some of the data (since semi-supervised only uses some labeled data as discussed in X)}
+
+%To evaluate how proficiently any method can quantify the degradation of lidar data we require some kind of degradation label per scan. Ideally we would want an analog value per scan which somehow correlates to the degradation, but even a binary label of either degraded or not degraded would be useful. To find out which options are available for this task, we first have to figure out what degradation means in the context of lidar scans and especially the pointclouds in which they result. Lidar sensors combine multiple range measurements which are executed near simultaneously into a pointcloud whose reference point is the sensor location at the time of measurement. Ideally for each attempted measurement during a scan one point is produced, albeit in reality there are many factors why a fraction of the measurements cannot be completed and therefore there will be missing points even in good conditions. Additionally, there are also measurements which result in an incorrect range, like for example when an aerosol particle is hit by the measurement ray and a smaller range than was intended to be measured (to the next solid object) was returned. The sum of missing and erroneous measurements makes up the degradation, although it can be alleged that the term also includes the type or structure of errors or missing points and the resulting difficulties when further utilizing the resulting pointcloud. For example, if aerosol particles are dense enough in a small portion of the frame, they could produce a pointcloud where the particles are interpreted as a solid object even though the amount of erroneous measurements is smaller than for another scan where aerosol particles are evenly distributed around the sensor. In the latter case the erroneous measurements may be identified by outlier detection algorithms and after removal do not hinder further processing of the pointcloud. For these reasons it is not simple to define data degradation for lidar scans. 
+
+%Another option would be to try to find an objective measurement of degradation. As the degradation in our use case mostly stems from airborne particles, it stands to reason that measuring the amount of them would enable us to label each frame with an analog score which correlates to the amount of degradation. This approach turns out to be difficult to implement in real life, since sensors capable of measuring the amount and size of airborne particles typically do so at the location of the sensor while the lidar sensor also sends measurement rays into all geometries visible to it. This localized measurement could be useful if the aerosol particle distribution is uniform enough but would not allow the system to anticipate degradation in other parts of the pointcloud. We are not aware of any public dataset fit for our requirements which also includes data on aerosol particle density and size.
+
+To evaluate how effectively a method can quantify LiDAR data degradation, we require a degradation label for each scan. Ideally, each scan would be assigned an analog value that correlates with the degree of degradation, but even a binary label—indicating whether a scan is degraded or not—would be useful.
+
+Before identifying available options for labeling, it is essential to define what “degradation” means in the context of LiDAR scans and the resulting point clouds. LiDAR sensors combine multiple range measurements, taken nearly simultaneously, into a single point cloud with the sensor’s location as the reference point. In an ideal scenario, each measurement produces one point; however, in practice, various factors cause some measurements to be incomplete, resulting in missing points even under good conditions. Additionally, some measurements may return incorrect ranges. For example, when a measurement ray strikes an aerosol particle, it may register a shorter range than the distance to the next solid object. The combined effect of missing and erroneous measurements constitutes degradation. One could also argue that degradation includes the type or structure of errors and missing points, which in turn affects how the point cloud can be further processed. For instance, if aerosol particles are densely concentrated in a small region, they might be interpreted as a solid object which could indicate a high level of degradation, even if the overall number of erroneous measurements is lower when compared to a scan where aerosol particles are evenly distributed. In the latter case, outlier detection algorithms might easily remove the erroneous points, minimizing their impact on subsequent processing. Thus, defining data degradation for LiDAR scans is not straightforward.
+
+An alternative approach would be to establish an objective measurement of degradation. Since the degradation in our use case primarily arises from airborne particles, one might assume that directly measuring their concentration would allow us to assign an analog score that correlates with degradation. However, this approach is challenging to implement in practice. Sensors that measure airborne particle concentration and size typically do so only at the sensor’s immediate location, whereas the LiDAR emits measurement rays that traverse a wide field of view. This localized measurement might be sufficient if the aerosol distribution is uniform, but it does not capture variations in degradation across the entire point cloud. To our knowledge, no public dataset exists that meets our requirements while also including detailed data on aerosol particle density and size.
+
+%For training purposes we generally do not require labels since the semi-supervised method may fall back to a unsupervised one if no labels are provided. To improve the method's performance it is possible to provide binary labels i.e., normal and anomalous-correlating to non-degraded and degraded respectively-but the amount of the provided training labels does not have to be large and can be handlabelled as is typical for semi-supervised methods, since they often work on mostly unlabeled data which is difficult or even impossible to fully label.
+
+For training, explicit labels are generally not required because the semi-supervised method we employ can operate in an unsupervised manner when labels are absent. However, incorporating binary labels—normal for non-degraded and anomalous for degraded conditions—can enhance the method's performance. Importantly, only a small number of labels is needed, and these can be hand-labeled, which is typical in semi-supervised learning where the majority of the data remains unlabeled due to the difficulty or impracticality of fully annotating the dataset.
 
 
-    \todo[inline, color=green!40]{we require lidar sensor data that was collected in a domain as closely related to our target domain (rescue robots indoors, cave-ins, ) as possible which also includes some kind of appreciable degradation for which we have some kind of labeling possibility. ideally the degradation should be from smoke/dust/aerosol particles. most data should be without degradation (since we require more normal than anormal data to train the method as described in X) but we need enough anormal data so we can confidently evaluate the methods performance}
+    %\todo[inline, color=green!40]{We chose to evaulate the method on the dataset "Multimodal Dataset from Harsh Sub-Terranean Environment with Aerosol Particles for Frontier Exploration"~\cite{alexander_kyuroson_2023_7913307} which is a public dataset collected by X in a sub-terranean environment and includes data from multiple sensors on a moving sensor platform as well as experiments where sensor data is explicitely degraded by aerosol particles produced by a smoke machine.}
+
+\newsubsubsectionNoTOC{Chosen Dataset}
+
+Based on the previously discussed requirements and labeling difficulties we decided to train and evaluate the methods on \emph{Multimodal Dataset from Harsh Sub-Terranean Environment with Aerosol Particles for Frontier Exploration}~\cite{subter}. The dataset is comprised of data from multiple sensors on a moving sensor platform which was driven through tunnels and rooms in a subterranean setting. What makes it especially fitting for our use case is that during some of the experiments where data was captured, an artifical smoke machine was employed to simulate aerosol particles. 
+The sensors employed during capture of the dataset include:
+\begin{itemize}
+  \item Lidar - Ouster OS1-32
+  \item mmWave RADARs - 4 IWR6843AoP ES2.0 based radar models
+  \item Lidar - Velodyne Velarray M1600
+  \item IR-enabled RBG-D Camera - OAK-D Pro
+  \item IMU - Pixhawk 2.1 Cube Orange,
+\end{itemize}
+We mainly utilize the data from the \emph{Ouster OS1-32} lidar sensor, which produces 10 frames per second with a resolution of 32 vertical channels by 2048 measurements per channel, both equiangularly spaced over the vertical and horizontal fields of view of 42.4° and 360° respectively.
 
-    \todo[inline, color=green!40]{labeling is an especially problematic topic since ideally we would want an analog value which corresponds with the amount of smoke present for evaluation. for training we only require the possibility to provide labels in the form of normal or anormal targets (binary classification) and these labels do not have to be present for all data, only for some of the data (since semi-supervised only uses some labeled data as discussed in X)}
-    \todo[inline, color=green!40]{We chose to evaulate the method on the dataset "Multimodal Dataset from Harsh Sub-Terranean Environment with Aerosol Particles for Frontier Exploration"~\cite{alexander_kyuroson_2023_7913307} which is a public dataset collected by X in a sub-terranean environment and includes data from multiple sensors on a moving sensor platform as well as experiments where sensor data is explicitely degraded by aerosol particles produced by a smoke machine.}
     \todo[inline, color=green!40]{list sensors on the platform}
     \todo[inline, color=green!40]{talk about how much data is available (maybe a plot about data?), number of experiments with/without degradation, other factors in these experiments which do not concern our use-case of them}
     \todo[inline, color=green!40]{lidar data of 360° sensor is captured at 10 frames per second. each sensor output consists of pointcloud which resulted from measurement of 32 vertical channels for each of which 2048 measurement points are taken during each measurement equiangular distributed around the whole horizontal 360°, so the sensor measures 32 * 2048 = 65536 measurements 10 times a second for which ideally every one produces a point in the pointcloud consisting of x,y,z coordinates (relative to sensor platform) as well as some other values per measurement (reflectivity, intensity originally measured range value)}