Deformation congruence models form the basis for conventional deformation analysis (CDA). In geometrical sense, these models connect an epochal object states—represented by its characteristic points—at stable/congruent points to disclose possible deformations. To this day, the deformation congruence models are usually specified using the global congruence test (GCT) procedure which, however, has a weakness in the case of multiple displacements. More precisely, the GCT procedure is based on consecutive point-by-point specification which may suffer from so-called displacement smearing. To overcome the above weakness, a revolutionary—in the context of GCT—concept (two methods) involving combinatorial possibilities was suggested in recent years. Admittedly, this concept avoids the problem of consecutive point-by-point specification. Nevertheless, it generates another weakness, namely the problem of the comparison of different-dimensional models. This paper makes a step forward in this new combinatorial field and discusses a more sophisticated combinatorial procedure, denoted as CIDIA. It was shown that, thanks to an appropriately used the possibilities of combinatorics and generalized likelihood ratio tests performed in the detection–identification–adaptation (DIA) iterative steps, the above weaknesses can be overcome. In the context of GCT, the suggested procedure has rather evolutionary—than revolutionary—character and the general concepts of both procedures have similar heuristic substantiation. To demonstrate the efficacy of CIDIA against GCT and the two existing combinatorial methods, various deformation scenarios were being randomized independently many times with the use of comprehensive computer simulations and then processed. Generally, the obtained results confirmed the statement that the suggested CIDIA procedure—unlike the existing combinatorial methods—can be substantially more resistant to displacement smearing than the GCT procedure, at no significant costs. The efficacy of CIDIA—unlike the ones of the two existing combinatorial methods—turned out always higher (on average by several percentages) than the one of GCT for all considered deformation scenarios. At the same time, the CIDIA procedure turned out substantially less time-consuming than the other combinatorial methods.

中文翻译：

---

使用组合迭代 DIA 测试程序指定变形一致性模型

变形一致性模型构成了传统变形分析 (CDA) 的基础。在几何意义上，这些模型将一个具有划时代意义的物体状态（由其特征点表示）连接到稳定/全等点，以揭示可能的变形。时至今日，变形一致性模型通常使用全局一致性测试 (GCT) 程序来指定，但是，该程序在多个位移的情况下具有弱点。更准确地说，GCT 程序基于连续的逐点规范，这可能会遭受所谓的位移拖尾。为了克服上述弱点，近年来提出了一种革命性的——在 GCT 的背景下——涉及组合可能性的概念（两种方法）。诚然，这个概念避免了连续逐点指定的问题。尽管如此，它产生了另一个弱点，即不同维度模型的比较问题。本文在这个新的组合领域向前迈进了一步，并讨论了一种更复杂的组合过程，称为 CIDIA。结果表明，由于在检测 - 识别 - 适应（DIA）迭代步骤中适当使用了组合学和广义似然比测试的可能性，可以克服上述弱点。在 GCT 的背景下，建议的程序具有相当的进化性——而非革命性——特征，并且这两种程序的一般概念具有相似的启发式证实。为了证明 CIDIA 对 GCT 和两种现有组合方法的功效，使用综合计算机模拟多次独立随机化各种变形场景，然后进行处理。一般来说，获得的结果证实了这样的说法，即建议的 CIDIA 程序——与现有的组合方法不同——可以比 GCT 程序更能抵抗位移涂抹，而且成本不高。对于所有考虑的变形场景，CIDIA 的功效——与现有的两种组合方法中的不同——结果总是高于 GCT（平均几个百分比）。同时，结果证明 CIDIA 程序比其他组合方法耗时少得多。获得的结果证实了这样一种说法，即建议的 CIDIA 程序——与现有的组合方法不同——可以比 GCT 程序更能抵抗位移涂抹，而且成本不高。对于所有考虑的变形场景，CIDIA 的功效——与现有的两种组合方法中的不同——结果总是高于 GCT（平均几个百分比）。同时，CIDIA 程序比其他组合方法花费的时间要少得多。获得的结果证实了这样一种说法，即建议的 CIDIA 程序——与现有的组合方法不同——可以比 GCT 程序更能抵抗位移涂抹，而且成本不高。对于所有考虑的变形场景，CIDIA 的功效——与现有的两种组合方法中的不同——结果总是高于 GCT（平均几个百分比）。同时，结果证明 CIDIA 程序比其他组合方法耗时少得多。对于所有考虑的变形场景，CIDIA 的功效——与现有的两种组合方法中的不同——结果总是高于 GCT（平均几个百分比）。同时，结果证明 CIDIA 程序比其他组合方法耗时少得多。对于所有考虑的变形场景，CIDIA 的功效——与现有的两种组合方法中的不同——结果总是高于 GCT（平均几个百分比）。同时，结果证明 CIDIA 程序比其他组合方法耗时少得多。