MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1902631842 · doi:10.3390/s151026331

Using Polynomials to Simplify Fixed Pattern Noise and Photometric Correction of Logarithmic CMOS Image Sensors

2015· article· en· W1902631842 on OpenAlexafffund
Jing Li, Alireza Mahmoodi, Dileepan Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCMC Microsystems
KeywordsFixed-pattern noisePixelMonotonic functionComputer scienceCMOSLogarithmImage sensorNoise (video)Nonlinear systemAlgorithmCalibrationLookup tableElectronic engineeringArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)MathematicsPhysicsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important class of complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) image sensors are those where pixel responses are monotonic nonlinear functions of light stimuli. This class includes various logarithmic architectures, which are easily capable of wide dynamic range imaging, at video rates, but which are vulnerable to image quality issues. To minimize fixed pattern noise (FPN) and maximize photometric accuracy, pixel responses must be calibrated and corrected due to mismatch and process variation during fabrication. Unlike literature approaches, which employ circuit-based models of varying complexity, this paper introduces a novel approach based on low-degree polynomials. Although each pixel may have a highly nonlinear response, an approximately-linear FPN calibration is possible by exploiting the monotonic nature of imaging. Moreover, FPN correction requires only arithmetic, and an optimal fixed-point implementation is readily derived, subject to a user-specified number of bits per pixel. Using a monotonic spline, involving cubic polynomials, photometric calibration is also possible without a circuit-based model, and fixed-point photometric correction requires only a look-up table. The approach is experimentally validated with a logarithmic CMOS image sensor and is compared to a leading approach from the literature. The novel approach proves effective and efficient.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicCCD and CMOS Imaging SensorsFrench-language works237,207