MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032978772 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2014.74

Two-View Camera Housing Parameters Calibration for Multi-layer Flat Refractive Interface

2014· article· en· W2032978772 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesCompute Canada
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Bundle adjustmentComputer scienceOutlierComputer visionArtificial intelligenceCalibrationReprojection errorCamera resectioningOpticsMathematicsImage (mathematics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a novel refractive calibration method for an underwater stereo camera system where both cameras are looking through multiple parallel flat refractive interfaces. At the heart of our method is an important finding that the thickness of the interface can be estimated from a set of pixel correspondences in the stereo images when the refractive axis is given. To our best knowledge, such a finding has not been studied or reported. Moreover, by exploring the search space for the refractive axis and using reprojection error as a measure, both the refractive axis and the thickness of the interface can be recovered simultaneously. Our method does not require any calibration target such as a checkerboard pattern which may be difficult to manipulate when the cameras are deployed deep undersea. The implementation of our method is simple. In particular, it only requires solving a set of linear equations of the form Ax = b and applies sparse bundle adjustment to refine the initial estimated results. Extensive experiments have been carried out which include simulations with and without outliers to verify the correctness of our method as well as to test its robustness to noise and outliers. The results of real experiments are also provided. The accuracy of our results is comparable to that of a state-of-the-art method that requires known 3D geometry of a scene.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.237 · 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