Two-View Camera Housing Parameters Calibration for Multi-layer Flat Refractive Interface
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".