MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045678670 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2014.2353638

Stereo Reconstruction of Droplet Flight Trajectories

2014· article· en· W2045678670 on OpenAlexafffund
Luis A. Zarrabeitia, Faisal Z. Qureshi, D. A. Aruliah

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceTrajectoryTracking (education)TriangulationMotion (physics)Structure from motion3D reconstructionSimultaneityMotion estimationStereopsisMathematicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed a new method for extracting 3D flight trajectories of droplets using high-speed stereo capture. We noticed that traditional multi-camera tracking techniques fare poorly on our problem, in part due to the fact that all droplets have very similar shapes, sizes and appearances. Our method uses local motion models to track individual droplets in each frame. 2D tracks are used to learn a global, non-linear motion model, which in turn can be used to estimate the 3D locations of individual droplets even when these are not visible in any camera. We have evaluated the proposed method on both synthetic and real data and our method is able to reconstruct 3D flight trajectories of hundreds of droplets. The proposed technique solves for both the 3D trajectory of a droplet and its motion model concomitantly, and we have found it to be superior to 3D reconstruction via triangulation. Furthermore, the learned global motion model allows us to relax the simultaneity assumptions of stereo camera systems. Our results suggest that, even when full stereo information is available, our unsynchronized reconstruction using the global motion model can significantly improve the 3D estimation accuracy.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207