MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048534840 · doi:10.1109/eit.2009.5189597

Using stereo geometry towards accurate 3D reconstruction

2009· article· en· W2048534840 on OpenAlexaff
Z. Wang, Boubakeur Boufama

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionTranslation (biology)Rotation (mathematics)RoboticsStereopsisEuclidean geometryComputer scienceConstraint (computer-aided design)GeometryCalibrationMotion (physics)Structure from motionComputer stereo visionMathematicsRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the problem of threedimensional reconstruction and how the geometry of the stereo vision system affects the quality of such a reconstruction. We have considered the general case of non calibrated cameras with approximately known intrinsic parameters. The latter could be known either from previous experiments or from the manufacturer's specifications. In particular, the paper aims at finding the best geometric configuration of the stereo vision system(rotation and translation between the two cameras) that is the least sensitive to errors on the intrinsic parameters. Given that in most cases, in robotics for instance, we have the freedom to set-up the geometry of the stereo vision system, finding how cameras' geometry interacts with errors from different sources is a central issue. Furthermore, when the intrinsic parameters are completely unknown, we have used a single constraint from the scene that has allowed us to calculate the focal length and therefore, the Euclidean reconstruction. We have used extensive simulations where the stereo vision geometry has ranged from pure translation to general 3D motion. The obtained results have clearly shown that a pure translation is always better, as it is not significantly affected by errors on the intrinsic parameters. When assuming that the intrinsic parameters are not known, the use of the perpendicularity constraint from the scene has made it possible to avoid the classical and tedious calibration process.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207