MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070639429 · doi:10.1145/2366145.2366205

The magic lens

2012· article· en· W2070639429 on OpenAlexaff
Marios Papas, Thomas Houit, Derek Nowrouzezahrai, Markus Groß, Wojciech Jarosz

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLens (geology)Computer scienceMAGIC (telescope)AnimationComputer visionComputer graphics (images)Decoding methodsArtificial intelligenceOpticsENCODEGridGradient-index opticsPhysicsAlgorithmMathematicsRefractive indexGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an automatic approach to design and manufacture passive display devices based on optical hidden image decoding. Motivated by classical steganography techniques we construct Magic Lenses , composed of refractive lenslet arrays, to reveal hidden images when placed over potentially unstructured printed or displayed source images. We determine the refractive geometry of these surfaces by formulating and efficiently solving an inverse light transport problem, taking into account additional constraints imposed by the physical manufacturing processes. We fabricate several variants on the basic magic lens idea including using a single source image to encode several hidden images which are only revealed when the lens is placed at prescribed orientations on the source image or viewed from different angles. We also present an important special case, the universal lens , that forms an injection mapping from the lens surface to the source image grid, allowing it to be used with arbitrary source images. We use this type of lens to generate hidden animation sequences. We validate our simulation results with many real-world manufactured magic lenses, and experiment with two separate manufacturing processes.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations51
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesFrench-language works237,207