MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074613941 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2011.249

Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Depth Maps Using Photometric Stereo

2011· article· en· W2074613941 on OpenAlexafffund
Adam P. Harrison, Dileepan Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta InnovatesYale University
KeywordsDepth mapArtificial intelligenceMaximum a posteriori estimationComputer scienceNoise (video)Photometric stereoComputer visionPixelPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsImage (mathematics)Maximum likelihoodStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photometric stereo and depth-map estimation provide a way to construct a depth map from images of an object under one viewpoint but with varying illumination directions. While estimating surface normals using the Lambertian model of reflectance is well established, depth-map estimation is an ongoing field of research and dealing with image noise is an active topic. Using the zero-mean Gaussian model of image noise, this paper introduces a method for maximum likelihood depth-map estimation that accounts for the propagation of noise through all steps of the estimation process. Solving for maximum likelihood depth-map estimates involves an independent sequence of nonlinear regression estimates, one for each pixel, followed by a single large and sparse linear regression estimate. The linear system employs anisotropic weights, which arise naturally and differ in value to related work. The new depth-map estimation method remains efficient and fast, making it practical for realistic image sizes. Experiments using synthetic images demonstrate the method's ability to robustly estimate depth maps under the noise model. Practical benefits of the method on challenging imaging scenarios are illustrated by experiments using the Extended Yale Face Database B and an extensive data set of 500 reflected light microscopy image sequences.

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 score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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