MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092160663 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2010.2054833

Bundle Adjustment With Rational Polynomial Camera Models Based on Generic Method

2010· article· en· W2092160663 on OpenAlexaff
Zhen Xiong, Yun Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSatellite Image Processing and Photogrammetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBundle adjustmentSubpixel renderingComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligencePolynomialProjection (relational algebra)BundleSpace (punctuation)AlgorithmImage (mathematics)PixelMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rational polynomial camera (RPC) model is a kind of generic sensor model that can be used in different remote sensing systems to model the relationship between object space and image space and transform image data to conform to a map projection. Unlike traditional physical camera models, an RPC model has many coefficients (a total of 80), and these coefficients do not have a physical interpretation. This represents a difficult challenge for the mapping community. For RPC refinement, many solutions, including direct and indirect methods, have been developed. One of them, the recent developed generic method has been shown to be a robust method. Because the generic method can simulate the camera's exterior parameters, it can be used in any geometric situation. Even so, the performance of bundle adjustment with the generic method is still unknown. In this paper, through experiments with a stereo pair and a stereo triplet, the capability of high-accuracy geopositioning based on the generic method is demonstrated. We first give a brief review of previous bundle adjustment methods based on RPC. Then, the bundle adjustment algorithm based on the generic method is introduced in detail. We finally present the experiments with both IKONOS and QuickBird imageries. The experiments show that the bundle adjustment based on the generic method can reach subpixel accuracy in image space and submeter accuracy in object space.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicSatellite Image Processing and PhotogrammetryFrench-language works237,207