Estimating Intrinsic Camera Parameters from the Fundamental Matrix Using an Evolutionary Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calibration is the process of computing the intrinsic (internal) camera parameters from a series of images. Normally calibration is done by placing predefined targets in the scene or by having special camera motions, such as rotations. If these two restrictions do not hold, then this calibration process is called autocalibration because it is done automatically, without user intervention. Using autocalibration, it is possible to create 3D reconstructions from a sequence of uncalibrated images without having to rely on a formal camera calibration process. The fundamental matrix describes the epipolar geometry between a pair of images, and it can be calculated directly from 2D image correspondences. We show that autocalibration from a set of fundamental matrices can simply be transformed into a global minimization problem utilizing a cost function. We use a stochastic optimization approach taken from the field of evolutionary computing to solve this problem. A number of experiments are performed on published and standardized data sets that show the effectiveness of the approach. The basic assumption of this method is that the internal (intrinsic) camera parameters remain constant throughout the image sequence, that is, the images are taken from the same camera without varying such quantities as the focal length. We show that for the autocalibration of the focal length and aspect ratio, the evolutionary method achieves results comparable to published methods but is simpler to implement and is efficient enough to handle larger 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it