MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117876688 · doi:10.1109/crv.2011.33

Autocalibration: Finding Infinity in a Projective Reconstruction

2011· article· en· W2117876688 on OpenAlexafffund
Neil Cavan, Paul Fieguth, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsInitializationIntrinsicsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationCalibrationMeasure (data warehouse)Metric (unit)Affine transformationAlgorithmNonlinear programmingArtificial intelligenceNonlinear systemComputer visionMathematicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to extract accurate 3D models from uncalibrated image data it is necessary to upgrade the generated projective reconstructions to a metric space, a process known as auto calibration. The key challenge associated with auto calibration is the nonlinear optimization of a cost function based on extracting camera intrinsics from a potential upgrading transform, and evaluating fitness with respect to prior knowledge of physical cameras. The nonlinearity of the problem leads, in general, to poor convergence and a failure of the calibration process. This paper presents a novel auto calibration pipeline that seeks to develop a more robust approach to the nonlinear optimization. After testing a variety of methods, none of which yielded satisfactory solutions, we have developed a strategy combining the best aspects of two methods representing the current state of the art. The former method preconditions the projective space by ensuring it is quasi-affine with respect to camera centers, allowing a naive initialization in the new space, and uses a fitness measure resistant to focal length collapse. The latter method initializes using the best results of an exhaustive search over reasonable values of focal length. Our novel approach, presented here, uses the exhaustive search initialization of the latter combined with the improved fitness measure of the former, producing results that outperform both of its predecessors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207