Bayesian winner-take-all reconstruction of intermediate views from stereoscopic images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a new algorithm for the reconstruction of intermediate views from a pair of still stereoscopic images. The algorithm is designed to address the issue of blur caused by linear filtering often employed in such reconstruction. The proposed algorithm is block-based and to reconstruct the intermediate views employs nonlinear disparity-compensated filtering by means of a winner-take-all strategy. The reconstructed image is modeled as a tiling by fixed-size blocks coming from various positions (disparity compensation) of either the left or right images, while the tiling map itself is modeled by a binary decision field. In addition to that, an observation model relating the left and right images via a disparity field, and a disparity field model are used. All models are probabilistic and are combined into a maximum a posteriori probability criterion. The intermediate intensities, disparities and the binary decision field are estimated jointly using the expectation-maximization algorithm. The new approach is compared experimentally on complex natural images with a reference block-based algorithm employing linear filtering. Although the improvements are localized and often subtle, they demonstrate that a high-quality intermediate view reconstruction for complex scenes is feasible.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".