MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131684180 · doi:10.1109/iros.2013.6696649

RANSAC for motion-distorted 3D visual sensors

2013· article· en· W2131684180 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean Anderson, Timothy D. Barfoot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRANSACArtificial intelligenceComputer visionVisual odometryComputer scienceRolling shutterMotion estimationStructure from motionBundle adjustmentFeature (linguistics)ShutterRobotPhotogrammetryImage (mathematics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual odometry (VO) is a highly efficient and powerful 6D motion estimation technique; state-of-the-art bundle adjustment algorithms now optimize over several frames of temporally tracked, appearance-based features in real time. It is well known that the temporal feature correspondence process is highly prone to mismatches. The standard technique used for outlier rejection in this process is random sample consensus (RANSAC), which is an iterative and non-deterministic process used to find the parameters of a mathematical model that best describe a likely set of inliers. The traditional model used for RANSAC in the visual odometry pipeline is a rigid transformation between two camera poses; this model has long assumed the use of an imaging sensor with a global shutter. In order to use imaging sensors that do not operate with a global shutter, it is proposed that the RANSAC algorithm be modified to use a constant-camera-velocity model. Specifically, this paper investigates the use of a two-axis scanning lidar in the visual-odometry pipeline. Images are formed using lidar intensity data, and due to the scanning-while-moving nature of the lidar, the behaviour of the sensor resembles that of a slow rolling-shutter camera. We formulate a Motion-Compensated RANSAC algorithm that uses a constant-velocity model and the individual timestamp of each extracted feature. The algorithm is validated using 6880 lidar frames with a resolution of 480 × 360, captured at 2 Hz, over a 1.1 km traversal. Our results show that the new algorithm results in far more inlying feature tracks for rolling-shutter-type images and ultimately higher-accuracy VO results.

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations46
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207