Review and Preview: Disocclusion by Inpainting for Image-Based Rendering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image-based rendering takes as input multiple images of an object and generates photorealistic images from novel viewpoints. This approach avoids explicitly modeling scenes by replacing the modeling phase with an object reconstruction phase. Reconstruction is achieved in two possible ways: recovering 3-D point locations using multiview stereo techniques, or reasoning about consistency of each voxel in a discretized object volume space. The most challenging problem for image-based reconstruction is the presence of occlusions. Occlusions make reconstruction ambiguous for object parts not visible in any input image. These parts must be reconstructed in a visually acceptable way. This paper both reviews image inpainting and argues that inpainting can provide not only attractive reconstruction but also a framework for increasing the accuracy of depth recovery. Digital image inpainting refers to any methods that fill-in holes of arbitrary topology in images so that they seem to be a part of the original image. Available methods are broadly classified as structural inpainting or textural inpainting. Structural inpainting reconstructs using prior assumptions and boundary conditions, while textural inpainting considers only the available data from texture exemplars or other templates. Of particular particular interest is research on structural inpainting applied to 3-D models, emphasizing its effectiveness for disocclusion.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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.
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".