MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157507035 · doi:10.1109/icip.2002.1039102

Reliability measurement of disparity estimates for intermediate view reconstruction

2003· article· en· W2157507035 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings - International Conference on Image Processing · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceStereoscopyA priori and a posterioriIterative reconstructionImage (mathematics)Computer visionQuality (philosophy)StereopsisImage qualityAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proposes an algorithm for improving the image quality of disparity-based intermediate view reconstruction by introducing a reliability measurement for disparity estimates. The reliability of disparity estimates is measured with a criterion based on a-posteriori probability of disparity estimates, in which the displaced image intensity difference and the variation of disparity estimates are taken into account. This reliability measurement is then integrated into an intermediate view reconstruction approach, which guides the recovery of disparity values in occluded areas and the reconstruction of the intermediate views. Experimental results with natural stereoscopic sequences show that the disparity reliability measurement is quite effective. The proposed algorithm improves the image quality of reconstructed intermediate views.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.278 · 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