MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562004912 · doi:10.1109/iros.2016.7759682

Calibration of a dynamic camera cluster for multi-camera visual SLAM

2016· article· en· W2562004912 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCamera auto-calibrationComputer visionArtificial intelligenceGimbalCamera resectioningComputer scienceCalibrationSmart cameraPinhole camera modelCamera matrixCluster (spacecraft)Tracking (education)EngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-camera clusters used for visual SLAM assume a fixed calibration between the cameras, which places many limitations on its performance, and directly excludes all configurations where a camera in the cluster is mounted to a moving component. In this work, we present a calibration method for dynamic multi-camera clusters, where one or more of the cluster cameras is mounted to an actuated mechanism, such as a gimbal or robotic manipulator. Our calibration approach parametrizes the actuated mechanism using the Denavit-Hartenberg convention, then determines the calibration parameters which allow for the estimation of the time varying extrinsic transformations between camera frames. We validate our calibration approach using a dynamic camera cluster consisting of a static camera and a camera mounted to a pan-tilt unit, and demonstrate that the dynamic camera cluster can provide accurate tracking when used to perform SLAM.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207