MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565929657 · doi:10.1109/crv.2016.62

Blur Calibration for Depth from Defocus

2016· article· en· W2565929657 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
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaussian blurKernel (algebra)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionImage restorationComputer scienceCalibrationPixelMathematicsKernel density estimationAperture (computer memory)Image (mathematics)Image processingPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depth from defocus based methods rely on measuring the depth dependent blur at each pixel of the image. A core component in the defocus blur estimation process is the depth variant blur kernel. This blur kernel is often approximated as a Gaussian or pillbox kernel which only works well for small amount of blur. In general the blur kernel depends on the shape of the aperture and can vary a lot with depth. For more accurate blur estimation it is necessary to precisely model the blur kernel. In this paper we present a simple and accurate approach for performing blur kernel calibration for depth from defocus. We also show how to estimate the relative blur kernel from a pair of defocused blur kernels. Our proposed approach can estimate blurs ranging from small (single pixel) to sufficiently large (e.g. 77 x 77 in our experiments). We also experimentally demonstrate that our relative blur estimation method can recover blur kernels for complex asymmetric coded apertures which has not been shown before.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · 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