Hand–eye calibration using a target registration error model
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical cameras are prevalent in modern operating theatres and are often used as a surrogate for direct vision. Visualisation techniques (e.g. image fusion) made possible by tracking the camera require accurate hand-eye calibration between the camera and the tracking system. The authors introduce the concept of 'guided hand-eye calibration', where calibration measurements are facilitated by a target registration error (TRE) model. They formulate hand-eye calibration as a registration problem between homologous point-line pairs. For each measurement, the position of a monochromatic ball-tip stylus (a point) and its projection onto the image (a line) is recorded, and the TRE of the resulting calibration is predicted using a TRE model. The TRE model is then used to guide the placement of the calibration tool, so that the subsequent measurement minimises the predicted TRE. Assessing TRE after each measurement produces accurate calibration using a minimal number of measurements. As a proof of principle, they evaluated guided calibration using a webcam and an endoscopic camera. Their endoscopic camera results suggest that millimetre TRE is achievable when at least 15 measurements are acquired with the tracker sensor ∼80 cm away on the laparoscope handle for a target ∼20 cm away from the camera.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it