MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755516105 · doi:10.20385/1860-2037/13.2016.2

Comprehensive Framework for Evaluation of Stereo Correspondence Solutions in Immersive Augmented and Virtual Realities

2024· article· en· W2755516105 on OpenAlexaff
Bahar Pourazar, Oscar Meruvia-Pastor

Bibliographic record

VenueHochschule Düsseldorf · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAugmented realityComputer visionSoftwareContext (archaeology)Computer stereo visionStereopsisBlock (permutation group theory)OutlierMatching (statistics)Stereo camerasMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, a comprehensive approach for the evaluation of hardware and software solutions to support stereo vision and depth-dependent interactions based on the specific requirements of the human visual system within the context of augmented reality applications is presented. To evaluate stereo correspondence solutions in software, we present an evaluation model that integrates existing metrics of stereo correspondence algorithms with additional metrics that consider human factors that are relevant in the context of outdoor augmented reality systems. Our model provides modified metrics of stereoacuity, average outliers, disparity error, and processing time. These metrics have been modified to provide more relevant information with respect to the target application. We illustrate how this model can be used to evaluate two stereo correspondence methods: the OpenCV implementation of the semi-global block matching, also known as SGBM, which is a modified version of the semi-global matching by Hirschmuller; and ADCensusB, our implementation of ADCensus, by Mei et al.. To test these methods, we use a sample of fifty-two image pairs selected from the Kitti stereo dataset, which depicts many situations typical of outdoor scenery. Further on, we present an analysis of the effect and the trade-off of the post processing steps in the stereo algorithms between the accuracy of the results and performance. Experimental results show that our proposed model can provide a more detailed evaluation of both algorithms. To evaluate the hardware solutions, we use the characteristics of the human visual system as a baseline to characterize the state-of-the-art in equipment designed to support interactions within immersive augmented and virtual reality systems. The analysis suggests that current hardware developments have not yet reached the point where their characteristics adequately match the capabilities of the human visual system and serves as a reference point as to what are the desirable characteristics of such systems.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHochschule DüsseldorfSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207