MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798927139 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2018.00037

GeoNet: Geometric Neural Network for Joint Depth and Surface Normal Estimation

2018· article· en· W2798927139 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaojuan Qi, Renjie Liao, Zhengzhe Liu, Raquel Urtasun, Jiaya Jia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalSurface (topology)Consistency (knowledge bases)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceResidualDepth mapArtificial neural networkKernel (algebra)Joint (building)Computer visionMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmImage (mathematics)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose Geometric Neural Network (GeoNet) to jointly predict depth and surface normal maps from a single image. Building on top of two-stream CNNs, our GeoNet incorporates geometric relation between depth and surface normal via the new depth-to-normal and normal-to-depth networks. Depth-to-normal network exploits the least square solution of surface normal from depth and improves its quality with a residual module. Normal-to-depth network, contrarily, refines the depth map based on the constraints from the surface normal through a kernel regression module, which has no parameter to learn. These two networks enforce the underlying model to efficiently predict depth and surface normal for high consistency and corresponding accuracy. Our experiments on NYU v2 dataset verify that our GeoNet is able to predict geometrically consistent depth and normal maps. It achieves top performance on surface normal estimation and is on par with state-of-the-art depth estimation methods.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations401
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207