BUNDLE ADJUSTMENT-BASED STABILITY ANALYSIS METHOD WITH A CASE STUDY OF A DUAL FLUOROSCOPY IMAGING SYSTEM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A fundamental task in photogrammetry is the temporal stability analysis of a camera/imaging-system’s calibration parameters. This is essential to validate the repeatability of the parameters’ estimation, to detect any behavioural changes in the camera/imaging system and to ensure precise photogrammetric products. Many stability analysis methods exist in the photogrammetric literature; each one has different methodological bases, and advantages and disadvantages. This paper presents a simple and rigorous stability analysis method that can be straightforwardly implemented for a single camera or an imaging system with multiple cameras. The basic collinearity model is used to capture differences between two calibration datasets, and to establish the stability analysis methodology. Geometric simulation is used as a tool to derive image and object space scenarios. Experiments were performed on real calibration datasets from a dual fluoroscopy (DF; X-ray-based) imaging system. The calibration data consisted of hundreds of images and thousands of image observations from six temporal points over a two-day period for a precise evaluation of the DF system stability. The stability of the DF system – for a single camera analysis – was found to be within a range of 0.01 to 0.66 mm in terms of 3D coordinates root-mean-square-error (RMSE), and 0.07 to 0.19 mm for dual cameras analysis. It is to the authors’ best knowledge that this work is the first to address the topic of DF stability analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".