MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904579513 · doi:10.1109/crv.2018.00048

Deep Learning-Driven Depth from Defocus via Active Multispectral Quasi-Random Projections with Complex Subpatterns

2018· article· en· W2904579513 on OpenAlexaff
Avery Ma, Alexander Wong, David A. Clausi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceProjection (relational algebra)Point (geometry)Computer visionInferencePattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A promising approach to depth from defocus (DfD) involves actively projecting a quasi-random point pattern onto an object and assessing the blurriness of the point projection as captured by a camera to recover the depth of the scene. Recently, it was found that the depth inference can be made not only faster but also more accurate by leveraging deep learning approaches to computationally model and predict depth based on the quasi-random point projections as captured by a camera. Motivated by the fact that deep learning techniques can automatically learn useful features from the captured image of the projection, in this paper we present an extension of this quasi-random projection approach to DfD by introducing the use of a new quasi-random projection pattern consisting of complex subpatterns instead of points. The design and choice of the subpattern used in the quasi-random projection is a key factor in the ability to achieve improved depth recovery with high fidelity. Experimental results using quasi-random projection patterns composed of a variety of non-conventional subpattern designs on complex surfaces showed that the use of complex subpatterns in the quasi-random projection pattern can significantly improve depth reconstruction quality compared to a point pattern.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Processing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207