MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906232045

Understanding Blur and Model Learning in Projector Compensation

2018· article· en· W2906232045 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vignesh Sankar, Ahmed Gawish, Paul Fieguth, Mark Lamm

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Vision and Imaging Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProjectorComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligencePoint (geometry)Compensation (psychology)PerceptionComputer graphics (images)Mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiometric compensation enables data projectors to use texturedsurfaces such as automobiles, building and theater stages as pro-jection screens, accomplished by modelling the reflectance char-acteristic of the surface and inverting it to find the compensationfunction. In this paper, we explore the effects of point spread func-tion / blur of the projector on the performance of existing radiometriccompensation algorithms. Two changes to the existing model areproposed which help to consider projector blur in model learning.Proposed changes can be combined with any radiometric com-pensation strategy to improve its perceptual performance withoutincreasing the computational complexity.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Vision and Imaging SystemsSame topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207