MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963416674 · doi:10.1109/crv.2018.00013

In Defense of Classical Image Processing: Fast Depth Completion on the CPU

2018· article· en· W2963416674 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePython (programming language)Artificial neural networkBenchmark (surveying)Task (project management)Artificial intelligenceCode (set theory)Image processingImage (mathematics)Source codeComputer engineeringComputer visionOperating systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rise of data driven deep neural networks as a realization of universal function approximators, most research on computer vision problems has moved away from handcrafted classical image processing algorithms. This paper shows that with a well designed algorithm, we are capable of outperforming neural network based methods on the task of depth completion. The proposed algorithm is simple and fast, runs on the CPU, and relies only on basic image processing operations to perform depth completion of sparse LIDAR depth data. We evaluate our algorithm on the challenging KITTI depth completion benchmark, and at the time of submission, our method ranks first on the KITTI test server among all published methods. Furthermore, our algorithm is data independent, requiring no training data to perform the task at hand. The code written in Python is publicly available at https://github.com/kujason/ip_basic.

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.

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 score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Quick stats

Citations321
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207