MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979618460 · doi:10.1109/tmm.2019.2946094

Light Field Super-Resolution Using Edge-Preserved Graph-Based Regularization

2019· article· en· W2979618460 on OpenAlexafffund
Vahid Khorasani Ghassab, Nizar Bouguila

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Multimedia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLight fieldComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceIterative reconstructionGraphImage resolutionRegularization (linguistics)Field (mathematics)AlgorithmMathematicsTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The light field information would be captured through light field cameras and in different directions regarding 3D image view recordings. In this paper, in order to increase the spatio-angular super-resolution quality and to decrease the reconstruction error regarding the light field information, we use a graph-based light field super-resolution strategy. Accordingly, in order to apply the complementary data in the light field views, we use a graph regularizer for the total recovery of the information and an edge-preserving technique that represents an isometry between curves in the 2D manifold and 5D space of the RGB image views. Moreover, the reconstruction of the light field information is based on applying the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) algorithm. Accordingly, a recent enhanced ADMM model has been used in this paper which is denominated as “Plug-and-Play” and permits the user to plug an image reconstruction technique and a denoising methodology as the first and second sub-problems respectively. On that account, we would be able to resolve the light field super-resolution problem considering the graph-based light field structure as the first sub-problem and the edge-preserving technique as the denoising methodology. Consequently, by applying the proposed super-resolution strategy, the super-resolved light field outcome would be more favorable in terms of visual quality and reconstruction errors in comparison with other state-of-the-art methodologies.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on MultimediaSame topicAdvanced Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207