MDEAN: Multi-View Disparity Estimation with an Asymmetric Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, disparity estimation of a scene based on deep learning methods has been extensively studied and significant progress has been made. In contrast, a traditional image disparity estimation method requires considerable resources and consumes much time in processes such as stereo matching and 3D reconstruction. At present, most deep learning based disparity estimation methods focus on estimating disparity based on monocular images. Motivated by the results of traditional methods that multi-view methods are more accurate than monocular methods, especially for scenes that are textureless and have thin structures, in this paper, we present MDEAN, a new deep convolutional neural network to estimate disparity using multi-view images with an asymmetric encoder–decoder network structure. First, our method takes an arbitrary number of multi-view images as input. Next, we use these images to produce a set of plane-sweep cost volumes, which are combined to compute a high quality disparity map using an end-to-end asymmetric network. The results show that our method performs better than state-of-the-art methods, in particular, for outdoor scenes with the sky, flat surfaces and buildings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".