MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3150969783 · doi:10.82308/10409

Depth from defocus using angle sensitive pixels based on a Transmissive Diffraction Mask

2018· article· en· W3150969783 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neeth Kunnath

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicImage Processing Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPixelOpticsDiffractionComputer visionComputer scienceRemote sensingMaterials sciencePhysicsArtificial intelligenceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An object in the scene whose image appears to be in focus is said to lie within the depth of field. Objects outside this volume appear blurred in the image. The shape of this defocus blur depends on the aperture. For a symmetric aperture, defocus blur has the same shape on either side of the focus plane. A consequence of this is that Depth from Defocus (DFD) methods that estimate object depth from defocus blur run into a blur ambiguity problem with symmetric apertures. While some methods use multiple images to resolve this ambiguity, it is a computationally heavy process. Airy3D, a start-up based in Montréal, Québec proposed an image sensor with Angle Sensitive Pixels (ASPs) based on a Transmissive Diffractio nMask (TDM). An ASP is a pixel that can detect light's intensity as well as its angle of incidence. ASPs have many advantages over regular pixels that respond only to the intensity of incident light. One such advantage lies in resolving the blur ambiguity. This thesis proposes a single image DFD approach which is free from the blur width ambiguity problem. This proposed DFD method using information about the angle of incidence of light provided by ASPs provide unambiguous blur width estimates even for symmetric apertures.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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 venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicImage Processing Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207