MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W33918578 · doi:10.3390/idr13020033

Using Constraint Lines for Estimating Egomotion

2006· article· en· W33918578 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Manolis Lourakis

Bibliographic record

VenueInfectious Disease Reports · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsObserver (physics)Computer visionOptical flowIntersection (aeronautics)Artificial intelligenceComputationMotion estimationConstraint (computer-aided design)Computer scienceNoise (video)Motion (physics)Point (geometry)Simple (philosophy)Motion fieldMathematicsAlgorithmImage (mathematics)GeometryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the problem of estimating egomotion using visual input, which constitutes a fundamental problem in visual motion analysis. Many of the existing techniques for solving this problem rely on restrictive assumptions regarding the observer's motion or even the scene structure. In this work, a novel method for egomotion estimation is proposed. The method relies on the observation that optical flow vectors at pairs of points lying on lines through the FOE, exhibit particular geometric properties. Such lines containing the FOE are identified using a robust criterion and the FOE is then located at their point of intersection. The method requires simple computations and employs linear models. Simulations employing synthetic velocity fields as well as experiments with real image sequences demonstrate the performance of the proposed method under varying noise levels and camera motions. Keywords: Motion Analysis, Structure From Motion, Egomotion Estimation, FOE. 1 Introductio...

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfectious Disease ReportsSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207