MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221132921 · doi:10.5121/ijcsit.2022.14102

Shortcomings and Flaws in the Mathematical Derivation of the Fundamental Matrix Equation

2022· article· en· W4221132921 on OpenAlexaff
Tayeb Basta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpipolar geometryFundamental matrix (linear differential equation)Essential matrixComputer scienceMatrix (chemical analysis)Projective geometryEight-point algorithmComputer visionPoint (geometry)Position (finance)Artificial intelligenceRelation (database)Image (mathematics)Feature (linguistics)GeometryAlgebra over a fieldMathematicsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisDifferential geometryState-transition matrixSymmetric matrix

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In stereo vision, the epipolar geometry is the intrinsic projective geometry between the two views. The essential and fundamental matrices relate corresponding points in stereo images. The essential matrix describes the geometry when the used cameras are calibrated, and the fundamental matrix expresses the geometry when the cameras are uncalibrated. Since the nineties, researchers devoted a lot of effort to estimate the fundamental matrix. Although it is a landmark of computer vision, in the current work, three derivations of the essential and fundamental matrices have been revised. The Longuet-Higgins' derivation of the essential matrix where he draws a mapping between the position vectors of a 3D point; however, the one-to-one feature of that mapping is lost when he changed it to a relation between the image points. In the two other derivations, we demonstrate that the authors established a mapping between the image points through the misuse of mathematics.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.267 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computer Science and Information TechnologySame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207