MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242747922 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14665419.v1

Stereo correspondence using an assisted discrete cosine transform method

2021· preprint· en· W4242747922 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Rosales

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceDiscrete cosine transformCorrespondence problemAlgorithmComputer scienceComputer visionBlock (permutation group theory)StereopsisMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many approaches have been taken towards the development of a compliant stereo correspondence algorithm that is capable of producing accurate disparity maps within a short period of time. There has been great progress over the past decade due to the vast increase in optimization techniques. Currently, the most successful algorithms contain explicit assumptions of the real world such as definitive differences in disparity among objects and constant textures within objects. This thesis starts by giving a brief description of disparity, along with descriptions of some common applications. Next, it explores various methods used in common stereo correspondence algorithms, as well as gives an in depth description and analysis of top performing algorithms. These algorithms are later used to compare with the proposed algorithm. In the proposed algorithm, frequency stereo correspondence in parallel with the traditional color intensity stereo correspondence is used to develop an initial disparity map. Frequency stereo correspondence is achieved using a winner-take-all block based Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) to find the largest frequency components as well as their positions to use in disparity estimation. The proposed algorithm uses methods that are computationally inexpensive to reduce the computational time that plagues many of the common stereo correspondence algorithms. The proposed algorithm achieves an average correct disparity rate of 95.3%. This results in a disparity error rate of 4.07% compared to the top performing algorithms in the Middlebury website [1]; the DoubleBP, CoopRegion, AdaptingBP, and ADCensus algorithms that have error rates of 4.19%, 4.41%, 4.23%, and 3.97%, respectively. Additionally, experimental results demonstrate that the proposed algorithm is computationally efficient and significantly reduces the processing time that plagues many of the common stereo correspondence algorithms.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207