TRUE ORTHO GENERATION OF URBAN AREA USING HIGH RESOLUTION AERIAL PHOTOS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pros and cons of existing methods for true ortho generation are analyzed based on a critical literature review for its two major processing stages: visibility analysis and occlusion compensation. They process frame and pushbroom images using different algorithms for visibility analysis due to the need of perspective centers used by the z-buffer (or alike) techniques. For occlusion compensation, the pixel-based approach likely results in excessive seamlines in the ortho-rectified images due to the use of a quality measure on the pixel-by-pixel rating basis. In this paper, we proposed innovative solutions to tackle the aforementioned problems. For visibility analysis, an elevation buffer technique is introduced to employ the plain elevations instead of the distances from perspective centers by z-buffer, and has the advantage of sensor independency. A segment oriented strategy is developed to evaluate a plain cost measure per segment for occlusion compensation instead of the tedious quality rating per pixel. The cost measure directly evaluates the imaging geometry characteristics in ground space, and is also sensor independent. Experimental results are demonstrated using aerial photos acquired by UltraCam camera.
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 | 0.001 | 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".