MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250500363 · doi:10.1109/tdpvt.2004.1335301

Segmenting correlation stereo range images using surface elements

2004· article· en· W4250500363 on OpenAlexaff
D. Murray, J.J. Little

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings. 2nd International Symposium on 3D Data Processing, Visualization and Transmission, 2004. 3DPVT 2004. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceSegmentationCluster analysisComputer visionWeightingComputer scienceImage segmentationMarket segmentationSurface (topology)PlanarPattern recognition (psychology)Range segmentationCurse of dimensionalityOrientation (vector space)Range (aeronautics)MathematicsScale-space segmentationGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work describes methods for segmenting planar surfaces from noisy 3D data obtained from correlation stereo vision. We make use of local planar surface elements called patchlets. Patchlets have 3D position, orientation and size parameters. As well, they have positional confidence measures based on the stereo sensor model. Patchlet orientations (i.e., surface normals) provide important additional dimensionality that reduces the ambiguity of segmentation-by-clustering. Patchlet size allows the use of continuity or coverage constraints when segmenting bounded surfaces from depth images. We use a region-growing approach to identify the number of surfaces that exist in a stereo image and obtain an initial estimate of the surface parameters. We refine segmentation using a maximum likelihood clustering approach that is optimised with Expectation-Maximisation. Confidence measures on the patchlet parameters allow proper weighting of patchlet contributions to the solution. We provide experimental results of the segmentation on complex outdoor scenes.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings. 2nd International Symposium on 3D Data Processing, Visualization and Transmission, 2004. 3DPVT 2004.Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207