MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385374898 · doi:10.1007/s00138-023-01426-x

Probabilistic multi-modal depth estimation based on camera–LiDAR sensor fusion

2023· article· en· W4385374898 on OpenAlexaff
Johan Obando-Ceron, Víctor Romero-Cano, Sildomar T. Monteiro

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Vision and Applications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLidarComputer scienceSensor fusionBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionModalMonocularSensitivity (control systems)Process (computing)Remote sensingGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Multi-modal depth estimation is one of the key challenges for endowing autonomous machines with robust robotic perception capabilities. There have been outstanding advances in the development of uni-modal depth estimation techniques based on either monocular cameras, because of their rich resolution, or LiDAR sensors, due to the precise geometric data they provide. However, each of these suffers from some inherent drawbacks, such as high sensitivity to changes in illumination conditions in the case of cameras and limited resolution for the LiDARs. Sensor fusion can be used to combine the merits and compensate for the downsides of these two kinds of sensors. Nevertheless, current fusion methods work at a high level. They process the sensor data streams independently and combine the high-level estimates obtained for each sensor. In this paper, we tackle the problem at a low level, fusing the raw sensor streams, thus obtaining depth estimates which are both dense and precise, and can be used as a unified multi-modal data source for higher-level estimation problems. This work proposes a conditional random field model with multiple geometry and appearance potentials. It seamlessly represents the problem of estimating dense depth maps from camera and LiDAR data. The model can be optimized efficiently using the conjugate gradient squared algorithm. The proposed method was evaluated and compared with the state of the art using the commonly used KITTI benchmark dataset.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMachine Vision and ApplicationsSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207