Learning Sub-Pixel Disparity Distribution for Light Field Depth Estimation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Light field (LF) depth estimation plays a crucial role in many LF-based applications. Existing LF depth estimation methods consider depth estimation as a regression problem, where a pixel-wise L1 loss is employed to supervise the training process. However, the disparity map is only a sub-space projection (i.e., an expectation) of the disparity distribution, which is essential for models to learn. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective method to learn the sub-pixel disparity distribution by fully utilizing the power of deep networks, especially for LF of narrow baselines. We construct the cost volume at the sub-pixel level to produce a finer disparity distribution and design an uncertainty-aware focal loss to supervise the predicted disparity distribution toward the ground truth. Extensive experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method. Our method significantly outperforms recent state-of-the-art LF depth algorithms on the HCI 4D LF Benchmark in terms of all four accuracy metrics (i.e., BadPix 0.01, BadPix 0.03, BadPix 0.07, and MSE ×100). The code and model of the proposed method are available at <uri xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">https://github.com/chaowentao/SubFocal</uri> .
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it