ArticleJournal of imaging2026
Probabilistic Camera Distortion Correction Using Deep Gaussian Processes.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate lens distortion correction is important for calibration, registration, image stitching, and 3D reconstruction, especially in low-data device-specific settings where disposable or specialised cameras cannot provide large calibration datasets. We address distortion correction for cameras with highly irregular or non-stationary distortion fields, where fixed polynomial models and generic learning-based rectification methods can struggle. We propose a framework based on Deep Gaussian Processes (DGPs) to model the non-linear mapping required for undistortion. The key motivation is that conventional single-layer GPs with stationary kernels must use one global notion of smoothness, whereas DGPs can represent spatially varying behaviour through composed latent mappings while preserving per-pixel predictive uncertainty. This uncertainty can be used to identify or downweight unreliable corrected regions in downstream tasks. We evaluate the method on three real camera datasets with increasing distortion complexity. The full structured acquisitions contain 512 horizontal and 512 vertical line images per camera. These are not thousands of natural calibration images, but they yield up to 29,532, 11,311, and 31,686 detected intersection correspondences for the RPI, Theta, and Pillcam datasets, respectively. This distinction is important for cameras where acquiring many independent images is impractical. The results are assessed using qualitative rectification, uncertainty maps, normalised collinearity errors, and total training time. Polynomial calibration remains strongest for the regular radial RPI distortion, while DGP and DGP2 models show lower normalised collinearity-error distributions than the standard GP and lightweight MLP baselines on the more distorted Theta and Pillcam datasets. For the full datasets, total DGP/DGP2 training times ranged from 2383.50 s to 10092.50 s, reflecting the additional computational cost of probabilistic non-stationary modelling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.