跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2607.24852 · v5

Hold-Out Self-Validation Cannot Certify the Accuracy of Photogrammetric Reconstructions

首次提交 2026-07-26 01:00
版本更新 2026-11-06 19:06
雷达观测 2026-11-09 11:19
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Photogrammetric reconstructions used for inspection are often delivered without an independent accuracy check. Hold-out self-validation is a possible substitute. Images are withheld, their orientations are re-estimated from the rest of the block, and agreement is taken as evidence of quality. We test it on ten GNSS-referenced aerial captures from eight sites, on ETH3D and EuRoC, and on 30 IMC 2025 scenes. The standard form re-localises each withheld image only against points seen by at least two retained images. Its score saturates. It stayed at 1.00 in all 40 thinned reconstructions while camera-position error varied by a factor of up to 5.9 within one capture. It also scored 1.00 on a corrupted model with only one of 226 cameras within 5 m. Reprojection error ranked some of the worst models best. A few lost cameras can raise the least-squares RMSE to the size of the block, so we also evaluate with a robust alignment. Taking the correspondences from the verified matches lowered the score below 0.95 in 14 of 18 corrupted runs, against 4 for the standard form and 10 when its failed resections count as errors, with all seven nominal runs at 1.00. Mapping the block again without the withheld images also responds, but mapping the same corrupted data twice without withholding gave a similar disagreement, so the signal is mainly that a corrupted reconstruction is not reproducible. Neither test can see an error that every reconstruction repeats, and neither can replace check points.

作者备注:12 pages, 2 figures, 6 tables. v5: rewritten and shortened for journal submission; ten public GNSS-referenced aerial captures instead of five; robust alignment and re-matched, re-mapped and repeat-mapping hold-out variants added; conclusions revised accordingly. Code and result tables: doi:10.5281/zenodo.21737747

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v5 · 2026-11-06 19:06 · 最新观测版本

Hold-Out Self-Validation Cannot Certify the Accuracy of Photogrammetric Reconstructions

Photogrammetric reconstructions used for inspection are often delivered without an independent accuracy check. Hold-out self-validation is a possible substitute. Images are withheld, their orientations are re-estimated from the rest of the block, and agreement is taken as evidence of quality. We test it on ten GNSS-referenced aerial captures from eight sites, on ETH3D and EuRoC, and on 30 IMC 2025 scenes. The standard form re-localises each withheld image only against points seen by at least two retained images. Its score saturates. It stayed at 1.00 in all 40 thinned reconstructions while camera-position error varied by a factor of up to 5.9 within one capture. It also scored 1.00 on a corrupted model with only one of 226 cameras within 5 m. Reprojection error ranked some of the worst models best. A few lost cameras can raise the least-squares RMSE to the size of the block, so we also evaluate with a robust alignment. Taking the correspondences from the verified matches lowered the score below 0.95 in 14 of 18 corrupted runs, against 4 for the standard form and 10 when its failed resections count as errors, with all seven nominal runs at 1.00. Mapping the block again without the withheld images also responds, but mapping the same corrupted data twice without withholding gave a similar disagreement, so the signal is mainly that a corrupted reconstruction is not reproducible. Neither test can see an error that every reconstruction repeats, and neither can replace check points.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗