Track-Leakage-Free Hold-Out Self-Validation for Photogrammetric Reconstruction: Protocol, Sensitivity, and Limits

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24852v3
• Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2026 09:55:04 GMT
• Title: Track-Leakage-Free Hold-Out Self-Validation for Photogrammetric Reconstruction: Protocol, Sensitivity, and Limits
• Abstract summary: We formalise a track-leakage-free hold-out protocol for image reconstructions.<n>We evaluate it on five-referenced captures, 13 ETH3D laser-scan scenes, a EuRoC flight, and 30 IMC 2025 scenes.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automated photogrammetric inspection emits metric measurements from reconstructions whose correctness is normally unknown without an external survey. Can a reconstruction estimate its own reliability with no ground truth, and what would such an estimate measure? We formalise a track-leakage-free hold-out protocol: a deterministic image subset is withheld, and each withheld view is re-localised by resection against only those 3D points supported by at least two retained images, so no view is tested against structure it helped create. We evaluate it on five GNSS-referenced captures (four RTK-fixed) across four sites, 13 ETH3D laser-scan scenes, a EuRoC flight, and 30 IMC 2025 scenes. The protocol is computationally well-posed -- good reconstructions score near-perfect self-consistency (median rotation error 0.003 deg) -- but it does not measure accuracy, for a structural rather than statistical reason. It saturates: confidence stays pinned at 1.00 while true error swings 14.1x within a single capture, and holds at 1.00 on survey-grade truth at 3.4 m, 4.3 m, and 1.7 m / 13 deg. It is blind to coherent distortion: corruption that fragments a reconstruction is caught (1.00 -> 0.96), but corruption yielding a single, internally self-consistent, globally distorted model is not -- at three of four captures such models were wrong by 55-106 m at confidence 1.00. On IMC 2025 the same dichotomy appears with no injected degradation: confidence separates failed from successful reconstructions (rho = 0.68) yet ranks nothing among the successful ones (rho = 0.01). A capture-level meta-analysis of the continuous signal is underpowered and sign-unstable (k = 5, 95% CI [-0.45, +0.75]); the negative result does not rest on it. Track-leakage-free hold-out therefore measures internal geometric consistency: a qualitative fragmentation warning, not a substitute for control-point accuracy assessment.

Related papers

• A Calibration Audit of Confidence in Feed-Forward 3D Reconstruction [45.496856835431885]
  3D reconstruction models emit per-pixel confidence that downstream systems read as a reliability signal.<n>We score the confidence on four properties, how well it ranks error, whether its level is right on average, whether it holds across the confidence range, and whether its intervals cover the truth.<n>The confidence ranks error well, but the predicted uncertainty is too low when it is read under conditions that are not exactly those of training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-30T10:21:34Z)
• Invocation-Level Reliability of Tool-Using Agents [0.7874708385247353]
  We measure a correct-invocation rate that separates the two, under both a clean teacher-forced context and the model's own free-running context.<n>By depth 6, roughly 70% of a model's own clean-context capability is lost to its own earlier mistakes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T09:04:59Z)
• Beyond Control Points: Arcsecond Relative-Motion Estimation of Vision Measurement Platforms With Incomplete or Absent Control Fields [43.43572961146893]
  We develop a control-adaptive differential framework that estimates platform motion directly from image displacements and known 3D points.<n>We derive the rotation observability condition, a leakage bound for unmodeled translation and nonrigid point motion, and the single-point axial-prior bias law.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T03:41:30Z)
• Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk [0.0]
  Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters.<n>A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale.<n>We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T13:22:14Z)
• A New Kind of Adversarial Example: Measuring the Human-Model Gap, and Its Relationship to OOD Detection [18.313155919803034]
  A large, clearly visible perturbation causes the model to keep its original, correct prediction, even though a human would no longer recognize the image.<n>We answer whether humans really perform worse than the model, whether standard out-of-distribution (OOD) detection and calibration tools catch it, and whether existing defenses mitigate it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-22T00:44:06Z)
• Does Super-Resolution Preserve Defect Evidence? A Low-False-Call Benchmark for Semiconductor Inspection [4.906746849209501]
  Super-resolution can make inspection images appear sharper without preserving the evidence needed to detect a defect.<n>We study this failure mode with a benchmark that separates reconstruction from detection and evaluates both at a predeclared low false-positive rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-19T20:22:55Z)
• The Gentle Collapse: Distributional Metrics for Continual Learning [7.30570760963699]
  We introduce six softmax-derived metrics spanning true-label rank (TLR), predictive confidence, and distributional divergence that characterize forgetting continuously.<n>On CIFAR-100, these metrics carry information where accuracy does not: at 0% accuracy, the Confusion Margin spans an IQR of [0.32, 0.50] across classes that accuracy treats identically.<n>Per-sample metric scores used as loss weights reduce forgetting by 1.3 percentage points over uniform experience replay (ER) on CIFAR-100.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T20:53:06Z)
• Conformal Orbit-Valid Trust Horizons for Equivariant World Models [6.230579198456525]
  We study trust-horizon certification for latent world models with known group symmetries.<n>Across 50 stable audits, we observe zero anti-conservative violations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T06:44:27Z)
• What Accuracy and Gradient Cosine Miss: Evaluating Feedback Alignment via Scale Stability, Reference Validity, and Depth Utility [48.10132234701036]
  We propose a diagnostic evaluation protocol based on three checks -- scale stability, reference validity, and depth utility -- together with per-layer rather than aggregate cosine reporting.<n>Across multiple architectures and methods, our protocol identifies all failures with wide calibration margins.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-19T06:04:17Z)
• Discovery of Hidden Miscalibration Regimes [52.452902154360565]
  Models may be systematically overconfident on some kinds of inputs and underconfident on others.<n>We define the corresponding miscalibration field and propose a diagnostic framework for estimating it.<n>Our approach learns a calibration-aware representation of the input space and estimates signed local miscalibration by kernel smoothing in the learned geometry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T13:07:50Z)
• The Illusion of Certainty: Decoupling Capability and Calibration in On-Policy Distillation [67.26315138466312]
  We propose a calibration-aware OPD framework, CaOPD, that estimates empirical confidence from model rollouts.<n>Our findings highlight that capability distillation does not imply confidence, and that confidence should be treated as an essential objective in post-training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-18T04:43:40Z)
• Automated Self-Testing as a Quality Gate: Evidence-Driven Release Management for LLM Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present an automated self-testing framework that introduces quality gates with evidence-based release decisions.<n>We evaluate the framework through a longitudinal case study of an internally deployed multi-agent conversational AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T20:44:15Z)
• CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal [84.71254539482369]
  Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T16:34:21Z)
• Disproving the Feasibility of Learned Confidence Calibration Under Binary Supervision: An Information-Theoretic Impossibility [2.1485350418225244]
  neural networks cannot simultaneously learn well-calibrated confidence estimates with meaningful diversity when trained using correct/incorrect supervision.<n>We show this is an information-theoretic constraint, not a methodological failure.<n>We propose novel supervision paradigms using ensemble disagreement and adaptive multi-agent learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-17T19:43:45Z)
• POCO: 3D Pose and Shape Estimation with Confidence [99.91683561240549]
  We develop POCO, a novel framework for training HPS regressors to estimate not only a 3D human body, but also their confidence. Specifically, POCO estimates both the 3D body pose and a per-sample variance. In all cases, training the network to reason about uncertainty helps it learn to more accurately estimate 3D pose.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-24T17:59:04Z)
• TRUST-LAPSE: An Explainable and Actionable Mistrust Scoring Framework for Model Monitoring [4.262769931159288]
  We propose TRUST-LAPSE, a "mistrust" scoring framework for continuous model monitoring. We assess the trustworthiness of each input sample's model prediction using a sequence of latent-space embeddings. Our latent-space mistrust scores achieve state-of-the-art results with AUROCs of 84.1 (vision), 73.9 (audio), and 77.1 (clinical EEGs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-22T18:32:38Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.