Depth from Defocus Technique: A Simple Calibration-Free Approach for Dispersion Size Measurement
Authors:
Saini Jatin Rao,
Shubham Sharma,
Saptarshi Basu,
Cameron Tropea
Abstract:
Particle size measurement is crucial in various applications, be it sizing droplets in inkjet printing or respiratory events, tracking particulate ejection in hypersonic impacts, or detecting floating target markers in free surface flows. Such systems are characterised by extracting quantitative information like size, position, velocity and number density of the dispersed particles, which is typic…
▽ More
Particle size measurement is crucial in various applications, be it sizing droplets in inkjet printing or respiratory events, tracking particulate ejection in hypersonic impacts, or detecting floating target markers in free surface flows. Such systems are characterised by extracting quantitative information like size, position, velocity and number density of the dispersed particles, which is typically non-trivial. The existing methods like phase Doppler or digital holography offer precise estimates at the expense of complicated systems, demanding significant expertise. We present a novel volumetric measurement approach for estimating the size and position of dispersed spherical particles that utilises a unique 'Depth from Defocus' (DFD) technique with a single camera. The calibration free sizing enables in-situ examination of hard to measure systems, including naturally occurring phenomena like pathogenic aerosols, pollen dispersion or raindrops. The efficacy of the technique is demonstrated for diverse sparse dispersions, including dots, glass beads, spray droplets, and pollen grains. The simple optical configuration and semi-autonomous calibration procedure make the method readily deployable and accessible, with a scope of applicability across vast research horizons.
△ Less
Submitted 3 October, 2023; v1 submitted 20 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
A Diversity Analysis of Safety Metrics Comparing Vehicle Performance in the Lead-Vehicle Interaction Regime
Authors:
Harnarayan Singh,
Bowen Weng,
Sughosh J. Rao,
Devin Elsasser
Abstract:
Vehicle performance metrics analyze data sets consisting of subject vehicle's interactions with other road users in a nominal driving environment and provide certain performance measures as outputs. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the vehicle safety performance metrics research dates back to at least 1967. To date, there still does not exist a community-wide accepted metric or a set of metr…
▽ More
Vehicle performance metrics analyze data sets consisting of subject vehicle's interactions with other road users in a nominal driving environment and provide certain performance measures as outputs. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the vehicle safety performance metrics research dates back to at least 1967. To date, there still does not exist a community-wide accepted metric or a set of metrics for vehicle safety performance assessment and justification. This issue gets further amplified with the evolving interest in Advanced Driver Assistance Systems and Automated Driving Systems. In this paper, the authors seek to perform a unified study that facilitates an improved community-wide understanding of vehicle performance metrics using the lead-vehicle interaction operational design domain as a common means of performance comparison. In particular, the authors study the diversity (including constructive formulation discrepancies and empirical performance differences) among 33 base metrics with up to 51 metric variants (with different choices of hyper-parameters) in the existing literature, published between 1967 and 2022. Two data sets are adopted for the empirical performance diversity analysis, including vehicle trajectories from normal highway driving environment and relatively high-risk incidents with collisions and near-miss cases. The analysis further implies that (i) the conceptual acceptance of a safety metric proposal can be problematic if the assumptions, conditions, and types of outcome assurance are not justified properly, and (ii) the empirical performance justification of an acceptable metric can also be problematic as a dominant consensus is not observed among metrics empirically.
△ Less
Submitted 26 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
