MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574548864 · doi:10.1109/icip.2003.1247278

Parametric contour estimation by simulated annealing

2004· article· en· W1574548864 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Object Detection Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimulated annealingMaxima and minimaComputer scienceParametric statisticsAdaptive simulated annealingAlgorithmMathematical optimizationMathematicsMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Virtually all implementations of simulated annealing are simplified by assuming discrete unknowns, however continuous-parameter annealing has many potential applications to image processing. Widely scattered problems such as formant tracking, boundary estimation and phase- unwrapping can all be approached as the annealed minimizations of continuous B-spline parameters. The benefits of simulated annealing are well known, including an insensitivity to initial conditions and the ability to solve problems with many local minima. Discrete variable annealing has seen broad application, however continuous-variable annealing is limited by the computational challenge of Gibbs sampling. In this paper we develop efficient approaches to sampling, illustrated in the context of contour tracking in noisy images.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Object Detection TechniquesFrench-language works237,207