MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601866669 · doi:10.1109/iciafs.2014.7069597

Efficient object classification using multiple views in manufacturing environments

2014· article· en· W1601866669 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle Doerr, Jagath Samarabandu, Xianbin Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrb (optics)Computer scienceScale-invariant feature transformAutomotive industryArtificial intelligenceObject (grammar)Conveyor beltOrientation (vector space)Sliding window protocolPattern recognition (psychology)Contextual image classificationComputer visionWindow (computing)Feature extractionImage (mathematics)EngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present a framework for rapid object classification that uses multiple views to classify visually similar automotive parts on a conveyor belt. We have constructed a dataset of 25 different manufactured parts consisting of window pillars and guides. These parts vary in size, orientation and luster and are captured from four view points. We are able to achieve a classification rate of 97.4% using our dataset. Using an object localization approach for each view we provide a method that reduces the time it takes to build the visual vocabularies by 36.6%. Our framework shows has an improved accuracy over using single view classification and is fast enough to have practical industrial applications for fine-grained classification of very similar objects. We are able to demonstrate that ORB descriptors provide superior performance and speed over SIFT and SURF descriptors. By harnessing the speed and low computational expense of using ORB features with our framework, we are able to show that our approach has practical industrial applications in improving quality control.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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 score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207