MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603691188 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2002.1048018

Region segmentation and matching in stereo images

2003· article· en· W1603691188 on OpenAlexaff
Boubakeur Boufama, David John. O'Connell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceHomographyComputer visionSegmentationComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Similarity (geometry)Discontinuity (linguistics)Region growingPlane (geometry)Pattern recognition (psychology)Process (computing)Image segmentationMathematicsImage (mathematics)Scale-space segmentationGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a new method to simultaneously achieve segmentation and dense matching in a pair of stereo images. In constrast to conventional methods that are based on similarity or correlation techniques, this method is based on geometry and uses correlations only on a limited number of key points. Stemming from the observation that our environment is abundant in planes, this method focuses on segmentation and matching of planes in an observed scene. Neither prior knowledge about the scene nor camera calibration are needed. Using two uncalibrated images as inputs, the method starts with a rough identification of a potential plane, defined by three points only. Based on these three points, a plane homography is then calculated and used for validation. Starting from a seed region defined by the original three points, the method grows the current region by successive move/confirmation steps until occlusions and/or surface discontinuity occur. In this case, the homography-based mapping of points between the two images will fail. This failure is detected by the correlation, used in the confirmation process. In particular this method grows a region even across different colors as long as the region is planar. Experiments on real images validated our method and showed its capability and performance.

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 score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207