MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1951821760 · doi:10.1109/im.1999.805353

Efficient and reliable template set matching for 3D object recognition

2003· article· en· W1951821760 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Greenspan, Pierre Boulanger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTree traversalTemplateComputer scienceVoxelTemplate matchingArtificial intelligenceTree (set theory)Binary treePattern recognition (psychology)Matching (statistics)Set (abstract data type)Computer visionAlgorithmImage (mathematics)MathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Object recognition in range image data is formulated as template set matching. The object model is represented as a set of voxel templates, one for each possible pose. The set of all templates is composed into a binary decision tree. Each leaf node references a small number of templates. Each internal node references a single voxel, and has two branches, T and F. The subtree branching from the T branch contains the subset of templates which contain the node voxel. Conversely, the subtree branching from F branch contains the subset of templates which do not contain the node voxel. Traversing the tree at any image location executes a point probe strategy. It efficiently determines a good match with the template set by interrogating only those elements which discriminate between the remaining possible interpretations. The method has been implemented for a number of different heuristic tree design and traversal methods. Results are presented of extensive tests for two objects under isolated, cluttered, and occluded scene conditions. It is shown that there exist traversal/design combinations which are both efficient and reliable, and that the method is robust.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207