MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971737641 · doi:10.1145/1080402.1080409

Layered motion field visualization

2005· article· en· W1971737641 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Langer, D. Rekhi, J. C. F. Pereira, Ankit Bhatia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer visionVisualizationComputer scienceMotion fieldMotion (physics)Artificial intelligenceStructure from motionClassification of discontinuitiesTransparency (behavior)Focus (optics)Human visual system modelPosition (finance)Motion estimationProcess (computing)OpticsImage (mathematics)PhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Layered motion fields arise in natural vision in many situations, including self-motion in a cluttered scene, motion of a fluid, and transparency. Layered motion fields have the property that there are multiple velocities present near each 2D spatial location. As such, standard 2D motion visualization methods do not apply, since they allow for only a single velocity vector at each image position. This paper examines perceptual issues that arise in visualizing layered motion fields. A key issue is that the human visual system is severely limited in how well it can process such fields. We give a thorough review of the relevant psychophysical literature, and focus on experiments that test how well the human visual system can detect spatial discontinuities and discrete layers in motion fields. We then present a specific layered motion visualization method. We demonstrate the limitations of the human visual system in perceiving the layered motions produced by this method.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207