MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988696503 · doi:10.1109/crv.2013.48

Quasi-dense Correspondence in Stereo Images Using Multiple Coupled Snakes

2013· article· en· W1988696503 on OpenAlexafffund
Xida Chen, Yee‐Hong Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEpipolar geometryArtificial intelligenceComputer visionFundamental matrix (linear differential equation)Scale-invariant feature transformComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Feature (linguistics)Ground truthConstraint (computer-aided design)Energy (signal processing)MathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a new method to establish quasi-dense correspondence between a pair of stereo images without camera calibration. Our proposed method is based on the traditional snake formulation using an energy function. The energy function incorporates a new matching term. When the energy function is minimized, the control points along the curves in a stereo pair are matched. Moreover, a penalty term is applied to prevent two snakes in the same image to overlap. In our method, snakes in both images are coupled and can change their shapes simultaneously. In particular, the control points on the curves are matched and evolved at the same time. Comparing our method to the conventional stereo methods, the latter requires camera parameters in order to employ the epipolar constraint to locate correspondences while ours does not. Comparing to the traditional feature-based stereo methods such as those using SIFT and SURF, the number of correspondences established by our method is significantly higher. Our method is especially suitable in scenes for which there are many textureless regions, and hence SIFT/SURF can find few matches. In order to evaluate the accuracy of different methods, the fundamental matrix is computed using the correspondences established by each method. The experimental results from both synthetic and real images are compared to the ground truth and to the conventional sparse matching method to demonstrate that our method has significant improvement over existing methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207