MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997763680 · doi:10.1109/pg.2007.56

Contour Correspondence via Ant Colony Optimization

2007· article· en· W1997763680 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnt colony optimization algorithmsQuadratic assignment problemComputer scienceMatching (statistics)Correspondence problemMathematical optimizationArtificial intelligenceAnt colonyRelation (database)Point (geometry)AlgorithmOptimization problemPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We formulate contour correspondence as a Quadratic Assignment Problem (QAP), incorporating proximity information. By maintaining the neighborhood relation between points this way, we show that better matching results are obtained in practice. We propose the first Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) algorithm specifically aimed at solving the QAP-based shape correspondence problem. Our ACO framework is flexible in the sense that it can handle general point correspondence, but also allows extensions, such as order preservation, for the more specialized contour matching problem. Various experiments are presented which demonstrate that this approach yields high-quality correspondence results and is computationally efficient when compared to other 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.

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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.275 · 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