Classification of image registration problems using support vector machines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces a system that automatically classifies image pairs based on the type of registration required to align them. The system uses support vector machines to classify between panoramas, high-dynamic-range images, focal stacks, super-resolution, and unrelated image pairs. A feature vector was developed to describe the images, and 1100 pairs were used to train and test the system with 5-fold cross validation. The system is able to classify the desired registration application using a 1: Many classifier with an accuracy of 91.18%. Similarly 1:1 classifiers were developed for each class with classification rates as follows: Panorama image pairs are classified at 93.15%, high-dynamic-range pairs at 97.56%, focal stack pairs at 95.68%, super-resolution pairs at 99.25%, and finally unrelated image pairs at 95.79%. An investigation into feature importance outlines the utility of each feature individually. In addition, the invariance of the classification system towards the size of the image used to calculate the feature vector was explored. The classification of our system remains level at ~91% until the image size is scaled to 10% (150 × 100 pixels), suggesting that our feature vector is image size invariant within this range.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".