MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061524812 · doi:10.1109/iccvw.2009.5457487

Context-Consistent stereo matching

2009· article· en· W2061524812 on OpenAlexaff
Shufei Fan, Frank P. Ferrie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceSalientMatching (statistics)Computer visionFeature (linguistics)GraphContext (archaeology)Shape contextPattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionImage (mathematics)MathematicsTheoretical computer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although our two eyes view the world from different perspectives, our brain can effortlessly associate items seen by one eye with those by the other - leading to the binocular depth sensation. We would like computers to make this match as well as humans, so that an intelligent system can perceive 3-D using binocular inputs from cameras. Current methods still have difficulty when two cameras are widely separated; more so when the images are of poor quality or contain repetitive patterns, because they can no longer distinguish features by examining only the local patches they occupy. Here we propose to improve the feature-matching by further involving global image information. We proposed a topological graph, called the Salient Feature Graph (SFG), to describe intrinsic structure of a scene based on its image. We then used the SFG to compare semi-local structures extracted from different perspectives. This semi-local comparison enabled our new algorithm, Context-Consistent Assignment (or CCA), to establish feature correspondences by dynamically involving both local appearance and global structures. We ran our algorithm and conventional methods on images of 3D urban scenes and counted how many correct matches they made. Our approach consistently outperformed competitors on difficult images such as low resolution inputs and noisy images.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207