MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067468424 · doi:10.1117/12.719681

Elastic image registration using subspace constraints

2007· article· en· W2067468424 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Elsafi, Rami Zewail, N.G. Durdle

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubspace topologyAffine transformationImage registrationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionDeformation (meteorology)Projection (relational algebra)SmoothnessProcess (computing)Regularization (linguistics)MathematicsImage (mathematics)AlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)GeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Image registration is the process of aligning two images taken from different views, at different times, or by different modalities. In this article, we propose a new framework that incorporates prior deformation knowledge in the registration process. First, an elastic image registration method is used to obtain deformation fields by modeling the nonrigid deformations as locally affine and globally smooth flow fields. Next, the estimated geometric transformation maps are used to train a prior deformation model using two subspace projection techniques, namely principle component analysis (PCA) and independent component analysis (ICA). A smooth deformation is now guaranteed by projecting the locally calculated deformation onto a subspace of allowed deformations. One advantage of our approach is in its ability to guarantee smoothness without the need for iterative regularization. The new algorithms were validated using the Amsterdam library of images (ALOI). Our experiments demonstrate promising results in terms of mean square error.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207