A Quantum Particle Swarm Optimization and Genetic Algorithm approach to the correspondence problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finding correspondences between deformable objects has wide application in many domains. In information retrieval, researchers may be interested in finding similar objects, while computer animation experts may be considering ways to morph shapes. The correspondence problem is especially challenging when the objects under consideration are suspect to non-rigid deformations, noise and/or distortions. In this paper, a novel method using Quantum Particle Swarm Optimization (QPSO) and Genetic Algorithms (GA) is presented to address this issue. In our QPSO-GA algorithm we formulate the problem of correspondence detection as an optimization problem over all possible mapping in between the geodesic distance matrices associated with two sets of point clouds. We proceed to identify the optimal mapping, by first applying Quantum Particle Swarm Optimization to the permutation matrices associated with their geodesic distance matrices and then employing Genetic Algorithms in order to guide the search. Experimental results suggest that our QPSO-GA algorithm is fast, scalable, and robust. Our method accurately identifies the correspondences between objects, even in the presence of noise and distortion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".