The use of force histograms for affine-invariant relative position description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Affine invariant descriptors have been widely used for recognition of objects regardless of their position, size, and orientation in space. Examples of color, texture, and shape descriptors abound in the literature. However, many tasks in computer vision require looking not only at single objects or regions in images but also at their spatial relationships. In an earlier work, we showed that the relative position of two objects can be quantitatively described by a histogram of forces. Here, we study how affine transformations affect this descriptor. The position of an object with respect to another changes when the objects are affine transformed. We analyze the link between 1) the applied affinity, 2) the relative position before transformation (described through a force histogram), and 3) the relative position after transformation. We show that any two of these elements allow the third one to be recovered. Moreover, it is possible to determine whether (or how well) two relative positions are actually related through an affine transformation. If they are not, the affinity that best approximates the unknown transformation can be retrieved, and the quality of the approximation assessed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".