MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100009946 · doi:10.1109/cvprw.2011.5981751

Local self-similarity as a dense stereo correspondence measure for themal-visible video registration

2011· article· en· W2100009946 on OpenAlexaff
Atousa Torabi, Guillaume-Alexandre Bilodeau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionSimilarity measureRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceImage registrationMeasure (data warehouse)Similarity (geometry)Matching (statistics)Metric (unit)Mutual informationImage matchingPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsImage (mathematics)EngineeringData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The robustness of Mutual Information (MI), the most used multimodal dense stereo correspondence measure, is restricted by the size of the matching windows. However, obtaining the appropriately sized MI windows for matching thermal-visible pair of images of multiple people with various poses, clothes, distances to cameras, and different levels of occlusions is quite challenging. In this paper, we propose local self-similarity (LSS) as a multimodal dense stereo correspondence measure. We integrated LSS as a similarity metric with a disparity voting registration method to demonstrate the suitability of LSS for a visible-thermal stereo registration method. We have analyzed comparatively LSS and MI as multimodal correspondence measures and discussed LSS advantages compared to MI. We have also tested our LSS-based registration method in several indoor videos of multiple people and shown that our registration method outperforms the most recent MI-based registration method in the state-of-the-art.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207