MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102570530 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2001.990504

Learning generative models of scene features

2005· article· en· W2102570530 on OpenAlexaff
Robert B. Sim, Gregory Dudek

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionGenerative modelVisualizationProbabilistic logicMeasure (data warehouse)Domain (mathematical analysis)SalientObject (grammar)Position (finance)Set (abstract data type)Statistical modelPattern recognition (psychology)Generative grammarMathematicsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a method for learning a set of generative models which are suitable for representing variations of selected image-domain features of the scene as a function of changes in the camera viewpoint. Such models are important for robotic tasks, such as probabilistic position estimation (i.e. localization), as well as visualization. Our approach entails the selection of image-domain features, as well as the synthesis of models of their visual behavior. The model we propose is capable of generating maximum likelihood views of automatically selected features, as well as a measure of the likelihood of a particular view from a particular camera position. Training the models involves regularizing observations of the features from known camera locations. The uncertainty of the model is evaluated using cross validation. The features themselves are initially selected automatically as salient points by a measure of visual attention, and are tracked across multiple views. While the motivation for this work is for robot localization, the results have implications for image interpolation, virtual scene reconstruction and object recognition. The paper presents a formulation of the problem and illustrative experimental results.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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