MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102953959 · doi:10.1109/tip.2009.2039371

Registering a MultiSensor Ensemble of Images

2010· article· en· W2102953959 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff Orchard, Richard Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise comparisonArtificial intelligenceCluster analysisAffine transformationPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceImage (mathematics)Image registrationImage segmentationSegmentationComputer visionMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many registration scenarios involve aligning more than just two images. These image sets-called ensembles-are conventionally registered by choosing one image as a template, and every other image is registered to it. This pairwise approach is problematic because results depend on which image is chosen as the template. The issue is particularly acute for multisensor ensembles because different sensors create images with different features. Also, pairwise methods use only a fraction of the available data at a time. In this paper, we propose a maximum-likelihood clustering method that registers all the images in a multisensor ensemble simultaneously. Experiments involving rigid-body and affine transformations show that the clustering method is more robust and accurate than competing pairwise registration methods. Moreover, the clustering results can be used to form a rudimentary segmentation of the image ensemble.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
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

Citations36
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207