MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105996029 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2007.1048

Matching by Linear Programming and Successive Convexification

2007· article· en· W2105996029 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatching (statistics)Linear programmingComputer scienceFocus (optics)Regularization (linguistics)Metric (unit)Dynamic programmingMathematical optimizationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a novel convex programming scheme to solve matching problems, focusing on the challenging problem of matching in a large search range and with cluttered background. Matching is formulated as metric labeling with L1 regularization terms, for which we propose a novel linear programming relaxation method and an efficient successive convexification implementation. The unique feature of the proposed relaxation scheme is that a much smaller set of basis labels is used to represent the original label space. This greatly reduces the size of the searching space. A successive convexification scheme solves the labeling problem in a coarse to fine manner. Importantly, the original cost function is reconvexified at each stage, in the new focus region only, and the focus region is updated so as to refine the searching result. This makes the method well-suited for large label set matching. Experiments demonstrate successful applications of the proposed matching scheme in object detection, motion estimation, and tracking.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.291 · 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