A Comparative Study of Energy Minimization Methods for Markov Random Fields with Smoothness-Based Priors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the most exciting advances in early vision has been the development of efficient energy minimization algorithms for pixel-labeling tasks such as depth or texture computation. It has been known for decades that such problems can be elegantly expressed as Markov random fields, yet the resulting energy minimization problems have been widely viewed as intractable. Recently, algorithms such as graph cuts and loopy belief propagation (LBP) have proven to be very powerful: for example, such methods form the basis for almost all the top-performing stereo methods. However, the tradeoffs among different energy minimization algorithms are still not well understood. In this paper we describe a set of energy minimization benchmarks and use them to compare the solution quality and running time of several common energy minimization algorithms. We investigate three promising recent methods graph cuts, LBP, and tree-reweighted message passing in addition to the well-known older iterated conditional modes (ICM) algorithm. Our benchmark problems are drawn from published energy functions used for stereo, image stitching, interactive segmentation, and denoising. We also provide a general-purpose software interface that allows vision researchers to easily switch between optimization methods. Benchmarks, code, images, and results are available at http://vision.middlebury.edu/MRF/.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it