A Maximum Likelihood Approach to Joint Image Registration and Fusion
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
Both image registration and fusion can be formulated as estimation problems. Instead of estimating the registration parameters and the true scene separately as in the conventional way, we propose a maximum likelihood approach for joint image registration and fusion in this paper. More precisely, the fusion performance is used as the criteria to evaluate the registration accuracy. Hence, the registration parameters can be automatically tuned so that both fusion and registration can be optimized simultaneously. The expectation maximization algorithm is employed to solve this joint optimization problem. The Cramer-Rao bound (CRB) is then derived. Our experiments use several types of sensory images for performance evaluation, such as visual images, IR thermal images, and hyperspectral images. It is shown that the mean square error of estimating the registration parameters using the proposed method is close to the CRBs. At the mean time, an improved fusion performance can be achieved in terms of the edge preservation measure Q(AB/F), compared to the Laplacian pyramid fusion approach.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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