MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115621296 · doi:10.1109/icme.2000.871449

Locale-based object search under illumination change using chromaticity voting and elastic correlation

2002· article· en· W2115621296 on OpenAlexaff
Ze-Nian Li, Zinovi Tauber, Mark S. Drew

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocale (computer software)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionHistogramObject (grammar)ChromaticityMatching (statistics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Searching for an object model is considered to be one of the most desirable and yet difficult searches. The problem is made difficult by the presence of clutter in a scene, as well as the fact that objects may be imaged under different lighting conditions. We have developed a feature localization scheme that finds a set of locales in an image. Our object search method matches image locales with model object locales. We make use of a diagonal model for illumination change so that each candidate assignment of model to image locales produces a possible set of lighting transformation coefficients in chromaticity space. A combinatoric search for the locale assignment problem is obviated by matching each model locale to every image locale and carrying out a voting scheme in the space of lighting coefficients. This efficiently finds the lighting change. As well, for each pair of coefficients we perform an elastic correlation on locale chromaticity. Locale centroids produce a pose estimation via a displacement model, and we can further apply texture histogram intersection and finally a generalized Hough transform efficiently since the rotation, scale and translation parameters have been recovered. Tests on a database of real images and videos show good image retrieval 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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