MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118980630 · doi:10.1109/tip.2004.828435

A Maximum Likelihood Approach for Image Registration Using Control Point And Intensity

2004· article· en· W2118980630 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 Image Processing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceImage registrationImage processingMaximum likelihoodIntensity (physics)Image segmentationMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)StatisticsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Registration of multidate or multisensor images is an essential process in many image processing applications including remote sensing, medical image analysis, and computer vision. Control point (CP) and intensity are the two basic features used separately for image registration in the literature. In this paper, an exact maximum likelihood (EML) registration method, which combines both CP and intensity, is proposed for image alignment. The EML registration method maximizes the likelihood function based CP and intensity to estimate the registration parameters, including affine transformation and CP coordinates. The explicit formulas of the Cramer-Rao bound (CRB) are also derived for the proposed EML and conventional image registration algorithms. The performances of these image registration techniques are evaluated with the CRBs.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

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 communication0.0010.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.262 · 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