MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134443477 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2007.1088

Model-Based Tracking by Classification in a Tiny Discrete Pose Space

2007· article· en· W2134443477 on OpenAlexaff
Limin Shang, Piotr Jasiobedzki, Michael Greenspan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceIterative closest pointComputer visionTransformation (genetics)Pattern recognition (psychology)AlgorithmMathematicsPoint cloud

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method is presented for tracking 3D objects as they transform rigidly in space within a sparse range image sequence. The method operates in discrete space and exploits the coherence across image frames that results from the relationship between known bounds on the object's velocity and the sensor frame rate. These motion bounds allow the interframe transformation space to be reduced to a reasonable and indeed tiny size, comprising only tens or hundreds of possible states. The tracking problem is in this way cast into a classification framework, effectively trading off localization precision for runtime efficiency and robustness. The method has been implemented and tested extensively on a variety of freeform objects within a sparse range data stream comprising only a few hundred points per image. It has been shown to compare favorably against continuous domain Iterative Closest Point (ICP) tracking methods, performing both more efficiently and more robustly. A hybrid method has also been implemented that executes a small number of ICP iterations following the initial discrete classification phase. This hybrid method is both more efficient than the ICP alone and more robust than either the discrete classification method or the ICP separately.

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 score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207