MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136606317 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2004.1315239

Flexible spatial models for grouping local image features

2004· article· en· W2136606317 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHough transformArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceMatching (statistics)Feature (linguistics)Computer visionTransformation (genetics)Range (aeronautics)Image (mathematics)Process (computing)Task (project management)Feature extractionScale-invariant feature transformObject (grammar)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key step for the effective use of local image features (i.e., highly distinctive and robust features) for recognition or image matching is the appropriate grouping of feature matches. Spatial constraints are important in this grouping because, during a recognition process, they allow for the reduction of the number of hypotheses that must be verified and also reduce the number of false positives present in each of these hypotheses. A common choice for this grouping task is to use the Hough transform on the global spatial transformation parameters of the hypothesized matches. Here, instead, we use semi-local spatial constraints which allow for a greater range of shape deformations. A comparison with Hough transform shows that our method is more robust to both rigid and non-rigid deformations. Its functionality is demonstrated in an exemplar-based object recognition system that deals well with severe non-rigid deformations. We also show the efficacy of our flexible spatial grouping far long range motion problems.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · 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