MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138468304 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2011.67

A Component-Wise Analysis of Constructible Match Cost Functions for Global Stereopsis

2011· article· en· W2138468304 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel Neilson, Yee-Hong Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWestern Canada Research GridUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsStereopsisArtificial intelligenceComputer stereo visionComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Context (archaeology)Computer visionSmoothnessPixelComponent (thermodynamics)AlgorithmNoise (video)Measure (data warehouse)MathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Data mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Match cost functions are common elements of every stereopsis algorithm that are used to provide a dissimilarity measure between pixels in different images. Global stereopsis algorithms incorporate assumptions about the smoothness of the resulting distance map that can interact with match cost functions in unpredictable ways. In this paper, we present a large-scale study on the relative performance of a structured set of match cost functions within several global stereopsis frameworks. We compare 272 match cost functions that are built from component parts in the context of four global stereopsis frameworks with a data set consisting of 57 stereo image pairs at three different variances of synthetic sensor noise. From our analysis, we infer a set of general rules that can be used to guide derivation of match cost functions for use in global stereopsis algorithms.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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