MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143510564 · doi:10.1109/crv.2007.60

Spatial Topology Graphs for Feature-Minimal Correspondence

2007· article· en· W2143510564 on OpenAlexaff
Zinovi Tauber, Ze-Nian Li, Mark S. Drew

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Invariant (physics)Topology (electrical circuits)Feature (linguistics)Feature vectorComputer scienceProbabilistic logicArtificial intelligenceMathematicsMatching (statistics)AlgorithmCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiview image matching methods typically require feature point correspondences. We propose a novel spatial topology method that represents the space with a set of connected projective invariant features. Typically, isolated features, such as corners, cannot be matched reliably. Hence, limitations are imposed on viewpoint changes, or projective invariant descriptions are needed. The fundamental matrix is discovered using stochastic optimization requiring a large number of features. In contrast, our enhanced feature set models connectivity in space, forming a unique configuration that can be matched with few features and over large viewpoint changes. Our features are derived from edges, their curvatures, and neighborhood relationships. A probabilistic spatial topology graph models the space using these features and a second graph represents the neighborhood relationships. Probabilistic graph matching is used to find feature correspondences. Our results show robust feature detection and an average 80% discovery rate of feature matches.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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