Flexible Spatial Configuration of Local Image Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local image features have been designed to be informative and repeatable under rigid transformations and illumination deformations. Even though current state-of-the-art local image features present a high degree of repeatability, their local appearance alone usually does not bring enough discriminative power to support a reliable matching, resulting in a relatively high number of mismatches in the correspondence set formed during the data association procedure. As a result, geometric filters, commonly based on global spatial configuration, have been used to reduce this number of mismatches. However, this approach presents a trade off between the effectiveness to reject mismatches and the robustness to non-rigid deformations. In this paper, we propose two geometric filters, based on semilocal spatial configuration of local features, that are designed to be robust to non-rigid deformations and to rigid transformations, without compromising its efficacy to reject mismatches. We compare our methods to the Hough transform, which is an efficient and effective mismatch rejection step based on global spatial configuration of features. In these comparisons, our methods are shown to be more effective in the task of rejecting mismatches for rigid transformations and non-rigid deformations at comparable time complexity figures. Finally, we demonstrate how to integrate these methods in a probabilistic recognition system such that the final verification step uses not only the similarity between features, but also their semi-local configuration.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".