MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Very Loopy Probability Propagation for Unwrapping Phase Images

2002· book-chapter· en· W2152551018 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

VenueThe MIT Press eBooks · 2002
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBelief propagationPhase (matter)Phase unwrappingComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer graphics (images)GeographyOpticsAlgorithmPhysicsInterferometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the discovery that the best error-correcting decoding algorithm can be viewed as belief in a cycle-bound graph, researchers have been trying to determine under what circumstances belief propagation is effective for probabilistic inference. Despite several theoretical advances in our understanding of loopy belief propagation, to our knowledge, the only problem that has been solved using loopy belief is error-correcting decoding on Gaussian channels. We propose a new representation for the two-dimensional phase unwrapping problem, and we show that loopy belief produces results that are superior to existing techniques. This is an important result, since many imaging techniques, including magnetic resonance imaging and interfer-ometric synthetic aperture radar, produce phase-wrapped images. Interestingly, the graph that we use has a very large number of very short cycles, supporting evidence that a large minimum cycle length is not needed for excellent results using belief propagation.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.187 · 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