MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160416849 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2010.64

The Structure of Multiplicative Motions in Natural Imagery

2010· article· en· W2160416849 on OpenAlexaff
Konstantinos G. Derpanis, Richard P. Wildes

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiplicative functionEstimatorMultiplicative noiseFrequency domainPreprocessorAlgorithmMathematicsNonlinear systemComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSignal processingComputer visionStatisticsMathematical analysisDigital signal processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theoretical investigation of the frequency structure of multiplicative image motion signals is presented, e.g., as associated with translucency phenomena. Previous work has claimed that the multiplicative composition of visual signals generally results in the annihilation of oriented structure in the spectral domain. As a result, research has focused on multiplicative signals in highly specialized scenarios where highly structured spectral signatures are prevalent, or introduced a nonlinearity to transform the multiplicative image signal to an additive one. In contrast, in this paper, it is shown that oriented structure is present in multiplicative cases when natural domain constraints are taken into account. This analysis suggests that the various instances of naturally occurring multiple motion structures can be treated in a unified manner. As an example application of the developed theory, a multiple motion estimator previously proposed for translation, additive transparency, and occlusion is adapted to multiplicative image motions. This estimator is shown to yield superior performance over the alternative practice of introducing a nonlinear preprocessing step.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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