MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161017703 · doi:10.1109/icma.2011.5985611

Object detection by parts using appearance, structural and shape features

2011· article· en· W2161017703 on OpenAlexafffund
He Li, Hui Wang, Hong Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta InnovatesChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceObject detectionComputer visionComputer scienceClassifier (UML)Pattern recognition (psychology)Viola–Jones object detection frameworkSupport vector machineObject (grammar)SegmentationDetectorOrientation (vector space)A priori and a posterioriFeature extractionMathematicsFace detection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a novel object detection algorithm with the combination of appearance, structural and shape features. We follow the paradigm of object detection by parts, which first uses detectors developed for individual parts of an object and then imposes structural constraints among the parts for the detection of the entire object. In our research, we further incorporate a priori shape information about the object parts for their detection, in order to improve the performance of the object detector. Specifically, we use an HOG-based detector for object parts whose output, together with structural constraints, is then used to seed a subsequent image segmentation step in order to delineate the potential object parts. To determine whether the segmented regions are indeed object parts, we train a part classifier using shape features of object parts and a support vector machine (SVM). The detection of the object is determined by combining the likelihoods computed with the HOG part detector, the shape-based part classifier, and the structural constraints among the parts. For validation of our object detection algorithm, we apply it to the detection of the tooth line of a mining shovel, which consists of a set of teeth with known relative position and orientation from each other, under various lighting conditions. The experimental results demonstrate that our system is able to improve the detection performance significantly when part shape information is used.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations18
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207