Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capacity scaling is a hierarchical approach to graph representation that can improve theoretical complexity and practical efficiency of max-flow/min-cut algorithms. Introduced by Edmonds, Karp, and Dinic in 1972, capacity scaling is well known in the combinatorial optimization community. Surprisingly, this major performance improving technique is overlooked in computer vision where graph cut methods typically solve energy minimization problems on huge N-D grids and algorithms' efficiency is a widely studied issue. Unlike some earlier hierarchical methods addressing efficiency of graph cuts in imaging, e.g. (H. Lombaert, 2005), capacity scaling preserves global optimality of the solution. This is the main motivation for our work studying capacity scaling in the context of vision. We show that capacity scaling significantly reduces non-polynomial theoretical time complexity of the max-flow algorithm in (Y. Boykov and V. Kolmorogorov, 2004) to weakly polynomial O(m2n2log(U)) where U is the largest edge weight. While (Y. Boykov and V. Kolmorogorov, 2004) is the fastest method for many applications in vision, capacity scaling gives several folds speed-ups for problems with large number of local minima. The effect is particularly strong in 3D applications with denser neighborhoods.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".