MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2482517570 · doi:10.1145/2908812.2908835

Artificial Multi-Bee-Colony Algorithm for k-Nearest-Neighbor Fields Search

2016· article· en· W2482517570 on OpenAlexafffund
Yunhai Wang, Yiming Qian, Li Yang, Minglun Gong, Wolfgang Banzhaf

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer sciencek-nearest neighbors algorithmMatching (statistics)Best bin firstGraphGraphicsArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)PopulationAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Theoretical computer scienceMathematicsComputer graphics (images)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Searching the k-nearest matching patches for each patch in an input image, i.e., computing the k-nearest-neighbor fields ($k$-NNF), is a core part of various computer vision/graphics algorithms. In this paper, we show that $k$-NNF can be efficiently computed using a novel artificial multi-bee-colony (AMBC) algorithm, where each patch uses a dedicated bee colony to search for its k-nearest matches. As a population-based algorithm, AMBC is capable of escaping local optima. The added communication among different colonies further allows good matches to be quickly propagated across the image. In addition, AMBC makes no assumption about the neighborhood structure or communication direction, making it directly applicable to image sets and suitable for parallel processing. Quantitative evaluations show that AMBC can find solutions that are much closer to the ground truth than the generalized PatchMatch algorithm does. It also outperforms the PatchMatch Graph over image sets.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207