MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529339730 · doi:10.24124/2010/bpgub642

Inverse scale invariant feature transform models for object recognition and image tagging.

2010· dissertation· en· W2529339730 on OpenAlexaff
Md. Kamrul Hasan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanadian HeritageUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceScale-invariant feature transformPattern recognition (psychology)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionSupport vector machineComputer scienceImage retrievalObject detectionInvariant (physics)Feature vectorFeature extractionComputer visionMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis presents three novel image models based on Scale Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) features and the k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN) machine learning methodology. While SIFT features characterize an image with distinctive keypoints, the k-NN filters away and normalizes the keypoints with a two-fold goal: (i) compressing the image size, and (ii) reducing the bias that is induced by the variance of keypoint numbers among object classes. Object recognition is approached as a supervised machine learning problem, and the models have been formulated using Support Vector Machines (SVMs). These object recognition models have been tested for single and multiple object detection, and for asymmetrical rotational recognition. Finally, a hierarchical probabilistic framework with basic object classification methodology is formulated as a multi-class learning framework. This framework has been tested for automatic image annotation generation. Object recognition models were evaluated using recognition rate (rank 1) whereas the annotation task was evaluated using the well-known Information Retrieval measures: precision, recall, average precision and average recall.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207