MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535980383 · doi:10.1109/iccv.2009.5459332

A theory of active object localization

2009· article· en· W2535980383 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Artificial intelligenceConstraint (computer-aided design)MaximizationImperfectViewpointsObject detectionComputer visionCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Theoretical computer scienceMathematicsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present some theoretical results related to the problem of actively searching for a target in a 3D environment, under the constraint of a maximum search time. We define the object localization problem as the maximization over the search region of the Lebesgue integral of the scene structure probabilities. We study variants of the problem as they relate to actively selecting a finite set of optimal viewpoints of the scene for detecting and localizing an object. We do a complexity-level analysis and show that the problem variants are NP-Complete or NP-Hard. We study the tradeoffs of localizing vs. detecting a target object, using single-view and multiple-view recognition, under imperfect dead-reckoning and an imperfect recognition algorithm. These results motivate a set of properties that efficient and reliable active object localization algorithms should satisfy.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207