MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951187577 · doi:10.2312/3dor/3dor11/071-078

SHREC '11: Robust Feature Detection and Description Benchmark

2011· preprint· en· W2951187577 on OpenAlexaff
Edmond Boyer, Alexander M. Bronstein, Michael M. Bronstein, Benjamín Bustos, T. Darom, Radu Horaud, Ingrid Hotz, Yosi Keller, Johannes Keustermans, Artiom Kovnatsky, Roee Litman, Jan Reininghaus, Ivan Sipiran, Dirk Smeets, Paul Suetens, Dirk Vandermeulen, Andrei Zaharescu, Valentin Zobel

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Feature (linguistics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature detection (computer vision)Variety (cybernetics)Feature extractionImage (mathematics)Data miningImage processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feature-based approaches have recently become very popular in computer vision and image analysis applications, and are becoming a promising direction in shape retrieval. SHREC'11 robust feature detection and description benchmark simulates the feature detection and description stages of feature-based shape retrieval algorithms. The benchmark tests the performance of shape feature detectors and descriptors under a wide variety of transformations. The benchmark allows evaluating how algorithms cope with certain classes of transformations and strength of the transformations that can be dealt with. The present paper is a report of the SHREC'11 robust feature detection and description benchmark results

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.107 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations209
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207