MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955458186 · doi:10.1287/ijoo.2019.0030

Data Association via Set Packing for Computer Vision Applications

2020· article· en· W2955458186 on OpenAlexaff
Julian Yarkony, Yossiri Adulyasak, Maneesh Singh, Guy Desaulniers

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS Journal on Optimization · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Data associationArtificial intelligenceData setComputer visionFilter (signal processing)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant progress has been made in the field of computer vision because of the development of supervised machine learning algorithms, which efficiently extract information from high-dimensional data such as images and videos. Such techniques are particularly effective at recognizing the presence or absence of entities in the domains where labeled data are abundant. However, supervised learning is not sufficient in applications where one needs to annotate each unique entity in crowded scenes respecting known domain-specific structures of those entities. This problem, known as data association, provides fertile ground for the application of combinatorial optimization. In this review paper, we present a unified framework based on column generation for some computer vision applications, namely multiperson tracking, multiperson pose estimation, and multicell segmentation, which can be formulated as set packing problems with a massive number of variables. To solve them, column generation algorithms are applied to circumvent the need to enumerate all variables explicitly. To enhance the solution process, we provide a general approach for applying subset-row inequalities to tighten the formulations and introduce novel dual-optimal inequalities to reduce the dual search space. The proposed algorithms and their enhancements are successfully applied to solve the three aforementioned computer vision problems and achieve superior performance over benchmark approaches. The common framework presented allows us to leverage operations research methodologies to efficiently tackle computer vision problems.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS Journal on OptimizationSame topicDigital Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207