MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962865320 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2930293

SKFlow: Optical Flow Estimation Using Selective Kernel Networks

2019· article· en· W2962865320 on OpenAlexaff
Mingliang Zhai, Xuezhi Xiang, Ning Lv, Syed Masroor Ali, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNatural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceOptical flowKernel (algebra)Convolutional neural networkArtificial intelligencePyramid (geometry)Aggregate (composite)Feature (linguistics)Convolution (computer science)Receptive fieldPattern recognition (psychology)Field (mathematics)Feature extractionInformation flowArtificial neural networkComputer visionImage (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Leveraging on the recent developments in convolutional neural networks (CNNs), optical flow estimation from adjacent frames has been cast as a learning problem, with performance exceeding traditional approaches. The existing networks always use standard convolutional layers for extracting multi-level features with the fixed kernel size at each level. For enlarging the receptive field, some works introduce dilated convolution operation, which can capture more contextual information and can avoid the loss of motion details. However, these networks lack the ability to adaptively adjust its receptive field size and cannot aggregate multi-scale information with a selective mechanism. To address this problem, in this paper, we introduce selective kernel network into optical flow estimation, which can adaptively select different scale features and adjust their receptive field according to the global information. Specifically, we conduct the selective kernel mechanism on each level of pyramid, which can adaptively select multi-scale feature at each pyramidal level. The extensive analyses are conducted on MPI-Sintel and KITTI datasets to verify the effectiveness of the proposed approach. The experimental results show that our model achieves comparable results with the previous state-of-the-art networks while keeping a small model size.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207