SIPs: Succinct Interest Points from Unsupervised Inlierness Probability Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A wide range of computer vision algorithms rely on identifying sparse interest points in images and establishing correspondences between them. However, only a subset of the initially identified interest points results in true correspondences (inliers). In this paper, we seek a detector that finds the minimum number of points that are likely to result in an application-dependent "sufficient" number of inliers k. To quantify this goal, we introduce the "k-succinctness" metric. Extracting a minimum number of interest points is attractive for many applications, because it can reduce computational load, memory, and data transmission. Alongside succinctness, we introduce an unsupervised training methodology for interest point detectors that is based on predicting the probability of a given pixel being an inlier. In comparison to previous learned detectors, our method requires the least amount of data pre-processing. Our detector and other state-of-the-art detectors are extensively evaluated with respect to succinctness on popular public datasets covering both indoor and outdoor scenes, and both wide and narrow baselines. In certain cases, our detector is able to obtain an equivalent amount of inliers with as little as 60% of the amount of points of other detectors. The code and trained networks are provided at https://github.com/uzh-rpg/sips2_open.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".