A Comparative Study of Weighting Methods for Local Reference Frame
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of photogrammetric engineering, computer vision, and graphics, local shape description is an active research area. A wide variety of local shape descriptors (LSDs) have been designed for different applications, such as shape retrieval, object recognition, and 3D registration. The local reference frame (LRF) is an important component of the LSD. Its repeatability and robustness directly influence the descriptiveness and robustness of the LSD. Several weighting methods have been proposed to improve the repeatability and robustness of the LRF. However, no comprehensive comparison has been implemented to evaluate their performance under different data modalities and nuisances. In this paper, we focus on the comparison of weighting methods by using six datasets with different data modalities and application contexts. We evaluate the repeatability of the LRF under different nuisances, including occlusion, clutter, partial overlap, varying support radii, Gaussian noise, shot noise, point density variation, and keypoint localization error. Through the experiments, the traits, advantages, and disadvantages of weighting methods are summarized.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".