MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3032691033 · doi:10.1109/tip.2020.2995056

An ILP Model for Multi-Label MRFs With Connectivity Constraints

2020· article· en· W3032691033 on OpenAlexaff
Ruobing Shen, Bo Tang, Andrea Lodi, Andrea Tramontani, Ismail Ben Ayed

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteger programmingPrior probabilityLinear programmingComputer scienceMarkov random fieldCutting-plane methodMathematical optimizationMarkov chainSegmentationPascal (unit)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmImage segmentationMathematicsMachine learningBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Integer Linear Programming (ILP) formulations of multi-label Markov random fields (MRFs) models with global connectivity priors were investigated previously in computer vision. In these works, only Linear Programming (LP) relaxations [1] or simplified versions [2] of the problem were solved. This paper investigates the ILP of MRF with exact connectivity priors via a branch-and-cut method, which provably finds globally optimal solutions. It enforces connectivity priors iteratively by a cutting plane method, and provides feasible solutions with a guarantee on sub-optimality even if we terminate it earlier. The proposed ILP can be applied as a post-processing method on top of any existing multi-label segmentation approach. As it provides globally optimal solution, it can be used off-line to serve as quality check for any fast on-line algorithm. Furthermore, the scribble based model presented in this paper could be potentially used to generate ground-truth proposals for any deep learning based segmentation. We demonstrate the power and usefulness of our model by extensive experiments on the BSDS500 and PASCAL VOC dataset. The experiments show that our proposed model achieves great performance, yielding provably global optimum in most instances and that provably good optimization solutions also provide good segmentation accuracy, even with the limited computing time of few seconds.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207