MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232881219 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2004.1334077

A comparison of junction tree and relaxation algorithms for point matching using different distance metrics

2004· article· en· W4232881219 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicAlgorithmComputer scienceGraphMatching (statistics)Graphical modelProbabilistic analysis of algorithmsRelaxation (psychology)Tree (set theory)Point (geometry)MathematicsTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have developed a polynomial time optimal method for a class of attributed graph matching problems using the junction tree algorithm from graphical models. In this paper we compare this method with standard probabilistic relaxation labeling using different forms of point metrics and under different levels of additive noise. Results show that, no matter which of the metrics is applied, our technique is more effective than probabilistic relaxation labeling for large graph sizes. For small graph sizes, our technique is still preferable for two of the metrics, while for the third one both techniques perform similarly.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.238 · 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