MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249224795 · doi:10.1109/icpr.2004.1334458

Pruning local feature correspondences using shape context

2004· article· en· W4249224795 on OpenAlexaff
Gustavo Carneiro, Allan D. Jepson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceOutlierRobustness (evolution)Pattern recognition (psychology)Shape contextComputer scienceComputer visionOptimal distinctiveness theoryFeature extractionScale-invariant feature transformMathematicsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a novel approach to improve the distinctiveness of local image features without significantly affecting their robustness with respect to image deformations. Local image features have proven to be successful in computer vision tasks involving partial occlusion, background noise, and various types of image deformations. However, the relatively high number of outliers that have to be rejected from the correspondences set, formed during the search for similar features, still plagues this approach. The task of rejecting outliers is usually based on estimating the global spatial transform suffered by the features in the correspondences set. This presents two problems: (i) it cannot properly deal with non-rigid objects, and (ii) it is sensitive to a high number of outliers. Here, we address these problems by combining typical local features with shape context. A performance evaluation shows that this new semi-local feature generally provides higher distinctiveness and robustness to image deformations, thus potentially increasing the inlier/outlier ratio in the correspondences set. Also, we show that in wide baseline stereo matching, and non-rigid motion applications, the use of the novel semi-local feature not only provides robustness to non-rigid deformations, but also produces a higher inlier/outlier ratio than the standard Hough clustering of the global spatial transform of parameters.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 2004. ICPR 2004.Same topicAdvanced Vision and ImagingFrench-language works237,207