MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253829576 · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5204333

Beyond one-to-one feature correspondence: The need for many-to-many matching and image abstraction

2009· article· en· W4253829576 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

Venue2009 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbstractionComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Search engine indexingMatching (statistics)Artificial intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Feature matchingObject (grammar)Pattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)Space (punctuation)Correspondence problemTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given: In this paper briefly review three formulations of the many-to-many matching problem as applied to model acquisition, model indexing, and object recognition. In the first scenario, I will describe the problem of learning a prototypical shape model from a set of exemplars in which the exemplars may not share a single local feature in common. We formulate the problem as a search through the intractable space of feature combinations, or abstractions, to find the "lowest common abstraction" that is derivable from each input exemplar. This abstraction, in turn, defines a many-to-many feature correspondence among the extracted input features.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.272 · 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