MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286384831 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2022.3188931

A Two-Step Descriptor-Based Keypoint Filtering Algorithm for Robust Image Matching

2022· article· en· W4286384831 on OpenAlexaff
Vahid Mousavi, Masood Varshosaz, Fabio Remondino, Saied Pirasteh, Jonathan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Robustness (evolution)Kernel (algebra)Cluster analysisAlgorithmMean-shiftMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Finding robust and correct keypoints in images remains a challenge, especially when repetitive patterns are present. In this article, we propose a universal two-step filtering method to solve the mismatch problem in repetitive patterns. Having applied a mean-shift clustering algorithm to remove obvious mismatches, the proposed confusion reduction (CR) method uses a novel confusion index (CI) in a gridding schema to identify and filter out the remaining confusing keypoints. In both steps, the descriptors’ statistical properties are evaluated using kernel density estimation. Various synthetic and real stereo pairs, along with multiview image blocks, were used to assess the performance of the presented algorithm. The results were also compared with those obtained by several state-of-the-art mismatch removal methods. The experiments showed that, on average, the proposed strategy improves the accuracy of matching by 10% and the accuracy of photogrammetric blocks by 20%–30%.

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)0.002
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations64
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207