MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362007666 · doi:10.47611/jsrhs.v11i3.2957

Lucas-Kanade Optical Flow Machine Learning Implementations

2022· article· en· W4362007666 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Vision and Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsOptical flowPixelComputer visionFlow (mathematics)Ground truthComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMotion blurFrame (networking)ComputationSet (abstract data type)Sequence (biology)AmbiguityMotion (physics)Image (mathematics)RADIUSImplementationAlgorithmMathematicsGeometryTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optical flow is an effective measurement to gauge motion in a scene, which allows for the computation of pixel-by-pixel motion in a frame pair. This paper aims to address the ambiguity with determining how to gain optical flow results for a given sequence. Due to varying speeds and nuances of a sequence, where it’s set, how fast it’s moving, a different amount of blur radius, i.e., the extent to which the image is blurred, may have to be applied to gain realistic flow maps. Furthermore, this paper touches on the many variables that can impact the efficacy of the flow outputted by an optical flow algorithm. Thus, we aim to determine whether the composition of results obtained through different blur values provides for more ground-truth flow outputs.

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)0.003
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.343 · 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