MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413146784 · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.00111

Cross-View Completion Models are Zero-shot Correspondence Estimators

2025· article· en· W4413146784 on OpenAlexaff
Honggyu An, Jin Hyeon Kim, Seonghoon Park, Jaewoo Jung, Jisang Han, Sunghwan Hong, Seungryong Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Inference
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersNational Research Foundation
KeywordsZero (linguistics)Computer scienceShot (pellet)EstimatorArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematicsStatisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we explore new perspectives on crossview completion learning by drawing an analogy to self-supervised correspondence learning. Through our analysis, we demonstrate that the cross-attention map within crossview completion models captures correspondence more effectively than other correlations derived from encoder or decoder features. We verify the effectiveness of the cross-attention map by evaluating on both zero-shot matching and learning-based geometric matching and multi-frame depth estimation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistical Methods and InferenceFrench-language works237,207