MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415954695 · doi:10.1145/3760678.3760686

Fragments Adjacency Prediction: A Contour Based Approach Using Transformer Models with Rotary Positional Encoding

2025· article· W4415954695 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin Dongmo, Fadel Touré, A Goupil, Etienne Beaulac

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Processing and 3D Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAdjacency listScalabilityFragment (logic)Robustness (evolution)Pairwise comparisonEncoding (memory)Deep learningPattern recognition (psychology)Synthetic data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces an automated deep learning method for predicting adjacency relationships between 2D fragments, with potential applications in archaeology and other domains requiring fragment pair identification. Such tasks often require the identification of fragment matching within highly irregular, eroded datasets, where conventional techniques struggle with scalability and generalization. To address these computational challenges, we propose a transformer-based neural network architecture that leverages contour-based features and integrates Rotary Positional Encoding (RoPE) to enhance spatial relationship modeling. Unlike traditional approaches that rely on exhaustive pairwise comparisons or similarity matrices, our method directly predicts adjacency relationships, significantly improving computational efficiency. Given the scarcity of real-world datasets, we developed a synthetic data generation framework capable of simulating diverse fragment patterns to enhance model robustness and mitigate overfitting. Experimental evaluations, by achieving an accuracy of 82%, demonstrate that accurate adjacency predictions can be achieved using minimal input features, highlighting the effectiveness of contour-based representations. While our model has been validated on synthetic datasets, its performance can be further refined through fine-tuning with real-world archaeological and forensic fragment data. This work lays the foundation for future advancements incorporating additional modalities such as texture and color, ultimately contributing to more reliable and scalable fragment matching systems for practical applications.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Processing and 3D ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207