Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data.

Mark R. Stevens

dblp:89/1362 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
12ranked-venue papers
9as first author
0since 2021 · last 2006
0000-0002-7908-3624ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 10 · 8 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 7 · 6 first-authorDatabases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer graphics and multimedia
2 papers
Geometric modeling and processing · 62% Rendering · 31% Image and video processing · 7%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
3D vision · 100%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Geometric modeling and processing
3d reconstruction
0.012004
Methods for Volumetric Reconstruction of Visual Scenes · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2004
Rendering
image-based rendering
0.012004
Methods for Volumetric Reconstruction of Visual Scenes · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2004
Geometric modeling and processing › 3d reconstruction
volumetric reconstruction
0.012004
Methods for Volumetric Reconstruction of Visual Scenes · Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2004
Computer vision › 3D vision
shape matching
0.011997
Precise matching of 3-D target models to multisensor data · IEEE Trans. Image Process. 1997
Image and video processing
image registration
0.011997
Precise matching of 3-D target models to multisensor data · IEEE Trans. Image Process. 1997
Image and video processing › image registration
multimodal image registration
0.011997
Precise matching of 3-D target models to multisensor data · IEEE Trans. Image Process. 1997

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

iterative model matching · 0.03d pose estimation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2006 A Systems View of Scale Space
abstract
Over the last 30 years, scale space representations have emerged as a fundamental tool for allowing systems to become increasingly robust against changes in camera viewpoint. Unfortunately, the implementation details that are required to properly construct a scale space representation are not published in the literature. Incorrectly implementing these details will lead to extremely poor system performance. In this paper, we address the practical considerations associated with scale space representations. Our focus is to make explicit how a scale space is constructed, thereby increasing the accessibility of this powerful representation to developers of computer vision systems.
Ross S. Eaton, Mark R. Stevens, Jonah C. McBride, Greydon T. Foil, Magnús Snorrason
ICVS2
2004 Methods for Volumetric Reconstruction of Visual Scenes
Gregory Slabaugh, W. Bruce Culbertson, Thomas Malzbender, Mark R. Stevens, Ronald W. Schafer
Int. J. Comput. Vis.4
2003 Automatic Feature Selection with Applications to Script Identification of Degraded Documents
abstract
Current approaches to script identification rely onhand-selected features and often require processing a significantpart of the document to achieve reliable identification.We present an approach that applies a large pool ofimage features to a small training sample and uses subsetfeature selection techniques to automatically select a subsetwith the most discriminating power. At run time we usea classifier coupled with an evidence accumulation engineto report a script label once a preset likelihood thresholdhas been reached. We apply the system to a diverse corpusof printed Russian and English documents that suffer fromcommon degradation problems. Our validation studyshows promising results both in terms of the script identificationaccuracy and the ability to identify script on thescale of individual words and text lines.
Vitaly Ablavsky, Mark R. Stevens
ICDAR2
2003 Automatic target segmentation using PMMW imagery
Mark R. Stevens, Magnús Snorrason
Image Vis. Comput.1
2001 Evaluating 2D Image Comparison Metrics for 3D Scene Interpretation
Mark R. Stevens
Comput. Vis. Image Underst.1
2000 Image Comparison Techniques in the Context of Scene Refinement
abstract
As object recognition algorithms focus more closely on appearance, the problem of how best to measure similarity between images becomes critical. Within the context of an existing object recognition system, we present an empirical comparison of 27 different error functions on a set of 20 example problems. Each error function measures the similarity between an observed and a predicted image. Our goal is to select an error best suited to guide an heuristic search algorithm through a space of possible scene configurations.
Mark R. Stevens, J. Ross Beveridge
ICPR1
2000 Searching for Objects in a Scene
abstract
There is a long tradition of using heuristic search within the context of object recognition. However, most of these techniques rely solely on object geometry and are based on matching model features to data features. We present a novel approach for using search coupled with an error function based on graphical rendering. An empirical approach is used to evaluate five different search algorithms on a set of 20 example problems.
Mark R. Stevens, J. Ross Beveridge
ICPR1
2000 Pose from Color
abstract
Color is a powerful cue for determining the pose of 3D objects viewed by a single camera. We present a method based on hue histograms for locating multiple objects with respect to a fixed camera. The algorithm is tested on controlled blocks-world scenes and an indoor office scene. On these examples, a pose refinement algorithm performs better when guided by color than when guided by more traditional edge information.
Mark R. Stevens, Bruce A. Draper, J. Ross Beveridge
ICPR1
2000 Localized Scene Interpretation from 3D Models, Range, and Optical Data
Mark R. Stevens, J. Ross Beveridge
Comput. Vis. Image Underst.1
1998 Multisensor occlusion reasoning
abstract
Most model-based object recognition algorithms attempt to match stored model features to features extracted from imagery. The better the match, the more likely it is that the object is present in the scene. Problems arise when objects are occluded because matches will be incomplete. It is rare for an object recognition algorithm to employ knowledge to explain the absence of occluded features. The work presented here illustrates an approach to object recognition which propagates evidence of occlusion from range to optical sensors and thereby explains missing features.
Mark R. Stevens, J. Ross Beveridge
ICPR1
1997 Precise matching of 3-D target models to multisensor data
abstract
This paper presents a three-dimensional (3-D) model-based ATR algorithm that operates simultaneously on imagery from three heterogeneous, approximately boresight aligned sensors. An iterative search matches models to range and optical imagery by repeatedly predicting detectable features, measuring support for these features in the imagery, and adjusting the transformations relating the target to the sensors in order to improve the match. The result is a locally optimal and globally consistent set of 3-D transformations that precisely relate the best matching target features to combined range, IR, and color images. Results show the multisensor algorithm recovers 3-D target pose more accurately than does a traditional single-sensor algorithm. Errors in registration between images are also corrected during matching. The intended application is imaging from semiautonomous military scout vehicles.
Mark R. Stevens, J. Ross Beveridge
IEEE Trans. Image Process.1
1996 Interleaving 3D model feature prediction and matching to support multi-sensor object recognition
abstract
The object recognition, system presented combines on-line feature prediction with an iterative multisensor matching algorithm. Matching begins with an initial object type and pose hypothesis. An iterative generate-and-test procedure then refines the pose as well as the sensor-to-sensor registration for separate range and electro optical sensors. During matching, object features predicted to be visible are updated to reflect changes in hypothesized object pose and sensor registration. The match found is locally optimal in terms of the complete space of possible matches and globally consistent in the sense of preserving the 3D constraints implied by sensor and object geometry. Results on real data are presented which demonstrate the algorithm correcting for up to 30/spl deg/ errors in initial orientation and 5 m errors in initial translation.
Mark R. Stevens, J. Ross Beveridge
ICPR1