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. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Sateesha G. Nadabar

dblp:75/736 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 1996
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 5 · 3 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3 · 1 first-author

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.

Artificial intelligence
3 papers
Segmentation and scene understanding · 70% 3D vision · 21% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 9%
Computer graphics and multimedia
2 papers
Image and video processing · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Image and video processing
edge detection
0.011996
Parameter Estimation in Markov Random Field Contextual Models Using Geometric Models of Objects · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1996
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding
edge detection
0.011992
Parameter estimation in MRF line process models · CVPR 1992
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding › 3d segmentation
surface segmentation
0.011990
MRF model-based segmentation of range images · ICCV 1990
Image and video processing › image segmentation › 3d image segmentation
range image segmentation
0.011990
MRF model-based segmentation of range images · ICCV 1990
Computer vision › 3D vision › range sensing
range image analysis
0.011996
Parameter Estimation in Markov Random Field Contextual Models Using Geometric Models of Objects · IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 1996
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › probabilistic inference
MAP inference
0.011990
MRF model-based segmentation of range images · ICCV 1990

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

markov random field · 0.1CAD model synthesis · 0.0least-squares estimation · 0.0least squares estimation · 0.0maximum a posteriori estimation · 0.0bayesian inference · 0.0synthetic image generation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1996 Parameter Estimation in Markov Random Field Contextual Models Using Geometric Models of Objects
abstract
We present a new scheme for the estimation of Markov random field line process parameters which uses geometric CAD models of the objects in the scene. The models are used to generate synthetic images of the objects from random view points. The edge maps computed from the synthesized images are used as training samples to estimate the line process parameters using a least squares method. We show that this parameter estimation method is useful for detecting edges in range as well as intensity edges. The main contributions of the paper are: 1) use of CAD models to obtain true edge labels which are otherwise not available; and 2) use of canonical Markov random field representation to reduce the number of parameters.
Sateesha G. Nadabar, Anil K. Jain 0001
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.1
1995 Fusion of range and intensity images on a connection machine (CM-2)
Sateesha G. Nadabar, Anil K. Jain 0001
Pattern Recognit.1
1992 Parameter estimation in MRF line process models
abstract
A scheme for the estimation of the Markov random field (MRF) line process parameters that uses geometric CAD models of the objects in the scene is presented. The models are used to generate synthetic images of the objects from random viewpoints. The edge maps computed from the synthesized images are used as training samples to estimate the line process parameters using a least squares method. It is shown that this parameter estimation method is useful for detecting edges in range as well as intensity images.>
Sateesha G. Nadabar, Anil K. Jain 0001
CVPR1
1990 MRF model-based segmentation of range images
abstract
Consideration is given to the application of Markov random field (MRF) models to the problem of edge labeling in range images. The authors propose a segmentation algorithm which handles both jump and crease edges. The jump and crease edge likelihoods at each edge site are computed using special local operators. These likelihoods are then combined in a Bayesian framework with a MRF prior distribution on the edge labels to derive the a posterior distribution of labels. An approximation to the maximum a posteriori estimate is used to obtain the edge labelings. The edge-based segmentation has been integrated with a region-based segmentation scheme resulting in a robust surface segmentation method.>
Anil K. Jain 0001, Sateesha G. Nadabar
ICCV2
1990 MRF model-based algorithms for image segmentation
abstract
The authors empirically compare three algorithms for segmenting simple, noisy images: simulated annealing (SA), iterated conditional modes (ICM), and maximizer of the posterior marginals (MPM). All use Markov random field (MRF) models to include prior contextual information. The comparison is based on artificial binary images which are degraded by Gaussian noise. Robustness is tested with correlated noise and with object and background textured. The ICM algorithm is evaluated when the degradation and model parameters must be estimated, in both supervised and unsupervised modes and on two real images. The results are assessed by visual inspection and through a numerical criterion. It is concluded that contextual information from MRF models improves segmentation when the number of categories and the degradation model are known and that parameters can be effectively estimated. None of the three algorithms is consistently best, but the ICM algorithm is the most robust. The energy of the a posteriori distribution is not always minimized at the best segmentation.>
Richard C. Dubes, Anil K. Jain 0001, Sateesha G. Nadabar, Chaur-Chin Chen
ICPR (1)3