MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502867951 · doi:10.1109/mwscas.1991.252123

Adaptive order statistic filters: the complexity/quality tradeoff

2002· article· en· W1502867951 on OpenAlexaff
Renee L. J. Martens, A.N. Venetsanopoulos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpulse noiseAdaptive filterMedian filterComputer scienceGaussian noiseFilter (signal processing)AlgorithmStatisticFilter designOrder statisticNoise (video)Kernel adaptive filterImage qualityComputer visionMathematicsImage processingArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)StatisticsPixel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors compare, in some detail, six adaptive order-statistic-based filters with the median filter for image processing purposes. The most commonly used order-statistic filter is the median filter since it is easy to implement and removes impulse noise while preserving edges. One problem of the median filter is that its fixed window size constrains its performance. A large window size will give good impulse noise suppression but may blur the image while a small window size may not adequately remove the noise. Another problem is that the median filter is not the optimum filter for removing Gaussian noise. Each of the six adaptive order-statistic filters examined attempts to solve one or both of these problems, with the tradeoff being increased computational complexity for better image quality. When choosing a filter one must look at the computational complexity, the type of noise to be removed, the image quality required, and what kind of prior knowledge is required by the filters. The seven filters are examined for a variety of images and noise types. Some image quality results are presented.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.128 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207