MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1510047790 · doi:10.1109/tip.2015.2456505

Incorporating Adaptive Local Information Into Fuzzy Clustering for Image Segmentation

2015· article· en· W1510047790 on OpenAlexaff
Guoying Liu, Yun Zhang, Aimin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRemote-Sensing Image Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceImage segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)PixelCluster analysisRange segmentationComputer scienceFuzzy clusteringSmoothingScale-space segmentationSegmentation-based object categorizationComputer visionFuzzy logicRegion growingSegmentationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuzzy c-means (FCM) clustering with spatial constraints has attracted great attention in the field of image segmentation. However, most of the popular techniques fail to resolve misclassification problems due to the inaccuracy of their spatial models. This paper presents a new unsupervised FCM-based image segmentation method by paying closer attention to the selection of local information. In this method, region-level local information is incorporated into the fuzzy clustering procedure to adaptively control the range and strength of interactive pixels. First, a novel dissimilarity function is established by combining region-based and pixel-based distance functions together, in order to enhance the relationship between pixels which have similar local characteristics. Second, a novel prior probability function is developed by integrating the differences between neighboring regions into the mean template of the fuzzy membership function, which adaptively selects local spatial constraints by a tradeoff weight depending upon whether a pixel belongs to a homogeneous region or not. Through incorporating region-based information into the spatial constraints, the proposed method strengthens the interactions between pixels within the same region and prevents over smoothing across region boundaries. Experimental results over synthetic noise images, natural color images, and synthetic aperture radar images show that the proposed method achieves more accurate segmentation results, compared with five state-of-the-art image segmentation methods.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations107
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicRemote-Sensing Image ClassificationFrench-language works237,207