MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1681294000 · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33418-4_50

Multi-Object Geodesic Active Contours (MOGAC)

2012· article· en· W1681294000 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Blake C. Lucas, Michael Kazhdan, Russell H. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueLecture notes in computer science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRobarts Research InstituteJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePixelComputer visionSegmentationGeodesicImage segmentationObject (grammar)Memory footprintGraphDimension (graph theory)Segmentation-based object categorizationScale-space segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Theoretical computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An emerging topic is to build image segmentation systems that can segment hundreds to thousands of objects (i.e. cell segmentation\tracking, full brain parcellation, full body segmentation, etc.). Multi-object Level Set Methods (MLSM) perform this task with the benefit of sub-pixel precision. However, current implementations of MLSM are not as computationally or memory efficient as their region growing and graph cut counterparts which lack sub-pixel precision. To address this performance gap, we present a novel parallel implementation of MLSM that leverages the sparse properties of the algorithm to minimize its memory footprint for multiple objects. The new method, Multi-Object Geodesic Active Contours (MOGAC), can represent N objects with just two functions: a label mask image and unsigned distance field. The time complexity of the algorithm is shown to be O((M (power)d)/P) for M (power)d pixels and P processing units in dimension d = {2,3}, independent of the number of objects. Results are presented for 2D and 3D image segmentation problems.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLecture notes in computer scienceSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207