Robust Texture Classification by Aggregating Pixel-Based LBP Statistics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This letter addresses the texture classification problem through a pixel-based local binary pattern (LBP) statistics aggregation mechanism. Real-world texture images often present challenges for classification algorithms in terms of intra-class variability due, among others, to variable illumination. The LBP operator, a state-of-the-art texture descriptor, possesses key properties for tackling real-world texture images: discriminative power and invariance against monotonic gray level changes. We propose a novel texture classification approach that increases the robustness of LBP-based methods with respect to any type of intra-class variations. The method locally characterizes each pixel with an LBP code histogram and globally computes the label of a textured image by aggregating pixel labels through a voting process. Our approach can be in principle applied to any LBP version, as it focuses on how statistics are computed from LBP codes. We show that the proposed pixel-based approach improves upon traditional LBP block-based approaches in terms of classification accuracy by up to 5.1 p.p. on the public Outex database for the classic LBP with various neighborhoods as well as for various LBP extensions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it