Heterogeneous Stacking for Classification-Driven Watershed Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marker-driven watershed segmentation attempts to extract seeds that indicate the presence of objects within an image. These markers are subsequently used to enforce regional minima within a topological surface used by the watershed algorithm. The classification-driven watershed segmentation (CDWS) algorithm improved the production of markers and topological surface by employing two machine-learned pixel classifiers. The probability maps produced by the two classifiers were utilized for creating markers, object boundaries, and the topological surface. This paper extends the CDWS algorithm by (i) enabling automated feature extraction via independent components analysis and (ii) improving the segmentation accuracy by introducing heterogeneous stacking. Heterogeneous stacking, an extension of stacked generalization for object delineation, improves pixel labeling and segmentation by training base classifiers on multiple target concepts extracted from the original ground truth, which are subsequently fused by the second set of classifiers. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed system on real world images, and indicate significant improvement in segmentation quality over the base system.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".