MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984365191 · doi:10.1109/icassp.2010.5496297

No-reference image sharpness assessment based on local phase coherence measurement

2010· article· en· W1984365191 on OpenAlexaff
Rania Hassen, Zhou Wang, M.M.A. Salama

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptical Coherence Tomography Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceComputer visionImage qualityWavelet transformFocus (optics)Noise (video)Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy)PerceptionImage (mathematics)Image compressionWaveletPattern recognition (psychology)Image processingMathematicsStatisticsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sharpness is one of the most determining factors in the perceptual assessment of image quality. Objective image sharpness measures may play important roles in the design and optimization of visual perception-based auto-focus systems and image enhancement, restoration and compression algorithms. Here we propose a new sharpness measure where sharpness is identified as strong local phase coherence evaluated in the complex wavelet transform domain. Our test using the LIVE blur database shows that the proposed algorithm correlates well with subjective quality evaluations. An additional advantage of our approach is that other image distortions such as compression, median filtering and noise contamination that may affect perceptual sharpness can also be detected.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.290
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations112
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical Coherence Tomography ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207