MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984682938 · doi:10.1049/iet-cvi.2013.0149

Bhattacharyya distance‐based irregular pyramid method for image segmentation

2014· article· en· W1984682938 on OpenAlexafffund
Yuanlong Yu, Jason Gu, Junzheng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Computer Vision · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBhattacharyya distanceRobustness (evolution)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceSegmentationImage segmentationPattern recognition (psychology)Pyramid (geometry)Similarity (geometry)Computer visionAlgorithmImage (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a new unsupervised image segmentation method by using Bhattacharyya distance‐based irregular pyramid, termed as ‘BDIP’ algorithm. The proposed BDIP algorithm obtains a suboptimal labelling solution under the condition that the number of segments is not manually given. It hierarchically builds each level of the irregular pyramid, with the result that the final segments emerge as they are represented by single nodes at certain levels. The BDIP algorithm employs Bhattacharyya distance to estimate the intra‐level similarity at higher pyramidal levels so as to improve the accuracy and robustness to noise. Furthermore, an adaptive neighbour search method is proposed such that the BDIP algorithm can self‐determine the number of segments. This method considers not only the graphic constraint, but also the similarity constraint in the sense that a candidate node is selected as a neighbour of the centre node if there is no boundary evidence between these two nodes. With the pyramidal accumulation, this evaluation is aggregated into the approximately global evidence, based on which the number of segments can be self‐determined. Experimental results have shown that this proposed BDIP algorithm outperforms other benchmark segmentation algorithms in terms of segmentation accuracy, labelling cost and robustness to noise.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.333 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Computer VisionSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207