MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989708985 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2010.83

Decoupled Active Contour (DAC) for Boundary Detection

2010· article· en· W1989708985 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsInitializationComputer scienceActive contour modelArtificial intelligenceViterbi algorithmBoundary (topology)Image segmentationNoise (video)CurvatureSegmentationMaxima and minimaComputer visionEnergy (signal processing)AlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Hidden Markov modelImage (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accurate detection of object boundaries via active contours is an ongoing research topic in computer vision. Most active contours converge toward some desired contour by minimizing a sum of internal (prior) and external (image measurement) energy terms. Such an approach is elegant, but suffers from a slow convergence rate and frequently misconverges in the presence of noise or complex contours. To address these limitations, a decoupled active contour (DAC) is developed which applies the two energy terms separately. Essentially, the DAC consists of a measurement update step, employing a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) and Viterbi search, and then a separate prior step, which modifies the updated curve based on the relative strengths of the measurement uncertainty and the nonstationary prior. By separating the measurement and prior steps, the algorithm is less likely to misconverge; furthermore, the use of a Viterbi optimizer allows the method to converge far more rapidly than energy-based iterative solvers. The results clearly demonstrate that the proposed approach is robust to noise, can capture regions of very high curvature, and exhibits limited dependence on contour initialization or parameter settings. Compared to five other published methods and across many image sets, the DAC is found to be faster with better or comparable segmentation accuracy.

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 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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.281 · 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