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 OpenAlexafffund
Akshaya Mishra, Paul Fieguth, David A. Clausi

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.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.016
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

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

Citations107
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207