Enhanced Decoupled Active Contour Using Structural and Textural Variation Energy Functionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active contours are a popular approach for object segmentation that uses an energy minimizing spline to extract an object's boundary. Nonparametric approaches can be computationally complex, whereas parametric approaches can be impacted by parameter sensitivity. A decoupled active contour (DAC) overcomes these problems by decoupling the external and internal energies and optimizing them separately. However a drawback of this approach is its reliance on the edge gradient as the external energy. This can lead to poor convergence toward the object boundary in the presence of weak object and strong background edges. To overcome these issues with convergence, a novel approach is proposed that takes advantage of a sparse texture model, which explicitly considers texture for boundary detection. The approach then defines the external energy as a weighted combination of textural and structural variation maps and feeds it into a multifunctional hidden Markov model for more robust object boundary detection. The enhanced DAC (EDAC) is qualitatively and visually analyzed on two natural image data sets as well as Brodatz images. The results demonstrate that EDAC effectively combines texture and structural information to extract the object boundary without impact on computation time and a reliance on color.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".