MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998076850 · doi:10.5244/c.22.16

Parameter Selection for Graph Cut Based Image Segmentation

2008· article· en· W1998076850 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCutSegmentation-based object categorizationSegmentationImage segmentationScale-space segmentationArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)AdaBoostGraphMinimum spanning tree-based segmentationFeature selectionClassifier (UML)Computer visionTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the graph cut algorithm has been successfully applied to image segmentation because it offers numerically robust global minimum. In the graph cut framework, a parameter is often used to weight the importance of the different terms of the energy function. Usually, a fixed setting of parameters is given by the developers of the segmentation algorithm, and they are expected to give satisfactory segmentations for the images similar to those that were used to tune the parameters. But when given a different class of images, the results might not be satisfactory. In fact, there is no fixed choice of parameters that will work for all images. For each particular image, parameters must be tuned to achieve best results. The goal of this thesis is to develop a measure of segmentation quality based on different features of segmentation. Then we can run the graph cut algorithm for different values of the parameter and choose the one that gives segmentation of the highest quality. Segmentation evaluation is closely tied to the question of what constitutes a good segmentation. While evaluating segmentation results is an important task in itself, in this thesis, segmentation evaluation is a crucial task since it forms an integral part of the proposed parameter selection method. We investigate several measures of segmentation quality and our measure of segmentation quality is based on intensity, gradient, contour continuity, and texture features. We approach the problem of segmentation quality as a binary classification problem (good segmentation vs. bad segmentation), and train a classifier using the AdaBoost algorithm. AdaBoost, in addition to the class label, provides confidence estimates. A high positive value indicates that the classifier is very confident that is in the positive class (i.e. a good segmentation). Thus instead of just a binary decision, namely a good or a bad segmentation, we take the confidence value as the final measure of segmentation goodness. A new way to normalize feature weights for the AdaBoost based classifier is developed, which is particularly suitable for our framework. Our approach to feature normalization is uniquely appropriate for the parameter selection problem, and leads to a big improvement in performance. The leave- one-out cross-validation error rate is 4.4%, meaning the top quality segmentation chosen for an image is a bad segmentation in only 4.4% of cases.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207