MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002492240 · doi:10.1117/12.650720

<title>Multiresolution analysis of digital images using the continuous extension of discrete group transforms</title>

2006· article· en· W2002492240 on OpenAlexaff
Mickaël Germain, J. Patera

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscrete cosine transformMultiresolution analysisWavelet transformDiscrete wavelet transformWaveletInterpolation (computer graphics)MathematicsAlgorithmFilter bankComputer scienceStationary wavelet transformFilter (signal processing)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new technique is presented for multiresolution analysis (MRA) of digital images. In 2D, it has four variants, two of which are applicable on square lattices; the Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) is the simpler of the two. The remaining variants can be used in the same way on triangular lattices. The property of the Continuous Extension of the Discrete Group Transform (CEDGT) is used to analyse data for each level of decomposition. The MRA principle is obtained by increasing the data grid for each level of decomposition, and by using an adapted low filter to reduce some irregularities due to noise effect. Compared to some stationary wavelet transforms, the image analysis with a multiresolution CEDGT transform gives better results. In particular, a wavelet transform is capable of providing a local representation at multiple scales, but some local details disappear due to the use of the low pass filter and the reduction of the spatial resolution for a high level of decomposition. This problem is avoided with CEDGT. The smooth interpolation, used by the multiresolution CEDGT, gives interesting results for coarse-to-fine segmentation algorithm and others analysis processes.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207