EFIS—Evolving Fuzzy Image Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the large number of techniques proposed in recent years, accurate segmentation of digital images remains a challenging task for automated computer algorithms. Approaches based on machine learning hold particular promise in this regard, because in many applications, e.g., medical image analysis, frequent user intervention can be assumed to correct the results, thereby generating valuable feedback for algorithmic learning. In order to learn segmentation of new (unseen) images, such user feedback (correction of current or past results) seems indispensable. In this paper, we propose the formation and evolution of fuzzy rules for user-oriented environments in which feedback is captured by design. The evolving fuzzy image segmentation (EFIS) can be used to adjust the parameters of existing segmentation methods, switch between their results, or fuse their results. Specifically, we propose a single-parametric EFIS (SEFIS), apply its rule evolution to breast ultrasound images, and evaluate the results using three segmentation methods, namely, global thresholding, region growing, and statistical region merging. The results show increased accuracy across all tests and for all methods. For instance, the accuracy of statistical region merging can be improved from 59% ± 30% to 71% ± 22%. We also propose a multiparametric EFIS (MEFIS) for switching between or fusing the results of multiple segmentation methods. Preliminary results indicate that MEFIS can further increase overall segmentation accuracy. Three thresholding methods with accuracies of 62% ± 11%, 64% ± 16%, and 61% ± 9% were combined to reach an overall accuracy of 66% ± 15%. Finally, we compare our SEFIS scheme with five other thresholding methods to evaluate its overall performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".