MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011071923 · doi:10.1049/iet-ipr.2012.0340

Image segmentation by a new weighted Student's <i>t</i> ‐mixture model

2013· article· en· W2011071923 on OpenAlexafffund
Hui Zhang, Qing Ming Jonathan Wu, Thanh Minh Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Image Processing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersHealth and Medical Research FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsImage segmentationArtificial intelligenceSegmentationComputer scienceComputer visionImage (mathematics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Scale-space segmentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the authors introduce a new weighted Student's t ‐mixture model (WSMM) for image segmentation. Gaussian distribution and Student's t ‐distribution are the two commonly used probabilities in the finite mixture model (FMM). The Student's t ‐mixture model has come to be regarded as an alternative to Gaussian mixture models, as it is heavily tailed and more robust for outliers. Moreover, the pixels are considered independent of each other in the FMM. Although some existing methods incorporate the spatial relationship between neighbouring pixels, they do not consider the relationship between spatial information and clustering information, thus those reported methods remain sensitive to noise. The advantages of the authors method are as follows: first, the authors introduce WSMM to incorporate the local spatial information, pixel intensity value and clustering information in an image. Second, the authors model is simple, easy to implement and has a good balance between noise insensitiveness and image detail preservation. Third, they adopt the gradient method and expectation maximisation algorithm, which allow for simultaneous estimation of optimal parameters. Finally, the most useful statistical tool for image segmentation, the well‐known hidden Markov random field model, is a special case of their model. Thus, their method is general enough for model‐based techniques construction. Experimental results on synthetic and real images demonstrate the improved robustness and effectiveness of their approach.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Image ProcessingSame topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207