MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022225476 · doi:10.1117/1.3466799

Fusion of regularization terms for image restoration

2010· article· en· W2022225476 on OpenAlexaff
Max Mignotte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electronic Imaging · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImage restorationArtificial intelligenceImage processingComputer scienceComputer visionRegularization (linguistics)Image fusionImage segmentationImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an efficient regularized restoration model associating a spatial and a frequential regularizer in order to better model the intrinsic properties of the original image to be recovered and to obtain a better restoration result. An adaptive and rescaling scheme is also proposed to balance the influence of these two different regularization constraints, preventing an overwhelming importance for one of them from prevailing over the other, enabling them to be efficiently fused during the iterative deconvolution process. This hybrid regularization approach, mixing these two constraints and, more precisely, favoring a solution image that is both efficiently denoised [due to the denoising ability of a thresholding procedure in the discrete cosine transform (DCT) domain] and edge-preserved [due to the generalized Gaussian Markov random field (GGMRF) constraint]; yields significant improvements in terms of image quality and higher signal-to-noise ratio improvement results compared to a single GGMRF or DCT prior model and leads to competitive restoration results in benchmark tests, for various levels of blur, blurred signal to noise ratio (BSNR), and noise degradations.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Electronic ImagingSame topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207