Combining sorted random features for texture classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the combining of powerful local texture descriptors and the advantages over single descriptors for texture classification. The proposed system is composed of three components: (i) highly discriminative and robust sorted random projections (SRP) features; (ii) a global Bag-of-Words (BoW) model; and (iii) the use of multiple kernel Support Vector Machines (SVMs) combining multiple features. The proposed system is also very simple, stemming from (1) the effortless extraction of the SRP features, (2) the simple orderless histogramming in the BoW model, (3) a strategy with low computational complexity for multiple kernel SVMs. We have tested our texture classification system on three popular and challenging texture databases and find that the SVMs combining of SRP features produces outstanding classification results, out-performing the state-of-the-art for CUReT (99.37%) and KTH-TIPS (99.29%), and with highly competitive results for UIUC (98.56%).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".