Optimization procedures for the estimation of phase portrait parameters of orientation fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oriented patterns in an image often convey important information regarding the scene or the objects contained. Given an image presenting oriented texture, the orientation field of the image is a map that depicts the orientation angle of the texture at each pixel. Rao and Jain developed a method to describe oriented patterns in an image based on the association between the orientation field of a textured image and the phase portrait generated by a pair of linear first-order differential equations. The estimation of the model parameters is a nonlinear, nonconvex optimization problem, and practical experience shows that irrelevant local minima can lead to convergence to inappropriate results. We investigated the performance of four optimization algorithms for the estimation of the optimal phase portrait parameters for a given orientation field. The investigated algorithms are: nonlinear least-squares, linear least-squares, iterative linear least-squares, and simulated annealing. The algorithms are evaluated and compared in terms of the error between the estimated parameters and the parameters known by design, in the presence of noise in the orientation field and imprecision in the initialization of the parameters. The computational effort required by each algorithm is also assessed. Individually, the simulated annealing procedure yielded low fixed-point and parameter errors over the entire range of noise tested, whereas the performance of the other methods deteriorated with higher levels of noise. The use of the result of simulated annealing for the initialization of the nonlinear least-squares method led to further improvement upon the simulated annealing results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".