MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037823779 · doi:10.1109/tip.2011.2170701

Wavelet Modeling Using Finite Mixtures of Generalized Gaussian Distributions: Application to Texture Discrimination and Retrieval

2011· article· en· W2037823779 on OpenAlexaff
Mohand Saïd Allili

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletHistogramPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligenceGaussianImage textureMathematicsProbability distributionKullback–Leibler divergenceWavelet transformStatistical modelMarginal distributionProbability density functionComputer scienceAlgorithmImage processingStatisticsRandom variableImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses statistical-based texture modeling using wavelets. We propose a new approach to represent the marginal distribution of the wavelet coefficients using finite mixtures of generalized Gaussian (MoGG) distributions. The MoGG captures a wide range of histogram shapes, which provides better description and discrimination of texture than using single probability density functions (pdf's), as proposed by recent state-of-the-art approaches. Moreover, we propose a model similarity measure based on Kullback-Leibler divergence (KLD) approximation using Monte Carlo sampling methods. Through experiments on two popular texture data sets, we show that our approach yields significant performance improvements for texture discrimination and retrieval, as compared with recent methods of statistical-based wavelet modeling.

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)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations75
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207