Effective fuzzy clustering algorithm with Bayesian model and mean template for image segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fuzzy c‐means (FCMs) with spatial constraints have been considered as an effective algorithm for image segmentation. The well‐known Gaussian mixture model (GMM) has also been regarded as a useful tool in several image segmentation applications. In this study, the authors propose a new algorithm to incorporate the merits of these two approaches and reveal some intrinsic relationships between them. In the authors model, the new objective function pays more attention on spatial constraints and adopts Gaussian distribution as the distance function. Thus, their model can degrade to the standard GMM as a special case. Our algorithm is fully free of the empirically pre‐defined parameters that are used in traditional FCM methods to balance between robustness to noise and effectiveness of preserving the image sharpness and details. Furthermore, in their algorithm, the prior probability of an image pixel is influenced by the fuzzy memberships of pixels in its immediate neighbourhood to incorporate the local spatial information and intensity information. Finally, they utilise the mean template instead of the traditional hidden Markov random field (HMRF) model for estimation of prior probability. The mean template is considered as a spatial constraint for collecting more image spatial information. Compared with HMRF, their method is simple, easy and fast to implement. The performance of their proposed algorithm, compared with state‐of‐the‐art technologies including extensions of possibilistic fuzzy c‐means (PFCM), GMM, FCM, HMRF and their hybrid models, demonstrates its improved robustness and effectiveness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".