An evaluation of particle swarm optimization techniques in segmentation of biomedical images
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Image segmentation is a common image processing step to many computer vision applications with the purpose to segment pixels into different classes. As improved variants of particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithms, the fractional-order Darwinian particle swarm optimization (FODPSO) and Darwinian particle swarm optimization (DPSO) have been proposed for image segmentation. The purpose of this paper is to compare the segmentation performance of PSO, DPSO, and FODPSO as parametric approaches to existing methods; namely the parametric fuzzy c-means (FCM) algorithm, and the non-parametric Otsu segmentation technique with application to five biomedical images. All PSO-based experiments are conducted with twenty runs to assess the effectiveness of PSO models. The universal quality index is used to evaluate the segmentation results. The obtained experimental results showed that particle swarm based algorithms outperformed both FCM and Otsu segmentation technique.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it