MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060207221 · doi:10.4236/jdaip.2014.24014

Hierarchical Image Segmentation Using a Combined Geometrical and Feature Based Approach

2014· article· en· W2060207221 on OpenAlexafffund
Melissa Cote, Parvaneh Saeedi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Data Analysis and Information Processing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSegmentationScale-space segmentationSegmentation-based object categorizationArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Image segmentationComputer scienceMinimum spanning tree-based segmentationBenchmark (surveying)Feature (linguistics)Sensitivity (control systems)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a fully automatic segmentation algorithm based on geometrical and local attributes of color images. This method incorporates a hierarchical assessment scheme into any general segmentation algorithm for which the segmentation sensitivity can be changed through parameters. The parameters are varied to create different segmentation levels in the hierarchy. The algorithm examines the consistency of segments based on local features and their relationships with each other, and selects segments at different levels to generate a final segmentation. This adaptive parameter variation scheme provides an automatic way to set segmentation sensitivity parameters locally according to each region's characteristics instead of the entire image. The algorithm does not require any training dataset. The geometrical attributes can be defined by a shape prior for specific applications, i.e. targeting objects of interest, or by one or more general constraint(s) such as boundaries between regions for non-specific applications. Using mean shift as the general segmentation algorithm, we show that our hierarchical approach generates segments that satisfy geometrical properties while conforming with local properties. In the case of using a shape prior, the algorithm can cope with partial occlusions. Evaluation is carried out on the Berkeley Segmentation Dataset and Benchmark (BSDS300) (general natural images) and on geo-spatial images (with specific shapes of interest). The F-measure for our proposed algorithm, i.e. the harmonic mean between precision and recall rates, is 64.2% on BSDS300, outperforming the same segmentation algorithm in its standard non-hierarchical variant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.015
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Data Analysis and Information ProcessingSame topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207