A novel framework for automatic trimap generation using the Gestalt laws of grouping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we are concerned with unsupervised natural image matting. Due to the under-constrained nature of the problem, image matting algorithms are usually provided with user interactions, such as scribbles or trimaps. This is a very tedious task and may even become impractical for some applications. For unsupervised matte calculation, we can either adopt a technique that supports an unsupervised mode for alpha map calculation, or we may automate the process of acquiring user interactions provided for a matting algorithm. Our proposed technique contributes to both approaches and is based on spectral matting. The latter is the only technique in the literature that supports automatic matting but it suffers from critical limitations among which is the unreliable unsupervised operation. Stressing on that drawback, spectral matting may produce erroneous mattes in the absence of guiding scribbles or trimaps. Using the Gestalt laws of grouping, we propose a method that automatically produces more truthful mattes than spectral matting. In addition, it can be used to generate trimaps, eliminating the required user interactions and making it possible to harness the powers of matting techniques that are better than spectral matting but don't support unsupervised operation. The main contribution of this research is the introduction of the Gestalt laws of grouping to the matting problem.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".