EDGE EXTRACTION OF IMAGES BY RECONSTRUCTION USING WAVELET DECOMPOSITION DETAILS AT DIFFERENT RESOLUTION LEVELS
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
This paper describes a novel method for edge feature detection of document images based on wavelet decomposition and reconstruction. By applying the wavelet decomposition technique, a document image becomes a wavelet representation, i.e. the image is decomposed into a set of wavelet approximation coefficients and wavelet detail coefficients. Discarding wavelet approximation, the edge extraction is implemented by means of the wavelet reconstruction technique. In consideration of the mutual frequency, overlapping will occur between wavelet approximation and wavelet details, a multiresolution-edge extraction with respect to an iterative reconstruction procedure is developed to ameliorate the quality of the reconstructed edges in this case. A novel combination of this multiresolution-edge results in clear final edges of the document images. This multi-resolution reconstruction procedure follows a coarser-to-finer searching strategy. The edge feature extraction is accompanied by an energy distribution estimation from which the levels of wavelet decomposition are adaptively controlled. Compared with the scheme of wavelet transform, our method does not incur any redundant operation. Therefore, the computational time and the memory requirement are less than those in wavelet transform.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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