Smoothness parameter tuning for generalized hierarchical continuous max-flow segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simultaneous segmentation of multiple anatomical objects from medical images has become of increasing interest to the medical imaging community, especially when information concerning these objects such as grouping or hierarchical relationships can facilitate segmentation. Single parameter Potts models have often been used to address these multi-region problems, but such parameterization is not sufficient when regions have largely different regularization requirements. These problems can be addressed by introducing smoothing hierarchies with capture grouping relationships at the expense of additional parameterization. Tuning of these parameters to provide optimal segmentation accuracy efficiently is still an open problem in optimal image segmentation. This paper presents two mechanisms, one iterative and one more computationally efficient, for estimating optimal smoothness parameters for any arbitrary hierarchical model based on multi-objective optimization theory. These methods are evaluated using 5 segmentations of the brain from the IBSR database containing 35 distinct regions. The iterative estimator provides equivalent performance to the downhill simplex method, but takes significantly less computation time (93 vs. 431 minutes), allowing for more complicated models to be used without worry as to prohibitive parameter tuning procedures.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".