MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Accuracy Improvement of Graph-Cut Image Segmentation by Using Watershed

2011· article· en· W2075787635 on OpenAlex
Jing Rong, Yu Li Pan

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced materials research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedCutGraphPixelSegmentationImage segmentationComputer scienceComputationArtificial intelligenceGraph partitionAlgorithmComputer visionMathematicsTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traditional Graph-Cut algorithm traverses all pixels at each time of computation; consequently, it consumes a lot of time. This paper improves on Graph-Cut algorithm based on characteristics of Watershed. The basic theory is to insert watershed into Graph-Cut to conduct pre-segmentation on image. With watershed, image is divided into regions which have different sizes and pixel color similarities. Images processed by watershed algorithm are converted into weighted undirected graph; and then translate energy function on pixel into that graph on separate regions after pre-segmentation. Performance of test programs has proved that the improved Graph-Cut algorithm can increase workload of user interaction mark effectively. As long as workload considered in the interaction process, improved Graph-Cut algorithm can achieve ideal segmentation effect even on complex background.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.315 · 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