An iterative linear algorithm for the analysis of oriented patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oriented patterns in an image often carry important information about the scene represented. Rao and Jain developed a technique to analyze images with oriented texture using phase portraits, where the parameters of a planar first-order phase portrait are locally estimated using a nonlinear least-squares algorithm. The method gives accurate results, but is computationally expensive. Shu and Jain proposed a faster linear method for the estimation of the parameters of the phase portrait. However, their formulation leads to the minimization of a different error measure, which is not as robust as the nonlinear least-squares procedure in the presence of noise, and also makes the implicit assumption that the orientation field was truly generated by a phase portrait model (with an extra weighting factor to compensate for noise sensitivity). We propose a new derivation of Shu and Jain's linear estimator that leads to similar estimation equations, while making explicit the nature of the error measure. Our procedure includes an iterative scheme, of which Shu and Jain's linear estimator is a particular case. We show that our estimator is more robust to noise than Shu and Jain's linear estimator.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".