Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, there has been significant interest in fractal coding for the purpose of image compression. However, applications of fractal-based coding to other aspects of image processing have received little attention. We propose a fractal-based method to enhance and restore a noisy image. If the noisy image is simply fractally coded, a significant amount of the noise is suppressed. However, one can go a step further and estimate the fractal code of the original noise-free image from that of the noisy image, based upon a knowledge (or estimate) of the variance of the noise, assumed to be zero-mean, stationary and Gaussian. The resulting fractal code yields a significantly enhanced and restored representation of the original noisy image. The enhancement is consistent with the human visual system where extra smoothing is performed in flat and low activity regions and a lower degree of smoothing is performed near high frequency components, e.g., edges, of the image. We find that, for significant noise variance (sigma > or = 20), the fractal-based scheme yields results that are generally better than those obtained by the Lee filter which uses a localized first order filtering process similar to fractal schemes. We also show that the Lee filter and the fractal method are closely related.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".