Markovian segmentation and parameter estimation on graphics hardware
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we show how Markovian strategies used to solve well-known segmentation problems such as motion estimation, motion detection, motion segmentation, stereovision, and color segmentation can be significantly accelerated when implemented on programmable graphics hardware. More precisely, we expose how the parallel abilities of a standard graphics processing unit usually devoted to image synthesis can be used to infer the labels of a segmentation map. The problems we address are stated in the sense of the maximum a posteriori with an energy-based or probabilistic formulation, depending on the application. In every case, the label field is inferred with an optimization algorithm such as iterated conditional mode (ICM) or simulated annealing. In the case of probabilistic segmentation, mixture parameters are estimated with the K-means and the iterative conditional estimation (ICE) procedure. For both the optimization and the parameter estimation algorithms, the graphics processor unit's (GPU's) fragment processor is used to update in parallel every labels of the segmentation map, while rendering passes and graphics textures are used to simulate optimization iterations. The hardware results obtained with a mid-end graphics card, show that these Markovian applications can be accelerated by a factor of 4 to 200 without requiring any advanced skills in hardware programming.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".