MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096781507 · doi:10.1109/icip.1998.999019

Selective image diffusion: application to disparity estimation

2002· article· en· W2096781507 on OpenAlexaff
A.-R. Mansouri, Amar Mitiche, Janusz Konrad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRegularization (linguistics)Computer scienceInverse problemTerm (time)A priori and a posterioriBayesian probabilityEigenvalues and eigenvectorsAlgorithmComputationTransformation (genetics)Context (archaeology)DiffusionImage processingImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceAnisotropic diffusionMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inverse problems encountered in image processing and computer vision are often ill-posed. Whether set in a Bayesian or energy-based context, such problems require prior assumptions expressed through an a priori probability or a regularization term, respectively. In some cases, the prior term exhibits partial dependence on the observations (e.g., images) that is often ignored to simplify modeling and computations. We review methods that take this dependence into account and we propose a new formulation of the prior term that blends some other simple approaches. Similarly to others, we apply a linear transformation to the prior term but, in addition, we require that the eigenvalues of the transformation have specific properties. These properties are chosen so that diffusion is allowed only along the direction perpendicular to the local image gradient. If the gradient magnitude is small, isotropic diffusion is performed. We apply this formulation to stereoscopic disparity estimation and we show several experimental results; improvements over a standard approach are clear.

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207