Higher order image structure enables boundary segmentation in the absence of luminance or contrast cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lower order image statistics, which can be described by an image's Fourier energy content, enable segmentation when they are different on either side of a boundary. We have previously demonstrated that the spatial distribution of the energy in an image (described by its higher order statistics or structure) could influence segmentation thresholds for contrast- and orientation-defined boundaries, even though it was the same on either side of the boundary and thus task irrelevant (Zavitz & Baker, 2013). Here we examined whether higher order statistics can also enable segmentation when boundaries are defined by differences in structure or density of texture elements. We used micropattern-based naturalistic synthetic textures to manipulate the sparseness, global phase alignment, and local phase alignment of carrier textures and measured segmentation thresholds based on forced-choice judgments of boundary orientation. We found that both global phase structure and sparseness, but not local phase alignment, enable segmentation and that local structure also has a small effect on segmentation thresholds in both cases. Simulations of a two-stage filter model with a compressive intermediate nonlinearity can reproduce the major features of the experimental data, segmenting boundaries defined by higher order statistics alone while capturing the influence of global image structure on segmentation thresholds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".