Basic gray level aura matrices: theory and its application to texture synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present a new mathematical framework for modeling texture images using independent basic gray level aura matrices (BGLAMs). We prove that independent BGLAMs are the basis of gray level aura matrices (GLAMs), and that an image can be uniquely represented by its independent BGLAMs. We propose a new BGLAM distance measure for automatically evaluating synthesis results w.r.t. input textures to determine if the output is a successful synthesis of the input. For the application to texture synthesis, we present a new algorithm to synthesize textures by sampling only the independent BGLAMs of an input texture. With respect to synthesis of textures and evaluation of the results, the performance of our approach is extensively evaluated and compared with symmetric GLAMs that are used in existing techniques and with gray level cooccurrence matrices (GLCMs). Experimental results have shown that (1) our approach significantly outperforms both symmetric GLAMs and GLCMs; (2) the new BGLAM distance measure has the ability to evaluate synthesis results, which can be used to automate the conventional visual inspection process for determining whether or not the output texture is a successful synthesis of the input; and (3) a broad range of textures can be faithfully synthesized using independent BGLAMs and the synthesis results are comparable to existing techniques.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".