MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106674918 · doi:10.1109/euvip.2010.5699134

Segmentation-based document image denoising

2010· article· en· W2106674918 on OpenAlexafffund
Rachid Hedjam, Mohamed Cheriet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Signal Denoising Methods
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPixelNon-local meansArtificial intelligenceNoise reductionComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Similarity (geometry)Filter (signal processing)SegmentationComputer visionBilateral filterNoise (video)Image (mathematics)MathematicsImage denoising

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, a robust method of document images denoising is presented. The simple idea is combining the NLM filter and a Markovian segmentation into regions. The NLM method filtering allows participation of far, but proper pixels in the denoising process. Although the weights of non-similar (irrelevant) pixels are very small, high number of these pixels results in introduction of blur. In this work we present a new method to select the best candidate pixels based on their similarity. Before performing denoising process, we segment the noisy image into regions where similar pixels belong to a same homogeneous region r. Thus, to denoise a given pixel i, which belong to a region r <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">i</sub> , the proposed algorithm looks for the neighbor pixels of i and includes only those belonging to same region r <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">i</sub> . This method is tested on real noisy document images with promising results and it presents an improvement comparing to the original NLM.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Signal Denoising MethodsFrench-language works237,207