MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109094958 · doi:10.1109/icme.2004.1394622

Texture image retrieval based on a Gaussian mixture model and similarity measure using a Kullback divergence

2005· article· en· W2109094958 on OpenAlexaff
Hua Yuan, Xiao–Ping Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPattern recognition (psychology)Similarity measureArtificial intelligenceDivergence (linguistics)Image retrievalFeature extractionComputer scienceSimilarity (geometry)Image textureKullback–Leibler divergenceMixture modelMathematicsFeature vectorFeature (linguistics)Wavelet transformSearch engine indexingMeasure (data warehouse)WaveletImage processingData miningImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a content-based image retrieval (CBIR) system, indexing feature vectors and the similarity measure between feature vectors are two key factors for retrieval performance. We present a new CBIR system with statistical-model based image feature extraction in the wavelet domain and a Kullback divergence based similarity measure. A two component Gaussian mixture model (GMM) in the wavelet domain is employed and the model parameters are used to form features for image indexing. A new Kullback divergence based similarity measure is then presented for image retrieval. The experimental results demonstrate that the similarity measure based on the Kullback divergence is more effective than conventional similarity measures, such as the city-block distance and the Euclidean distance. It is shown that the new CBIR system, with the combination of the GMM and the new Kullback divergence based similarity measure, outperforms most other methods in retrieval performance for texture images, while keeping a comparable level of computational complexity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207