MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109244936 · doi:10.1109/tip.2011.2134106

Lookup-Table-Based Gradient Field Reconstruction

2011· article· en· W2109244936 on OpenAlexaff
Graham D. Finlayson, David Connah, Mark S. Drew

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Image Processing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsLookup tableAlgorithmField (mathematics)Computer scienceIterative reconstructionImage gradientVector fieldScalar fieldMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionImage (mathematics)Image processingGeometryEdge detection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In computer vision, there are many applications, where it is advantageous to process an image in the gradient domain and then reintegrate the gradient field: important examples include shadow removal, lightness calculation, and data fusion. A serious problem with this approach is that the reconstruction step often introduces artefacts-commonly, smoothed and smeared edges-to the recovered image. This is a result of the inherent ill-posedness of reintegrating a nonintegrable field. Artefacts can be diminished but not removed, by using complex to highly complex reintegration techniques. Here, we present a remarkably simple (and on the face of it naive) algorithm for reconstructing gradient fields. Suppose we start with a multichannel original, and from it derive a (possibly one of many) 1-D gradient field; for many applications, the derived gradient field will be nonintegrable. Here, we propose a lookup-table-based map relating the multichannel original to a reconstructed scalar output image, whose gradient best matches the target gradient field. The idea, at base, is that if we learn how to map the gradients of the multichannel original onto the desired output gradient, and then using the lookup table (LUT) constraint, we effectively derive the mapping from the multichannel input to the desired, reintegrated, image output. While this map could take a variety of forms, here we derive the best map from the multichannel gradient as a (nonlinear) function of the input to each of the target scalar gradients. In this framework, reconstruction is a simple equation-solving exercise of low dimensionality. One obvious application of our method is to the image-fusion problem, e.g., the problem of converting a color or higher-D image into grayscale. We will show, through extensive experiments and complementary theoretical arguments, that our straightforward method preserves the target contrast as well as do complex previous reintegration methods, but without artefacts, and with a substantially cheaper computational cost. Finally, we demonstrate the generality of the method by applying it to gradient field reconstruction in an additional area, the shading recovery problem.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Image ProcessingSame topicAdvanced Image Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207