Tuner: Principled Parameter Finding for Image Segmentation Algorithms Using Visual Response Surface Exploration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we address the difficult problem of parameter-finding in image segmentation. We replace a tedious manual process that is often based on guess-work and luck by a principled approach that systematically explores the parameter space. Our core idea is the following two-stage technique: We start with a sparse sampling of the parameter space and apply a statistical model to estimate the response of the segmentation algorithm. The statistical model incorporates a model of uncertainty of the estimation which we use in conjunction with the actual estimate in (visually) guiding the user towards areas that need refinement by placing additional sample points. In the second stage the user navigates through the parameter space in order to determine areas where the response value (goodness of segmentation) is high. In our exploration we rely on existing ground-truth images in order to evaluate the "goodness" of an image segmentation technique. We evaluate its usefulness by demonstrating this technique on two image segmentation algorithms: a three parameter model to detect microtubules in electron tomograms and an eight parameter model to identify functional regions in dynamic Positron Emission Tomography scans.
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.
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 it