Image and Texture Segmentation Using Local Spectral Histograms
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
We present a method for segmenting images consisting of texture and nontexture regions based on local spectral histograms. Defined as a vector consisting of marginal distributions of chosen filter responses, local spectral histograms provide a feature statistic for both types of regions. Using local spectral histograms of homogeneous regions, we decompose the segmentation process into three stages. The first is the initial classification stage, where probability models for homogeneous texture and nontexture regions are derived and an initial segmentation result is obtained by classifying local windows. In the second stage, we give an algorithm that iteratively updates the segmentation using the derived probability models. The third is the boundary localization stage, where region boundaries are localized by building refined probability models that are sensitive to spatial patterns in segmented regions. We present segmentation results on texture as well as nontexture images. Our comparison with other methods shows that the proposed method produces more accurate segmentation results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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