MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118932613 · doi:10.1109/cvprw.2006.134

Multi-Scale Contour Extraction Based on Natural Image Statistics

2006· article· en· W2118932613 on OpenAlexaff
Francisco José Pozuelos Estrada, James H. Elder

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMedical Image Segmentation Techniques
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClutterComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRobustness (evolution)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer visionScale (ratio)Bayesian probabilitySegmentationImage segmentationProbabilistic logicPrior probabilityObject (grammar)Feature extractionRadar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perceptual grouping of the complete boundaries of objects in natural images remains an unsolved problem in computer vision. The computational complexity of the problem and difficulties capturing global constraints limit the performance of current algorithms. In this paper we develop a coarse-to-fine Bayesian algorithm which addresses these constraints. Candidate contours are extracted at a coarse scale and then used to generate spatial priors on the location of possible contours at finer scales. In this way, a rough estimate of the shape of an object is progressively refined. The coarse estimate provides robustness to texture and clutter while the refinement process allows for the extraction of detailed object contours. The grouping algorithm is probabilistic and uses multiple grouping cues derived from natural scene statistics. We present a quantitative evaluation of grouping performance on the Berkeley Segmentation Database, and show that the multi-scale approach outperforms several single-scale contour extraction algorithms.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.303
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations23
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedical Image Segmentation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207